Oh my: Ron Paul within one point of Gingrich in Iowa?

posted at 3:56 pm on December 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

Hey now. I was writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts before writing “Could Ron Paul seriously win Iowa?” posts was cool.

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he’s also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he’s now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul’s strength in Iowa and Barack Obama’s in 2008- he’s doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters…

Simple question: What’s Paul’s ceiling in Iowa? A friend on Twitter was arguing earlier that it’s 20 percent, which is borne out by the polls — so far. If he’s right then Paul can’t win. But … what if Paul’s ceiling is actually 30 percent? Note that his favorables are trending upwards while Newt’s are sinking under the weight of renewed scrutiny of his various conservative heresies. If you’re an Iowan who’s unhappy with the “electable” candidates — Romney for being too opportunistic, Gingrich for flirting too often with activist government, Perry for seeming too darned hapless — then Paul’s an obvious choice for your “none of the above” protest vote. So obvious, in fact, that both Glenn Beck and Joe Scarborough are threatening to back him as a third-party candidate if Gingrich is the nominee. (An interesting footnote in the PPP data: Voters split equally on whether their view of the GOP establishment is favorable or unfavorable, and among the latter group Paul leads by double digits at 34 percent.) If he can pull 10 percent from voters like that on top of the 20 percent who make up his base, then his chances at an upset improve dramatically. And don’t forget, not only is Paul’s base famously enthusiastic and guaranteed to turn out, he’s one of the best organized candidates in Iowa this time. He might be able to get leaners to come out and caucus come rain or shine. Can Gingrich do the same?

I’ll bet Romney’s kicking himself now for not having abandoned Iowa early on. If he had done that, he could have sent his supporters out to caucus for Paul, thereby detonating Newt’s chances; if he tried that now, having competed in earnest in the state, the headlines would be all about Romney’s shockingly poor finish in Iowa, which would actually help Gingrich in New Hampshire even if he finished second to Paul in the caucuses. (On the other hand, per Rasmussen, Paul’s just four points back of Gingrich for second place in New Hampshire too.) Two exit questions for you, then. One: As chances of a Paul upset grow, will Iowa’s Republican leaders swing behind Newt or Mitt? They want the caucuses to remain relevant to choosing the eventual nominee, and if Paul wins, that’ll be two elections in a row where the Iowa winner realistically had no chance. Two: Could a Paul victory achieve a real “none of the above” outcome for the nomination? A brokered convention is unlikely – but, as Sean Trende explains, not impossible if Paul fares well.

Caucus states are also concentrated in the Mountain West, where his brand of Republicanism holds greater appeal. They’re also front-loaded, meaning that (a) his supporters will be less likely to have been swayed by the “can’t win” argument and (b) the more “establishment” Republican candidates are likely to split the non-Paul votes.

Overall, 486 delegates will be awarded in caucus states. If Paul picks off a sizable number of these delegates, say a quarter of them, and two other GOP candidates battle to a draw, there might not be a nominee by the end of June. This type of fight could carry over to the convention, since Paul is pretty feisty and is probably the least likely candidate out there to be “bought off” with a Cabinet position or speaking slot.

If, say, Perry and Gingrich are knotted up with about 1,050 delegates each, and Paul holds the remaining 200 and refuses to budge, you could end up with a deadlocked convention that eventually turns to a dark-horse candidate.

Ron Paul winning Iowa just might mean the GOP nominating Ryan, Christie, or Daniels. Second look at Ron Paul winning Iowa?

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 6 7 8

Not on any of mine.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Well done.

Gonna tell me you didn’t hear the stories?

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Oh my, looks like the neocons are getting worried about Ron Paul.

steve123 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 9:46 AM

If you think I want to base our foreign policy on box office receipts, you’re eye must be brown because you’re full of it. Ron Paul is a Father Coughlin wannabe, with some financial acumen thrown in. America cannot survive in isolation. If Ron Paul was everything you claim, he would have won the presidency in one of his numerous tries at the office. I was simply stating that you and your fellow Paulnuts are a political minority, albeit a vocal, and at times, unintentionally humorous, one.

kingsjester on December 14, 2011 at 9:51 AM

He hasn’t won because Americans are superficial and the fact that he is an imperfect messenger. If he looked like Romney and could talk like Newt, he’d be in power decades ago. Secondly, the GOP has been hijacked for the last 50 years by progressive lite, so obviously he’s was pushed to the fringe. The GOP in the 1930s was a fierce unit opposed to all things FDR as opposed to these traitors today.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Monty Brewster says “None of the Above!”

I tend to agree with him.

steve1980 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

That is not correct. Reference Ron Paul’s own statements rather than what opponents fabricate for their own illogical purpose.

maverick muse on December 14, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Ron Paul’s own speech.

Imagine

by Ron Paul |

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.

It’s quite the stretch to “Imagine” that your entire US Military was conducting itself in this manner as the rule. And Doc Paul ignores quite a lot of intelligence about Iranian influence in the war to blame the US Military wholesale for the insurgent uprising.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Why are neocons unable to learn the difference between isolationism and non-intervensionism? It’s not hard, but then if you could do that you would probably tell the difference between conservatism and neo-conservatism, which so many people on this site obviously can’t.

steve123 on December 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

Well done.

Gonna tell me you didn’t hear the stories?

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

You base your opinion on stories?

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Your own disconnect doesn’t even measure up to blindness, being a perversion rather than disability.

Playing that game, that comment, you’d have been a Vietnam draft dodger granted Jimmy Carter immunity to spit on returning American veterans. Go figure.

Thank God every day for the brave men and women whose lives are being spent for our protection. Work constructively towards constitutional leadership without besmirching the integrity of those protecting America.

Never do “war crimes” the injustice by over playing the death and destruction card of condemnation every turn, as if every death through war is a “war crime”. That bleeding heart liberalism is NOT CLASSICAL LIBERAL LOGIC, and only serves to dissolve recognition of what is yet required by constitutional law in America. Leave the responsibility for declaring war where the Constitution establishes, and quit blaming members of our military for their given leadership.

Never accept the neoconservative ploy to disassemble our own Constitutional Governance. If it malfunctions at home, beware what we’re exporting.

maverick muse on December 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Oh my, looks like the neocons are getting worried about Ron Paul.

steve123 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Oh my, looks like another new commenter that uses the word neocon.

I shall say neocon it it shall blind the unfaithful with the light of truth. Verily!

NEOCON!

Ron Paul pushes F2 on his keyboard and you guys jump.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Why are neocons unable to learn the difference between isolationism and non-intervensionism? It’s not hard, but then if you could do that you would probably tell the difference between conservatism and neo-conservatism, which so many people on this site obviously can’t.

steve123 on December 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I don’t think many of the posters here would classify as philosophical neocons. They simply are obsessed with this American exceptionalism perspective to such a degree that they have disconnected their human instincts. Like Lord Acton stated, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is applicable in the US and throughout every human civilization that has thrived. Such is the state of man and all the flag-waving and prayers to God aren’t going to change this fact. We must remain vigilant as a people and verify for ourselves.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Laup Nor should have run as a Conservative Democart. It is clear he could have won primarys aginst this commie know nothing B. Obama.
Then he would have been in a position to contrast himself with the Republicans.

Just one more bad choice.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 14, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Ron Paul’s foreign policy extreme? It’s the only sane view. Take a look at where the war-mongering mentality has gotten us. Afghanistan, Irag, Lybia, etc. Totally screwed up since we have involved ourselves, unstable as can be, and bankrupting our economy. I’ll take Ron Paul’s approach for a change. Does anyone remember what caused Russia to FALL!

frickinfedup on December 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM

And for the record, the word neocon is misused by many RP supporters. I apologize for their ignorance. With that said, I don’t enjoy being called a drug-using leftist, just because I have gravitated to Paul.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Philosophical neocons
American Exceptionalism Obsession
Flag wavers

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

How many caricatures are you required to put into your comments. Sorry, but you generalize as much as ole steve there.

And you don’t believe America is exceptional?

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Philosophical neocons
American Exceptionalism Obsession
Flag wavers

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

How many caricatures are you required to put into your comments. Sorry, but you generalize as much as ole steve there.

And you don’t believe America is exceptional?

American ideals are timeless and exceptional. However, these ideals have been banished and made shameful by the corrupt ruling class. I can disseminate between the two.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

American ideals are timeless and exceptional. However, these ideals have been banished and made shameful by the corrupt ruling class. I can disseminate between the two.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Ah! Well, I take the good with the bad. And it’s still better than anything second best.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I believe the PPP poll is ALL voters. Look at just the R’s – who will be voting in the primary. Not even close.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Paul might stand a better chance if every media outlet didn’t claim he realistically has no chance. In the media, the center-right treats the right the same as the left treats the center.

he realistically has no chance

gerrym51 on December 14, 2011 at 10:42 AM

You base your opinion on stories?

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:24 AM

I’m not hearing a “No”.

And I base my opinion of the likelihood of an operation going horribly wrong and an innocent Iraqi getting killed on the sheer number of these raids, in night operations, in hostile territory, with heavily armed troops expecting action because they’ve seen it before. And I don’t care how good your training is, you play that out over tens of thousands of raids, the actuarial tables tell you at some point, somebody innocent is going to get killed.

Well, that and the stories I’ve heard from people who don’t particularly like talking about their time there. And I’m not one to pry.

And my opinion of the idea that the DoD might take actions to cover up embarrassing mistakes that troops, some of whom might have been overworked, or some of whom might have not had all the training they needed due to heavy rotation schedules, comes from a long history of the DoD doing just that, and then standing there with a What’s-All-This-Then look on their face when the coverup is exposed on the front page of the Washington Post.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM

kingsjester on December 14, 2011 at 9:30 AM + Hawkdriver

Appreciate the defense, these guys couldn’t run me out of here if their lives depended on it :)

Dante I may not be a US citizen, though 1/2 my family is. But even if they weren’t? I love America and am damn proud of it too! Greatest country on earth, and I’ll post my opinions to say so and defend her with gusto, whether Uncle Paul likes it or not.

That’s life. Do you know why? Because I am like hundreds of millions of others around the world, who BECAUSE America has been a beacon of freedom,who BECAUSE America has engaged and led the world, who BECAUSE America is not some isloationist backwater – People like me have the greatest admiration for her.

You have just made the number one argument for why Ron Paul’s ideas are a total failure. It’s the exact opposite of what he says about America and the world that have made America so admired, and so cherished that citizens of OTHER countries would risk their lives to partake in everything that is the USA, and contiue to do so. That’s part of what makes America great! The part you are so eager to swipe away. It’s frankly, Un-American.

saus on December 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/12/13/no-ron-paul-is-not-a-threat-to-win-the-iowa-caucuses/. The devil is in the details. Sorry Ron Paul supporters.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

From RS:

Look at the PPP poll. The partisan breakdown is huge. Among Republicans, it’s Newt Gingrich 25, Ron Paul 17. Among Independents it’s Ron Paul 35, and Newt Gingrich in fourth at 12. Similar story among Democrats: Ron Paul 28, Newt Gingrich in third at 18.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM

I believe the PPP poll is ALL voters. Look at just the R’s – who will be voting in the primary. Not even close.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Apparently someone doesn’t believe in taking the time to find out that you can register for the caucus, at the caucus, regardless of your party. Because if they did take the time to do that, they wouldn’t look like fools making such pronouncements about a process they clearly do not understand.

Do you r homework, son.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:49 AM

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/12/13/no-ron-paul-is-not-a-threat-to-win-the-iowa-caucuses/. The devil is in the details. Sorry Ron Paul supporters.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Wow. You guys have really consigned yourself to hear no evil. Look, Paul will be lucky to finish top 3 in S.C. or Florida. However, he’s going to possibly win Iowa because he’s been preparing for 4 years and has the best ground game by a large margin. Even the current governor is amazed:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69603.html

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:53 AM

I’m not hearing a “No”.

Read the other comments John. You know I wouldn’t assert the war has been conducted perfectly. But it’s a far, far cry from your and Paul’s gross mischaracterizations.

And I base my opinion of the likelihood of an operation going horribly wrong and an innocent Iraqi getting killed on the sheer number of these raids, in night operations, in hostile territory, with heavily armed troops expecting action because they’ve seen it before. And I don’t care how good your training is, you play that out over tens of thousands of raids, the actuarial tables tell you at some point, somebody innocent is going to get killed.

John, your arguments about what how our operations when are completely rhetorical. The evidence is out there for you to cite. If you’re going to condemn us, at least have to courtesy to not use hypotheticals.

Well, that and the stories I’ve heard from people who don’t particularly like talking about their time there. And I’m not one to pry.

Hearsay, whatever. I hear soldiers talk every day about our soldiers lives lost protecting innocent civilians in those wars.

And my opinion of the idea that the DoD might take actions to cover up embarrassing mistakes that troops, some of whom might have been overworked, or some of whom might have not had all the training they needed due to heavy rotation schedules, comes from a long history of the DoD doing just that, and then standing there with a What’s-All-This-Then look on their face when the coverup is exposed on the front page of the Washington Post.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM

“Might” take? Again, cite actual instances.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Appreciate the defense, these guys couldn’t run me out of here if their lives depended on it :)

Dante I may not be a US citizen, though 1/2 my family is. But even if they weren’t? I love America and am damn proud of it too! Greatest country on earth, and I’ll post my opinions to say so and defend her with gusto, whether Uncle Paul likes it or not.

That’s life. Do you know why? Because I am like hundreds of millions of others around the world, who BECAUSE America has been a beacon of freedom,who BECAUSE America has engaged and led the world, who BECAUSE America is not some isloationist backwater – People like me have the greatest admiration for her.

You have just made the number one argument for why Ron Paul’s ideas are a total failure. It’s the exact opposite of what he says about America and the world that have made America so admired, and so cherished that citizens of OTHER countries would risk their lives to partake in everything that is the USA, and contiue to do so. That’s part of what makes America great! The part you are so eager to swipe away. It’s frankly, Un-American.

You sound like Woodrow Wilson!!! What party do you identify with again?
saus on December 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Apparently someone doesn’t believe in taking the time to find out that you can register for the caucus, at the caucus, regardless of your party. Because if they did take the time to do that, they wouldn’t look like fools making such pronouncements about a process they clearly do not understand.

Do you r homework, son.

Apparently you did not read the Red State piece. Do your homework son. As Neil Stevens is not just good but damn good when it comes to polls and the political ground game, I think you may find yourself with quite a bit of egg on your face.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Once again from Neil:

Every time, and I mean every time, I bring up the fact that the Iowa Caucuses are closed, the reply is that “You can register up to the day of the caucuses to participate.” That’s true. But if Paul is not able to motivate his supporters to register, and if his people aren’t actually committed to caucus for Paul, then his support is soft, and isn’t going to show up.

Look at the PPP poll. The partisan breakdown is huge. Among Republicans, it’s Newt Gingrich 25, Ron Paul 17. Among Independents it’s Ron Paul 35, and Newt Gingrich in fourth at 12. Similar story among Democrats: Ron Paul 28, Newt Gingrich in third at 18.

Paul does worse among TEA partiers than he does among Republicans. Gingrich 24, Paul in third at 16.

Consider further the PPP breakdown by 2008 caucus vote. Gingrich wins Mike Huckabee caucusers with 26, with Paul in third at 16. Mitt Romney wins Romney caucusers at 44, with Gingrich at 23. Gingrich wins Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani caucusers as well. Ron Paul wins Ron Paul caucusers at 81%.

The 2008 caucuses saw record turnout both for Republicans and Democrats. Somehow Ron Paul needs that turnout to get even bigger, if he wants people who are independents now to show up and caucus for him. That’s not likely.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Apparently you did not read the Red State piece. Do your homework son. As Neil Stevens is not just good but damn good when it comes to polls and the political ground game, I think you may find yourself with quite a bit of egg on your face.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Don’t be on a roof when you learn that Ron Paul won Iowa. His ground game has no peer. He has money to burn there and has maintained a presence there for 4 years!!! Neil Stevens can rationalize all he wants.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Apparently you did not read the Red State piece. Do your homework son. As Neil Stevens is not just good but damn good when it comes to polls and the political ground game, I think you may find yourself with quite a bit of egg on your face.

gmerits on December 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Once again, son, do your homework, and try to make your own judgements based on available evidence.

If all you are doing is counting Republicans, then your work is worthless. And something tells me Neil Staevens really doesn’t know Jack Shiite about Iowa caucuses. Because if he did, he’d be there working for someone.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 11:13 AM

I’ve been pumped with enough fear mongering to last me a lifetime. I’m ready to give someone with honesty and integrity a chance to expose the vehemently corrupt system and attempt some level of diplomacy. It will either be done by choice with tough decisions as Ron Paul proposes, or it will be done devastatingly as the world financial system collapses on it’s fraudulent base.

JamesButabi on December 14, 2011 at 11:17 AM

hawkdriver @ 10:22

You do yourself no favor re-referencing a fabrication,

Paul ignores quite a lot of intelligence about Iranian influence in the war to blame the US Military wholesale for the insurgent uprising.

as what Ron Paul said.

Regarding CIA on Iran, along with your own Paul quote (below), add to that the latest official UN report that Iran’s government has made no advance since it’s prior UN report (2009) in nuclear energy. That insurgents exist in Iran is no surprise. Neither is the fact that most Iranians deplore their own theocratic government, have participated in protests of authoritarian abuses, and still have favorable impressions of Americans.

Paul never blamed the soldiers, pilots and sailors of the US Military, but the POORLY CONCEIVED US POLICY as the cause for antagonisms. Interventionism doesn’t make friends of those being occupied. And you know very well that Bill Kristol admitted that our exploits in Iraq have proven a costly mistake and failure.

That failure has nothing to do with being the fault of our Military personnel in combat. That failure has everything to do with ineffective/exacerbating POLICY. Reflect for a long period on what blessing America bequeathed Vietnam from our humanitarian interventionist nation building war there. LBJ wasn’t the first POTUS tempted to augment American military presence abroad, or even specifically where de Gaul of France determined to stop its Empirical status, leaving IndoChina (and Algeria) to return home. But unlike de Gaul, Nixon/Kissinger/CIA failed to gain wisdom after the so called “peace with honor” evacuation of our Military from Vietnam.

Regarding your referenced quote, note well the facts stipulated by Ron Paul. To shout “paultard” is not to rebut a fact, nor do such Alinsky methods advance either Logic or constitutional principles.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

It may be that you want to stay in combat perpetually. Speak for yourself. I understand from news statements that many in the military want to return after injury to continue in battle. I also understand from military official reports, printed by the Air Force Magazine, that suicide rates have absolutely skyrocketed along with re-re-redeployment.

I did not agree with Bush’s decision to begin war in the Middle East because of what I already learned of our government’s mistakes over the last century. Still, I have always supported our brave men and women who volunteer to protect and preserve our Constitution through Military Service. Giving neo-conservatism a fair shot over these past decades has only exacerbated every contention, no matter the “kinder, gentler” propaganda. Ron Paul isn’t the only 2012 Republican candidate debating to bring home our troops. In fact, the only two who insist on advancing more war than already on our plate are Gingrich and Santorum.

Recent young adult generations are much more violent, disrespectful of habitual constraints long considered the norm of civilization, having been raised on prescription drugs, gaming war violence, and of course whoring get rich quick “Hollywood values”. These minds accept the lie that during war (abroad or imported), there are absolutely no rules at home, either. “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

May God Bless You with your friends and family to enjoy peace and love in your hearts this Christmastide. Best wishes, always.

maverick muse on December 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Just a question to Ron.

What’s your opinion about Iran backed Hezbollah having a presence at the San Diego/Mexico border

Philo Beddoe on December 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Oh now I’m not a conservative, sorry we can’t all be isolationist pitchforker nutballs like you. If you don’t like America, American history, or her place in world history you are free to move.

saus on December 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Oh now I’m not a conservative, sorry we can’t all be isolationist pitchforker nutballs like you. If you don’t like America, American history, or her place in world history you are free to move.

saus on December 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I didn’t move the goalposts. The Trotskyites and Fabian Socialists who infiltrated the republican party did. I can’t blame you that you’ve been overwhelmed with this Wilsonian propaganda that runs in direct opposition to the spirit of the constitution. This country was created as a republic not an empire. And we all know what happens to empires. They crash in spectacular fashion.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Mav,

I’ve always enjoyed and respected your comments here. Always. But the radio speech he gave says what it says. He is asking the reader or listener to imagine his scenarios have actually taken place in The States as an analogy to what he asserts we have done in Iraq. He doesn’t paint a pretty picture and it’s a gross generalization and mischaracterization of our operations there to say the least.

From my standpoint, having been to both theaters many times in the last ten years, I disagree with the majority of Paul’s premises. We will just have to disagree on the war.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM

maverick muse on December 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM

And to you.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM

saus on December 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I am off to my students here saus, but I would just like to say that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Christmas message to our country was beautiful. I wish our president was capable of such emotion in his words. I wish he would choose words more like Prime Minister Netanyahu’s.

Let me offer back a Happy Hanukkah and Joyous Festival of Lights to you and your loved ones.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Ron Paul strikes me as the walking, Muggle version of the Quibbler. Dead wrong half the time, right the other half of the time, but NEVER for the right reasons. Everyone but the true believers thinks he’s a nutjob, and the true believers are convinced that he’s right and everyone else is crazy. Both sides have some truth to them.

You sound like Woodrow Wilson!!! What party do you identify with again?
saus on December 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

You sound like Jimmy Carter. Which party do you identify with again?
Also- using three exclamation points is a sure sign of insanity.

LunaLovegood on December 14, 2011 at 11:34 AM

You may be wrong about something.
Before you knock Ron Paul; Learn something about him.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3K3GRxSf0o&feature=related

Bluesage on December 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Ron Paul winning Iowa just might mean the GOP nominating Ryan, Christie, or Daniels. Second look at Ron Paul winning Iowa?

Sounds better than Newt or Mitt either way

snoopicus on December 14, 2011 at 11:39 AM

And I think that you know innocent people were killed in those raids. And I think you know that steps were taken to cover those incidents up. Maybe you didn’t witness them. But, much like the veterans I referenced before, I’m sure you heard the stories.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:10 AM

That statement is filled with so much cluelessness, so much disdain for the military, so much “I know in my heart they are all murderous thugs I just need proof” it shows how out there you really are. You speak and think like a bleeding heart, Bush hating liberal.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Well, this is my first comment here, but in perusing the other comments, it occurred to me that really the question we should all be asking is this:

Are you FOR the Constitution–in its entirety–or AGAINST the Constitution?

You can’t cherry-pick the Constitution, as both parties seem bent on doing. It’s pretty much an all or nothing deal.

If you’re FOR the Constitution, then you should be looking at the candidate who most honestly represents it.

If you’re for cherry-picking the poor old blueprint, the foundation of our nation, then I don’t see much difference between you, your candidates or the Progressives of both parties who would like nothing more than to sell us, our country and our Constitution off to the global elite.

M.L. Bushman on December 14, 2011 at 11:59 AM

I mean, I have a doctorate degree and I don’t understand him. I wonder how his minions understand him.

NOMOBO on December 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I have a Masters, and I understand him just fine.

Perhaps you should go to your institute of higher learning, and demand your time back (hopefully, you didn’t actually have to pay for that degree).

I dunno, University of Southern California is a pretty good school, and I didn’t pay for it, I attended on full scholarship. The reason I can’t understand Paul is that I tend to deal in reality. Try it, you might find you like it.

NOMOBO on December 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM

As Jeffrey Lords at the American Thinker has pointed out and written about, Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are really one and the same as the views of the most left-wing progressives of the early 20th century, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. Except in the 1920s-30s these politicians thought we should have left Hitler alone, Lenin and Stalin were no threats to us or global peace and security, and we were thrown into WWI by a global cabal of powerful bankers…most of them having last names like ‘Stein’, ‘Horowitz’, ‘Goldberg’…you get the idea. Then it was “Stalin just wants to be left alone, and its not our business getting involved in countries nobody cares about like Poland and the Ukraine” or “the Soviets have no interest in military expansion and brutal takeover of sovereign nations; our warmongers in Washington have made this up as an excuse to invade them so that the ‘international bankers’ can make billions”. Just look at how Ron Paul views the world, and then read up Senator Nye (R-ND) and Charles Lindbergh.

LevinFan90 on December 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

maverick muse on December 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Excuse me?

Dante I may not be a US citizen, though 1/2 my family is. But even if they weren’t? I love America and am damn proud of it too! Greatest country on earth, and I’ll post my opinions to say so and defend her with gusto, whether Uncle Paul likes it or not.

saus on December 14, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I didn’t say you couldn’t. I said that I couldn’t care less what your opinions are about my country, it’s founding principles, its policies and what they should or should not be, what you think of my fellow countrymen, our system of government, or our political process. You’re a non-entity in these matters.

As Jeffrey Lords at the American Thinker has pointed out and written about, Ron Paul’s foreign policy views are really one and the same as the views of the most left-wing progressives of the early 20th century, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. Except in the 1920s-30s these politicians thought we should have left Hitler alone, Lenin and Stalin were no threats to us or global peace and security, and we were thrown into WWI by a global cabal of powerful bankers…most of them having last names like ‘Stein’, ‘Horowitz’, ‘Goldberg’…you get the idea. Then it was “Stalin just wants to be left alone, and its not our business getting involved in countries nobody cares about like Poland and the Ukraine” or “the Soviets have no interest in military expansion and brutal takeover of sovereign nations; our warmongers in Washington have made this up as an excuse to invade them so that the ‘international bankers’ can make billions”. Just look at how Ron Paul views the world, and then read up Senator Nye (R-ND) and Charles Lindbergh.

LevinFan90 on December 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The Progressives were interventionists. Jeffrey Lords doesn’t know a thing.

Tom Woods takes Lord to school

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Just a question to Ron.

What’s your opinion about Iran backed Hezbollah having a presence at the San Diego/Mexico border

Philo Beddoe on December 14, 2011 at 11:18 AM

He believes in defending our sovereign borders. You think that’s some type of gotcha question?

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Also- using three exclamation points is a sure sign of insanity.

LunaLovegood on December 14, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Says the person trying to make a Harry Potter analogy and using a Harry Potter-inspired handle.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Many residents on HOT AIR have mistakenly adopted core progressive tenets and wrongfully incorporated it into the GOP platform. It’s sickening how brainwashed many are because they are ignorant of history. Read Russell Kirk, the godfather of modern conservatism. He never advocated for any of this nation building or worldwide resource consolidation nonsense. Wake the hell up and stop being useful idiots!!!

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM

He believes in defending our sovereign borders. You think that’s some type of gotcha question?

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

He also believes the borders will be used to keep Americans in. And that they will be shot by machine gun as they try and low crawl under the barbed wire on the Mexican border as they try and escape the US. The guy is nuts.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Wake the hell up and stop being useful idiots!!!

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Unlike Paul supporters, I think for myself already.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I like much of what Paul has to say, but I see no way around the fact that his foreign policy is fatally problematic. From my perspective, it is problematic for three reasons.

First, if Paul is the nominee, the Republicans would lose any ability to capitalize upon the fact that many Jewish voters (some of whom are good friends of mine) would like to vote against Barry in 2012. These same Jewish friends, however, have made it patently clear that they view Paul (whether correct or not) as borderline anti-semitic. They would either hold their nose and vote for Barry again or, more likely, just stay home.

Second, I think that Paul severely underestimates the religious motivations for Islamic terrorism. The belief that if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone is–I’m sorry–quite naive. To ignore the power of religious motivations is dangerous.

Third, for many independents and unsure Democrats that might possibly vote GOP this time around, Paul’s foreign policy will be a very tough sell. There are still many independents and some democrats who think that military intervention in the Middle East is a necessary evil at this juncture in history. Paul might be able to make the contrary case, but I definitely would not want to stake the ouster of Barry on Paul’s ability to sell that line.

guitarman67 on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Listen to Russell Kirk. Wake up. Come home!!! You’ve been sold a lie. We can still defend ourselves and remain strong without being self-destructive:

In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Unlike Paul supporters, I think for myself already.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

You’re wise enough to find the truth in the end, but do not be swayed by emotion. That’s all I can say. We each have our own unique journey.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

As a traditional conservative, I am going to be supporting Paul over Newt and Mitt. I have made my decision.

While I disagree with some of his foreign policy views, I understand that he would let Congress handle the wars except in cases of imminent threat. Nobody else comes close to his respect for the Constitution, and I appreciate his defense for guns and his solution to abortion.

oldright on December 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Second, I think that Paul severely underestimates the religious motivations for Islamic terrorism. The belief that if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone is–I’m sorry–quite naive. To ignore the power of religious motivations is dangerous.

Agreed. He ignores their history. Blowback certainly is a primary factor but the agenda dictated in the Koran is as equally responsible for some of their behavior.

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:42 PM

A Paul supporter warning others not be swayed by emotion? Project much?

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM

He also believes the borders will be used to keep Americans in. And that they will be shot by machine gun as they try and low crawl under the barbed wire on the Mexican border as they try and escape the US. The guy is nuts.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

No, he believes a fence could be used to prevent people from leaving.

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

He’s right, although I know you think it’s silly to recognize the history of man and government is a history dominated by totalitarianism. Why, there are so many examples of countries built upon our founding principles throughout the history of man, right? So many examples of freedom. Heck, who cares that the Founders distrusted government? Logboy knows better.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

As GLENN BECK and MICHAEL SAVAGE have pointed out, Newt Gingrich is in the progressive tradition and would destroy America from within. Romney is similar, but probably lacks the same motivations as Newt.

Paul isn’t perfect on foreign policy, however Congress would probably do a fine job making the decisions of when to go to war and when not to.

We must get back to the Constitution!!!

Tea Party for Ron Paul!

oldright on December 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Many residents on HOT AIR have mistakenly adopted core progressive tenets and wrongfully incorporated it into the GOP platform. It’s sickening how brainwashed many are because they are ignorant of history. Read Russell Kirk, the godfather of modern conservatism. He never advocated for any of this nation building or worldwide resource consolidation nonsense. Wake the hell up and stop being useful idiots!!!

Pitchforker on December 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Actually, I think most folks, no matter what they claim as their brand of politics, should go listen to Milton Friedman on YouTube. Might open some fairly closed minds. Might.

M.L. Bushman on December 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM

He also believes the borders will be used to keep Americans in.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM

apparently someone has trouble distinguishing between “borders” and “barbed wire fence with machine gun nests”.

Of course, for someone who so clearly admires the East German model of border control, I shouldn’t be surprised.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I agree with the ideas of Calvin Coolidge, Russell Kirk, and Robert Taft on foreign policy. We should remain defensive, yet ever vigilant, and make security a priority without hurting liberties. This is the conservative foreign policy of the Old Right.

As the Constitution states, Congress should declare war.

Not Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or Paul! Congress!!

oldright on December 14, 2011 at 12:54 PM

No, he believes a fence could be used to prevent people from leaving.

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

He’s right, although I know you think it’s silly to recognize the history of man and government is a history dominated by totalitarianism. Why, there are so many examples of countries built upon our founding principles throughout the history of man, right? So many examples of freedom. Heck, who cares that the Founders distrusted government? Logboy knows better.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM

And that right there shows how out there you really are. It is absolute insanity to think that America will turn into a Soviet style East Germany. Absolute insanity. And you don’t even realize it. There are no precidents. No proof it could, or would happen. But hey, Ron Paul has the inside track and knows, right? Just like you. How many years has he been peddling his doomsday scenario crap now?

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Logby, the Founders were not idiots. Think about it.

oldright on December 14, 2011 at 12:58 PM

apparently someone has trouble distinguishing between “borders” and “barbed wire fence with machine gun nests”.

Of course, for someone who so clearly admires the East German model of border control, I shouldn’t be surprised.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Oh no you dont. You dont get to gloss over what crazy Uncle Paul said. He clearly said a barbed wire fence with machine guns. Stop trying to cover for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=esp-ruhkZqQ

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Oh no you dont. You dont get to gloss over what crazy Uncle Paul said. He clearly said a barbed wire fence with machine guns. Stop trying to cover for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=esp-ruhkZqQ

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Reading comprehension lesson:

“The people that want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border,” the congressman noted. “A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick.

“would do the trick” = securing the border.

Use your head.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

This is a good thing. Ron Paul is the only candidate that has an unwavering record of defending our Constitution and addressing the problems that our country is facing. He had the foresight to predict and warn about the consequences throughout the years and the knowledge to put us back on the right track to restore our Constitutional Republic to be yet again a great nation.The rest do not have a record to stand that mirrors what they now say – Ron Paul does.

mrearlygold on December 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Oh my, looks like the neocons are getting worried about Ron Paul.

steve123 on December 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Oh my, looks like another new commenter that uses the word neocon.

I shall say neocon it it shall blind the unfaithful with the light of truth. Verily!

NEOCON!

Ron Paul pushes F2 on his keyboard and you guys jump.

hawkdriver on December 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

FYI….when somone calls you a “NEOCON” he/she is calling you a Jew….so there for he/she who is calling/labeling you this is an ANTISEMITE.
Better explained here (by an ex Regan official) at about the 15 minute mark.
http://www.therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-on-mark-levin-show-ron-paul-is-a-neo-liberal-not-a-conservative/
But please listen to the entire radio clip. May the real Ron Paul please stand….and May the ANAL exam now begin…so please Ron…bend over and welcome to the top.

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

FYI….when somone calls you a “NEOCON” he/she is calling you a Jew….so there for he/she who is calling/labeling you this is an ANTISEMITE.
Better explained here (by an ex Regan official) at about the 15 minute mark.

http://www.therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-on-mark-levin-show-ron-paul-is-a-neo-liberal-not-a-conservative/

But please listen to the entire radio clip. May the real Ron Paul please stand….and May the ANAL exam now begin…so please Ron…bend over and welcome to the top.

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Not this ridiculous lie again.

Neoconservatism

“In contemporary usage, the term “neoconservative” was used from 1973 to criticize American liberals and social democrats who had criticized the ambitions and outcomes of the Great Society’s welfare programs. Although neoconservatives favor free-market policies in economics, they accept a role for the national government in fighting poverty and promoting the public good, like traditional conservatives in Europe and Canada and unlike most American conservatives, influenced by libertarian traditions.”

“In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush’s second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the “main characteristics of neoconservatism”:

a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
low tolerance for diplomacy
readiness to use military force
emphasis on US unilateral action
disdain for multilateral organizations
focus on the Middle East
an us-versus-them mentality.”

Irving Kristol, godfather of neoconservatism

“Even I, frequently referred to as the “godfather” of all those neocons, have had my moments of wonderment. A few years ago I said (and, alas, wrote) that neoconservatism had had its own distinctive qualities in its early years, but by now had been absorbed into the mainstream of American conservatism. I was wrong, and the reason I was wrong is that, ever since its origin among disillusioned liberal intellectuals in the 1970s, what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently. It is not a “movement,” as the conspiratorial critics would have it. Neoconservatism is what the late historian of Jacksonian America, Marvin Meyers, called a “persuasion,” one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect.

Viewed in this way, one can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy. ”

“Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism.”

I also linked above to Jeffrey Lord getting schooled on his falsehoods.

And here it is again.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 1:27 PM

FYI….when somone calls you a “NEOCON” he/she is calling you a Jew….

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Nonsense. Doug Feith is a cornerstone of the neo-con movement, and he is not Jewish, AFAIK.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Use your head.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Clearly he has been doing that for years… the same way that I use toilet paper.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Tell me Dante, how and when will all this border machine gun business keeping Americans in and the confiscation of their money take place? Will there be warning signs? Will there be a declaration of martial law first? Will citizens be rounded up into camps? How will the money confiscation take place? Will it be electronic so I login to my account one day and find a zero balance? Or will it be like the old days where I have to wait in line under armed guard outside my bank? How will the troop buildup on the border work? Will it be gradual, under the guise of securing the border? Or will it be like Red Dawn where troopers are falling out of the sky by the thousands? I need to know these things so I know when and how to be prepared. You seem to have the inside track.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM

FYI….when somone calls you a “NEOCON” he/she is calling you a Jew….so there for he/she who is calling/labeling you this is an ANTISEMITE.
Better explained here (by an ex Regan official) at about the 15 minute mark.
http://www.therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-on-mark-levin-show-ron-paul-is-a-neo-liberal-not-a-conservative/
But please listen to the entire radio clip. May the real Ron Paul please stand….and May the ANAL exam now begin…so please Ron…bend over and welcome to the top.

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Ridiculous. There is a very real history of neoconservatism, and it has nothing to do with religion.

As for Mr. Lord… His arguments are destroyed here.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

I need to know these things so I know when and how to be prepared. You seem to have the inside track.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Something tells me that you couldn’t be prepared with a battalion of boy scouts.

But if you are really interested, keep a portion of your money in gold and silver, and keep a big portion of that outside the country.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Something tells me that you couldn’t be prepared with a battalion of boy scouts.

But if you are really interested, keep a portion of your money in gold and silver, and keep a big portion of that outside the country.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

If the US Military is going to keep me from leaving America what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country? Why not just bury it in my backyard?

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Ridiculous. There is a very real history of neoconservatism, and it has nothing to do with religion.

As for Mr. Lord… His arguments are destroyed here.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM

As you read….he describes the “Reagan Cult” and another code word for JEW….sorry…cant walk away from this one.
Oh..and you might find this interesting about the very author you linked….about Ron Paul….think twice…. Ron is not what you think he is.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods68.html

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Now I know where Paul gets his crap!!!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods68.html

I just feel the love in this article?? Nice!!1

Blaming America = RON PAUL
You ungrateful Piece of turd!!!

Nuff said!!!

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM

In his own words:

“The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of your money back, I vote for it. So if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. . . .

“I don’t think the federal government should be doing it. But if they’re going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people. If they say, Hey, look, put in a highway for the district, I put it in.

“I put in all their requests, because I’m their representative.”

Wow…Calling the kettle black huh Dr. Ron!!!
An earmark is an earmark is an earmark is an earmark.tax credit tax credit tax credit….especially to benefit your district? Sound like Obama to me….
The anal exam is now underway!!!

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM

No one is going to confuse you for a thinker, coach.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM

No one is going to confuse you for a thinker, coach.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Nor you Dante. Now answer my question. If the US Military is going to keep me from leaving America what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country?

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Being new, and wanting to not immediately start a flame war.. I’ll just say, Paul and his views on foreign policy so offend me, I can’t begin to express how deeply I am disgusted with him.

I’ll never abandon Israel as a sop to islam as he would.. and being insulted by a Paulite, is a badge of honor.

mark81150 on December 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM

On these Ron Paulians, approch them just like you would a far left radical Democrat, their brains work the same way on the same subjects, and yes they change the subject even more.

Facts do not count.

Unless your anit war, and/or know their talking points they consider us all to be uninformed on all issues.

Do what you would do if you were dealing with Barney Frank or Maxine Walters, it is the same deal.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Being new, and wanting to not immediately start a flame war.. I’ll just say, Paul and his views on foreign policy so offend me, I can’t begin to express how deeply I am disgusted with him.

I’ll never abandon Israel as a sop to islam as he would.. and being insulted by a Paulite, is a badge of honor.

mark81150 on December 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM

His views are exactly those of Washington, Jefferson, Paine, the other Founders, and conservatives up to the mid- to late twentieth century.

Do Washington and Jefferson so offend you? Do you not respect sovereignty?

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 3:48 PM

Come on Dante. I’m trying to get answers to simple questions and you keep avoiding them. You have said here repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul. Since you therefore must be very intelligent the answers should be on the tip of your tongue. So educate us, the ignorant masses.

How and when will all this border machine gun business keeping Americans in and the confiscation of their money take place? Will there be warning signs? Will there be a declaration of martial law first? Will citizens be rounded up into camps? How will the money confiscation take place? Will it be electronic so I login to my account one day and find a zero balance? Or will it be like the old days where I have to wait in line under armed guard outside my bank? How will the troop buildup on the border work? Will it be gradual, under the guise of securing the border? Or will it be like Red Dawn where troopers are falling out of the sky by the thousands?

And if the U.S. Military is going to keep me from leaving America what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country?

And one more out of curiosity. Do you think those of us who partook in the Iraq War should be brought up on charges of war crimes?

The uneducated masses need answers from the Ron Paul intellectual.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM

The anal exam is now underway!!!

coach1228 on December 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM

\

You seem mighty excited by the anal exams of other men.

Coach, are you in State College, PA. Because it is starting to smell like Santorum around here…

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 4:24 PM

If the US Military is going to keep me from leaving America what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country? Why not just bury it in my backyard?

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:52 PM

They won’t stop.

You’re a worthless sack of crap, just another mouth to feed in hard times.

My gold, however… that, unlike you, actually has real value.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM

They won’t stop.

You’re a worthless sack of crap, just another mouth to feed in hard times.

My gold, however… that, unlike you, actually has real value.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Your hostility does not back up your claims of being intelligent. I’m trying to get answers to simple questions and you guys keep avoiding them. You have all said here repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul. Since you all therefore must be very intelligent the answers should be easy. So educate us, the ignorant masses.

How and when will all this border machine gun business keeping Americans in and the confiscation of their money take place? Will there be warning signs? Will there be a declaration of martial law first? Will citizens be rounded up into camps? How will the money confiscation take place? Will it be electronic so I login to my account one day and find a zero balance? Or will it be like the old days where I have to wait in line under armed guard outside my bank? How will the troop buildup on the border work? Will it be gradual, under the guise of securing the border? Or will it be like Red Dawn where troopers are falling out of the sky by the thousands?

And if the U.S. Military is going to keep me from leaving America what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country?

And one more out of curiosity. Do you think those of us who partook in the Iraq War should be brought up on charges of war crimes?

The uneducated masses need answers from the Ron Paul intellectuals.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 4:37 PM

I think Paul’s views on foreign policy are far more nuanced than many people are apt to believe. For example, Israel is so loaded with money and weapons, there’s no real need to keep giving them billions. They can destroy their enemies hundred of times over.

To cut the gratuitous money supply to them is not “abandoning” them. But rather it is giving them the right to make their own decisions without our monetary pressure/obligations.
I believe Netanyahu agrees with Paul on this. But somehow the media seems to have convinced so many that Israel is a poor, defenseless infant surrounded by gigantic thugs. Israel has numerous nuclear warheads and countless fighter jets. They are fine without us sending them more billions while we languish under a mind-boggling deficit.

gauranga on December 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Come on Dante. I’m trying to get answers to simple questions and you keep avoiding them. You have said here repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul. Since you therefore must be very intelligent the answers should be on the tip of your tongue. So educate us, the ignorant masses.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM

You live in a fantasy land. Yesterday you used direct quotes for something JohnGalt never said, and now you claim that I’ve said “repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul,” when I’ve said nothing even close to the sort. Not even once.

You aren’t worth discussing anything with. Have a good one.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM

You live in a fantasy land. Yesterday you used direct quotes for something JohnGalt never said, and now you claim that I’ve said “repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul,” when I’ve said nothing even close to the sort. Not even once.

You aren’t worth discussing anything with. Have a good one.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Ron Paul bots never denigrated someones intelligence here? I guess you forgot about these:

Now, you may put up something contradictory as evidence, if you so like.

Or you may STFD and STFU, while your betters discuss a little politics.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Once, gentleman, I was also this dumb. Don’t count yourself out. There is hope.

If Logboy with his superior ‘grasp’ of the facts was the sole man on a jury, the innocent would be convicted and the guilty would go free EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
bmowell on December 14, 2011 at 1:47 AM

Dear God, it’s hard to believe that I was ever this stupid, too.

bmowell on December 14, 2011 at 1:38 AM

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg joke.

“I used to do drugs. I still do drugs, but I used to, too.”

Jimmy Liberty on December 14, 2011 at 1:55 AM

I mean, I have a doctorate degree and I don’t understand him. I wonder how his minions understand him.

NOMOBO on December 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I have a Masters, and I understand him just fine.

Perhaps you should go to your institute of higher learning, and demand your time back (hopefully, you didn’t actually have to pay for that degree).

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM

You were saying something about Paul bots not insulting anyone’s intelligence? You cannot answer simple questions about your own candidate and ideology and yet I’m the stupid one. I’m beginning to think you do not understand that which you follow. Simple questions that go unanswered by the “intellectuals” speak volumes.

I need to know these things so I know when and how to be prepared. You seem to have the inside track.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Something tells me that you couldn’t be prepared with a battalion of boy scouts.

But if you are really interested, keep a portion of your money in gold and silver, and keep a big portion of that outside the country.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:48 PM

If the U.S. Military is going to keep me from leaving America with that barbed wire and those scary machine guns what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country? You still haven’t answered.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM

If the U.S. Military is going to keep me from leaving America with that barbed wire and those scary machine guns what good will it do to have gold and silver in another country? You still haven’t answered.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM

yeah, I did. But I’ll type slower this time, so you get it.

In a currency crisis, they don’t care about you leaving. You can go.

But your money stays.

It’s called capital controls. Countries institute them to prevent capital flight. People can come and go. But, much like dying, you can’t take it with you.

That you are so short-sighted as to see how a high-tech fence along our borders might be used to do that… once again, really doesn’t surprise me.

Congratulations, logboy… you’ve successfully lowered the bar for yourself.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM

yeah, I did. But I’ll type slower this time, so you get it.

In a currency crisis, they don’t care about you leaving. You can go.

But your money stays.

It’s called capital controls. Countries institute them to prevent capital flight. People can come and go. But, much like dying, you can’t take it with you.

That you are so short-sighted as to see how a high-tech fence along our borders might be used to do that… once again, really doesn’t surprise me.

Congratulations, logboy… you’ve successfully lowered the bar for yourself.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 6:14 PM

There you go again insinuating the non Paulbot is stupid. Didnt you say you never did that? You suddenly changed your story on the scary border fence too. Two pages ago you and the other Paul bots were saying the fence was used to keep us in. I was chastised for suggesting it was a load of crap.

“Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

Yeah. Really far-fetched, huh?

Dante on December 13, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Rigid? Possibly. Of course I’m not a member of the group that is worried the government will use the border fence to keep us in.

Logboy on December 13, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Well, I never thought I’d see the day when the executive branch had the offical power to unilaterally assassinate American citizens overseas either. But, then again times change. While it may seem ludicrous at the moment to think of a scnario where the US govt would use a fence to keep us in, I wouldn’t put anything past our governments in the future with our current trajectory. You know – slippery slope and all. In fact, I thnk it’s crazier at this point to trust the govt with any new powers.

RobbBond on December 13, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Now suddenly I can leave whenever I want? Which one is it? You keep changing stories.

Btw, your personal attack on me for being a wounded Soldier is a new best for me. I’ve yet to even have a liberal sink to that level, but you? You jumped in head first. Is this the Paul method of winning hearts and minds? Because hey, he has my vote now!

Yeah. Coming from someone who supports those who fell victim to fairy tales about WMD’s in Iraq, I’m less than impressed.

JohnGalt23 on December 14, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Come on Dante. I’m trying to get answers to simple questions and you keep avoiding them. You have said here repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul. Since you therefore must be very intelligent the answers should be on the tip of your tongue. So educate us, the ignorant masses.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM

You were saying something about Paul bots not insulting anyone’s intelligence?

You don’t read so well. You accused me of saying something I never said, and when challenged on it, you then quote other people as examples? And now you’re doing it again.

You are a very dishonest person.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM

You don’t read so well. You accused me of saying something I never said, and when challenged on it, you then quote other people as examples? And now you’re doing it again.

You are a very dishonest person.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Another pathetic deflection. You jump up and down here ready to pounce on anyone who dares chastise Paul yet all you do is issue insults instead of answering simple questions. “You don’t read so well.” “But I’ll type slower this time, so you get it.” “Congratulations, logboy… you’ve successfully lowered the bar for yourself.” That’s seriously all you have? That’s your game? I’m supposed to bow down to this, your profound Ron Paul intellect? I’m left feeling so unsatisfied.

So you don’t understand your own ideology? You cant answer simple questions about the Ron Paul faith and what you believe in? And yet you blindly follow. How irrational.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM

You continue to attribute other people’s words to me, even after it’s been pointed out to you twice by me and at least once when you did it to another.

That’s deliberately being dishonest.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You continue to attribute other people’s words to me, even after it’s been pointed out to you twice by me and at least once when you did it to another.

That’s deliberately being dishonest.

Dante on December 14, 2011 at 9:50 PM

I have quoted everything and been dishonest about nothing. Rather than answer simple Ron Paul questions you squirm, change the subject, and lash out. Again. And again. And again. Thats your whole game. Thats all you got. If you dont understand your own ideology or your candidate and cannot answer simple questions its time to find a new one. Besides, recent news says four years is too long for Grandpa Paul to be on his feet.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 10:14 PM

I still don’t know who to vote for. It seems like everyone makes a good case against everyone else but nobody makes a good case for themselves. I can’t believe I’m actually considering Ron Paul at this point.

Dollayo on December 15, 2011 at 1:22 AM

I have quoted everything and been dishonest about nothing.

Logboy on December 14, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Except you haven’t quoted anything from me or pointed to an example of my saying what you claim.

So if you aren’t dishonest, let’s try again: quote me directly from any post on any thread in which you think I’ve said, to quote you, “repeatedly how stupid everyone is who doubts Ron Paul.”

Don’t quote JohnGalt or anyone else.

YOU are accusing ME, not them, so back it up with a direct quote from me. Show you aren’t being dishonest, or be a man and apologize.

Dante on December 15, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8