Rand Paul: Vote for my dad

posted at 8:44 pm on December 22, 2011 by Allahpundit

Effective. A filial endorsement is endearing, if predictable, and Rand’s already prominent enough as a national figure that his stamp of approval qualifies as a rare “mainstream” thumbs up for his pop. The message is smart, too: No policy specifics, just a promise that Ron will stick to his principles because that’s what he’s been doing for 50 years. True enough; whatever his other faults, the fear that President Paul would “evolve” in office is absolute zero. Quite a contrast with the likely nominee.

They’re going for the Iowa tea-party vote here, I take it, but I don’t know how helpful Rand or anyone else will be on that count. It’s received wisdom in the media that Ron is a godfather of the movement because he was way ahead of the curve politically on spending, but that’s simplistic. ABC notes that tea partiers are more likely to support “peace through strength” than other Republicans are and support maintaining military spending at its current levels to the tune of 60 percent. In their latest joint poll with WaPo, they asked “tea-party supporters” a bunch of different questions related to the campaign, including which Republican candidate is “most likely to agree with you on the issues that matter most to you.” That’s tailor-made for Ron Paul, and yet:

Fifth place among tea partiers, half the total that Bachmann got. Compare and contrast with how he fared among Republicans who are “tea-party neutral.” If anything, I think Rand might help him with the latter group more than with the tea party. Low-information primary voters who know him from his endless cable news appearances might recognize him and pay Ron a little extra attention because of it.

Incidentally, Reuters is now covering Ron’s old newsletters with a special focus on the “race war” passages. Sample quote: “When asked whether that meant Paul believed there was a government conspiracy to cover up the impact of AIDS, [Paul Iowa chair Drew] Ivers said, ‘I don’t think he embraces that.’” Whew! Can’t imagine that Rand, whose career is blooming, wants to have to deal with questions about this either, but maybe he thinks it’s a price worth paying as Ron piles up delegates and maybe blazes a path for him in 2016. Exit question: What if Ron decides to run third party? Does Rand endorse?

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 2 3

Just goes to show in the end they are all politicians who scratch each other back and look out for their own. No way in the world would Rand Paul support anyone else who has the policy background as this cat.

RonDelDon on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Apparently I’m one of the few people here who are willing to cut Rand Paul some slack for this bit of family loyalty, and I say this as someone who thinks Ron Paul is just not good presidential material.

Aitch748 on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

The MSM is coming up with old debunked smear from decades ago.

Let’s focus on the issues folks!

The Money Mafia and their puppet Obama is still in the White House.

Who’s gonna take these banksters and their puppets out?

ProtectDefend on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Apparently I’m one of the few people here who are willing to cut Rand Paul some slack for this bit of family loyalty, and I say this as someone who thinks Ron Paul is just not good presidential material.

Aitch748 on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Usually the NUT doesn’t fall far from the tree. I’m not convinced that Rand isn’t just as insane as his old man.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

His foreign policy is that of the Founders, it is that of conservatism, and it is the foreign policy followed for the majority of this country’s existence.
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM

that Really?

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

It moved.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Yep, here too. H o t !

carbon_footprint on December 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Out of all the present candidates, show me one just one who will do the will and bidding of the people and not just say they will…

And not just get in the WH and is just dem lite…

Show me ONE!!

I will forever hold my peace…

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Oops. Ixnay “that”. Replace with Really.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Ron Paul should run third party. The GOP will never accept him, though the American people are not so political. Of course, by running third party, the GOP will be denied a victory by splitting the vote. Which serves them right. If they want to malign the only honest politician in Washington, then they deserve to have their vote split. After all, if we are going to have a big government neocon in office, might as well let the democrats own it.

keep the change on December 22, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Good things about Ron Paul:

born and raised in Pittsburgh

Bad things about Ron Paul:

He’s a crank

jaime on December 22, 2011 at 9:34 PM

His foreign policy is that of the Founders, it is that of conservatism, and it is the foreign policy followed for the majority of this country’s existence.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM

And why the hell not? It’s not like the world is any different now than it was 200+ years ago… \

CantCureStupid on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Out of all the present candidates, show me one just one who will do the will and bidding of the people and not just say they will…

And not just get in the WH and is just dem lite…

Show me ONE!!

I will forever hold my peace…

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

You do realize your talking about politicians right? When they aren’t kissing babies, they are stealing their lollipops. NONE of them, NOT A ONE of them will live up to all their promises.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Traditional Navy kiss performed by lesbians.

carbon_footprint on December 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM

… In a cap she looked much older
And the bag across her shoulder
Made her look a little like a military man…

TXUS on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Would that be the foreign policy of John Adams, who waged a naval ‘quasi-war’ against France and backed the Alien and Sedition Acts, or the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson, who waged the Barbary War and arranged the Louisiana Purchase, or the foreign policy of James Madison, who started a war against Britain in an attempt to conquer Canada, or the foreign policy of James Monroe, who established a doctrine that the United States would oppose the reimposition of colonial rule anywhere in the Americas?

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:27 PM

The policy is non-interventionism in foreign affairs, not abandonment of defense.

The Quasi-War was a result of French navy seizing American ships.

The Barbary War was a result of our merchant ships being attacked.

The Louisiana Purchase was that…an expansion of territory through purchase; it was not interventionism.

Madison … another example of defense, not interventionism.

You failed. Badly.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Say what you want about Ron, but Rand would have never gotten his campaign off the ground without Ron’s mailing list of devotees. He owes Dad bigtime.
Pitchforker on December 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM

No doubt. But I thought the Tea Party was all about saving the country from being doomed by debt and the squandering of our tax dollars by redistributionists, not about personal gain…the country be damned.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM

I voted for Rand and I’m and I’m glad to have him as my Senator, despite who his father is. I can only hope that none of those crazy genes were inherited.

Norky on December 22, 2011 at 9:39 PM

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:27 PM

No he means like George Washington who sent money, provisions and arms to Haiti during the Hatian Revolution — at the request of the French.

That kind of non-interventionist isolationism.

batterup on December 22, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The policy is non-interventionism in foreign affairs, not abandonment of defense.

The Quasi-War was a result of French navy seizing American ships.

The Barbary War was a result of our merchant ships being attacked.

The Louisiana Purchase was that…an expansion of territory through purchase; it was not interventionism.

Madison … another example of defense, not interventionism.

You failed. Badly.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

That’s funny, since I’ve been told repeatedly by Ron Paul supporters that they support him because he opposes wars of expansion, will not intervene in the Middle East to remove unfriendly governments, etc. If Paul supporters have no problem with these wars, then they should end their paranoid conspiricist ranting about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which can be justified as easily as the Barbary War.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Show ‘em this, Dante…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

Maybe they will get educated!!

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:43 PM

that Really?

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Yes, really. Non-interventionism was the practiced foreign policy for the majority of the country’s existence.

Military action does not equal interventionism, you know.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Its called “Blowback” people…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

Learn somthing then maybe just maybe you will understand RP’s stance!

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Just goes to show in the end they are all politicians who scratch each other back and look out for their own.
RonDelDon on December 22, 2011 at 9:30 PM

That was my first thought too. Even those who clammer on about ethics and the truth having no agenda…in the end, they look out for their own and promote themselves.

Now what?

Mimzey on December 22, 2011 at 9:47 PM

That’s funny, since I’ve been told repeatedly by Ron Paul supporters that they support him because he opposes wars of expansion, will not intervene in the Middle East to remove unfriendly governments, etc. If Paul supporters have no problem with these wars, then they should end their paranoid conspiricist ranting about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which can be justified as easily as the Barbary War.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:42 PM

I don’t care what you’ve been told or what you think you’ve been told. Ron Paul, Paul’s supporters, libertarians, etc., are for national defense. Intervening in the Middle East or anywhere else is not defense.

As for Afghanistan, Ron Paul voted for it in order to get bin Laden and al qaeda. The mission changed into one of nation building. Iraq didn’t attack us, and is not war for our defense.

No one can sensibly compare the First Barbary War with the Iraq War. That’s ludicrous.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM

What else could the poor guy do? You really can’t hold this against Rand.

pugwriter on December 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM

Its called “Blowback” people…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

Learn somthing then maybe just maybe you will understand RP’s stance!

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Let’s once again note the irony of the HotAir comments section, which is titled “Blowback”

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM

They know not of which they speak Dante…

They have absolutely no comprehension of the meaning, of history, I try to ‘educate’ them, but it is probably to no avail…sigh…

We know what it is…

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The Louisiana Purchase was that…an expansion of territory through purchase; it was not interventionism.
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Ah, but there was domestic opposition:

The American purchase of the Louisiana territory was not accomplished without domestic opposition. Jefferson’s philosophical consistency was in question because of his strict interpretation of the Constitution. Many people believed he, and other Jeffersonians such as James Madison, were being hypocritical by doing something they surely would have argued against with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalists strongly opposed the purchase, favoring close relations with Britain over closer ties to Napoleon, and concerned that the U.S. had paid a large sum of money just to declare war on Spain.[citation needed]

Both Federalists and Jeffersonians were concerned about whether the purchase was unconstitutional. Many members of the United States House of Representatives opposed the purchase. Majority Leader John Randolph led the opposition. The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes 59–57. The Federalists even tried to prove the land belonged to Spain not France, but the papers proved otherwise.[15]

Gosh, I wonder what side Ron Paul would have been on.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:55 PM

No.

AllahsNippleHair on December 22, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Yes, really. Non-interventionism was the practiced foreign policy for the majority of the country’s existence.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Even though you seem to define non-interventionist to mean wars endorsed by Ron Paul, since he’s on record as opposing the Spanish-American War and the Civil War, you can’t say that Paulian “non-interventionism” was practiced for most of our history.

Ron Paul: “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”

Unfortunately, I can’t find any of Paul’s own opinions about earlier wars, only contentions by his defenders that going to war to acquire more territory from Britain, or to defend American foreign commerce, are somehow ‘non-interventionist’, whereas wars to fight Nazism, communism, or jihad are intrinsically ‘interventionist’.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:56 PM

No he means like George Washington who sent money, provisions and arms to Haiti during the Hatian Revolution — at the request of the French.

That kind of non-interventionist isolationism.

batterup on December 22, 2011 at 9:41 PM

It was a debt payment.

“The monetary relief and weapons counted as a repayment for loans granted by France to the Americans during the Revolutionary War.”

GW and slavery

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM

*puts flame shield up*

I hate to break it to you all, but Paul is going to win. Think about it, he pretty much represents the tea party and regardless of what you may think, the tea party was responsible for the conservative landslide this last election and is totally responsible for the current amount of conservative enthusiasm in the country. The classic republican philosophy is on it’s way out, the new mindset is strict constitutionality. AND it’s winning more hearts and minds at an alarming rate everyday. Hence the fear from establishment folks and a lot of you I see. It’s like you’re all biting the hands that made this new conservative movement possible for you. I just don’t get this hatred from you guys/gals? So Ron wants us to stay out of other peoples business, and has some crazy 20+ year old publishings. So what! For Christ sake, look at the baggage on the other candidates! They’re the ones with really damaging histories, not Paul. He has the best and most consistent record of all. You guys are just going to get more of the same old politics with Mitt, Newt, Rick, Sarah, Or Chris for that matter. Their all the same and will produce the same results. If you really want to change things, you should be supporting the tin foil people, cause they’re sincere in their message and agenda. Paul will make the changes he claims, for better or worse. At least it’ll be something different, and maybe even save this sinking ship, who knows? Because I see no other contenders up there are going to. So enough with the bureaucrats already, lets do something really different and give the old kook and the constitution a chance.

Paul 2012, tin foil hat and all!

Major Infidel on December 22, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Awesome! Ron Paul2012!!!

Capitalist75 on December 22, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Sorry Rand i like you but could never vote for your dad.

logman1 on December 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Even though you seem to define non-interventionist to mean wars endorsed by Ron Paul, since he’s on record as opposing the Spanish-American War and the Civil War, you can’t say that Paulian “non-interventionism” was practiced for most of our history.

Ron Paul: “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…”

Unfortunately, I can’t find any of Paul’s own opinions about earlier wars, only contentions by his defenders that going to war to acquire more territory from Britain, or to defend American foreign commerce, are somehow ‘non-interventionist’, whereas wars to fight Nazism, communism, or jihad are intrinsically ‘interventionist’.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy for the majority of America’s history. Defending one’s self after being attacked or from threat of attack is just that – defense. That is not interventionism.

And Paul is correct about the Spanish-American War. This is the point where non-interventionism as our policy was cast aside.

Paul is also correct about the Civil War. It was an unconstitutional war waged by the Union. And Paul is exactly right about Lincoln’s intent.

The Cult ofLincoln

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

As for Afghanistan, Ron Paul voted for it in order to get bin Laden and al qaeda. The mission changed into one of nation building. Iraq didn’t attack us, and is not war for our defense.

No one can sensibly compare the First Barbary War with the Iraq War. That’s ludicrous.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You better read the text again, of that resolution that Ron Paul voted for:

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Then again, based on Paul’s knowledge of those newsletters that bear his NAME, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t bother to read what he was voting for….

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Brilliant.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 8:50 PM

So what? Some liberal progressives who actually are Jews are anti Jew.
What is so surprising about that phenomena? Some white Americans are anti white Americans..Juvenile children are against their parents..some dogs don’t like other dogs..and all the while Honey Badger don’t give a sh**t.

Mimzey on December 22, 2011 at 9:29 PM

Yep, it’s a standard double case of “some of my best friends are x” and “I don’t hate good X’s” where said “good X’s” are self-hating or internalized bigots against their own group. Classic stuff right out of Gordon W. Allport’s THE NATURE OF PREJUDICE.

ebrown2 on December 22, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Ah, but there was domestic opposition:

Gosh, I wonder what side Ron Paul would have been on.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Ok, there was domestic opposition. You think that somehow nullifies the fact that the Louisiana Purchase is not an example of non-interventionism?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:03 PM

I don’t care what you’ve been told or what you think you’ve been told. Ron Paul, Paul’s supporters, libertarians, etc., are for national defense. Intervening in the Middle East or anywhere else is not defense.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM

And yet wars fought by the United States in its first decades in the Middle East, Canada, and elsewhere are somehow defense rather than intervention. Incidentally, according to Ron Paul

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

which would transform both the quasi-war against France and the Barbary War into unconstitutional interventions in the World according to Paul. And I’d love to see a Paulian argument for the War of 1812 not being an “intervention” but the Iraq War being one.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Dr. Ron Paul is a White Supremacist Racist Anti-Semitic Blame America First Conspiracy Theorist. But hey, don’t take my word for it, Take Dr. Ron Paul at his own word.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Thank you for proving my point.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM

As for Afghanistan, Ron Paul voted for it in order to get bin Laden and al qaeda. The mission changed into one of nation building. Iraq didn’t attack us, and is not war for our defense.

No one can sensibly compare the First Barbary War with the Iraq War. That’s ludicrous.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM

You better read the text again, of that resolution that Ron Paul voted for:

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Then again, based on Paul’s knowledge of those newsletters that bear his NAME, I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t bother to read what he was voting for….

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Naw, Paulbot slavertarians denounce the idea of taking responsibility for one’s actions, as we’ve seen repeatedly here on HA. Loathsome creeps like the League of the South, Stormfront and Hamas all love them some Ron Paul, and he loves them back. (sotto voice and if the donations clear, of course)

ebrown2 on December 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM

And I’d love to see a Paulian argument for the War of 1812 not being an “intervention” but the Iraq War being one.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM

You don’t need a Paulian to destroy that pathetic comparison. Just for starters the Iraqi military didn’t invade our homeland or burn our capitol…

MelonCollie on December 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM

And yet wars fought by the United States in its first decades in the Middle East, Canada, and elsewhere are somehow defense rather than intervention. Incidentally, according to Ron Paul

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Yes, when a person or nation is attacked and fights back, that’s called defense. Not somehow called defense, it is called defense.

Neither the Quasi-War nor the First Barbary War were unconstitutional actions.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Originally, when I began reporting on the Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theory driven right wing extremists and their associations with Ron Paul, I assumed they were a fringe group who jumped on to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Then after doing extensive research, I realized that not only did the Neo-Nazis and the John Birch/Timothy McVeigh based conspiracy theorists support Ron Paul, but Ron Paul supports the views of the Neo-Nazis and the conspiracy theorists.

Ron Paul was the keynote speaker for the John Birch Society’s 50th Anniversary and spoke about the strong connection he had to the society and their ideologies.

The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster ‘less government, more responsibility … and with God’s help … a better world.’”

I am delighted to help celebrate this birthday.” “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.”

continue what you have been doing…..I come with a positive message and congratulations to you for all you have done. Congratulations and thank you very much for having me tonight.

Here are some of the many racist quotes that can be found in Paul’s newsletter from 1978 till 1995

On the L.A. Riots

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,”

‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda

On African-American Political Opinion

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action

On African-Americans and Crime

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,

America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.
mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM

And I’d love to see a Paulian argument for the War of 1812 not being an “intervention” but the Iraq War being one.

We weren’t attacked by Iraq.

We were attacked by England. Do you think we should have allowed the British to seize our citizens on the seas and impress them into duty for the Royal Navy? Or is that just a minor misunderstanding?

Do you understand the difference?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM

If it’s a debt it’s non-interventionist to send arms to stop a revolution – mmmkay.

batterup on December 22, 2011 at 10:10 PM

What was written in those newsletters was nothing short of disgusting. Here are some examples sorted by topic:

On Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

In December of 1990 his newsletter described Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and a “flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate.” A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.” An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” would be better alternatives–and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

In an article entitled “The Coming Race War,” The Ron Paul Political Report refers to the “pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King” and refers to his “non-violent approach” as “(i.e., state violence).” The newsletter advises that, “if there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jesse Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed, left-wing blacks.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:12 PM

Kook/Kook 2012…

d1carter on December 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Non-interventionism was the foreign policy for the majority of America’s history. Defending one’s self after being attacked or from threat of attack is just that – defense. That is not interventionism.

If you’re dividing wars between those of defense (when one is under attack or the threat of attack) and those of interventionism, then how do you justify calling the War of 1812 non-interventionist, but calling various 20th and 21st century wars (e.g. WWI, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan) interventionist? Incidentally, what you’re referring to as interventionist wars, most of us would call wars of aggression.

And Paul is correct about the Spanish-American War. This is the point where non-interventionism as our policy was cast aside.

Paul is also correct about the Civil War. It was an unconstitutional war waged by the Union. And Paul is exactly right about Lincoln’s intent.

Then you’re admitting you were incorrect when you said that Paulian non-interventionism had been US foreign policy for the majority of its history (even under the incorrect assumption that all US wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, 1789-1860 is not the majority of US history).

The Cult ofLincoln

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Do you consider Lew Rockwell’s website a credible source for information?

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Romney/Huckabee

gerrym51 on December 22, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Ew. I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Fallon on December 22, 2011 at 10:14 PM

They know not of which they speak Dante…

They have absolutely no comprehension of the meaning, of history, I try to ‘educate’ them, but it is probably to no avail…sigh…

We know what it is…

Scrumpy

yes if only we were as brilliant as dear leader Ron, he after all has the pulse of the nation!!:

In his newsletter Ron Paul praises as an “American hero” and “brilliant” an individual named Bobby Fischer, a chess player, because he is “politically incorrect” on “the jewish question”. Who is Bobby Fischer and what does he mean?

here is a small sampling:

“There is no United States as people think of it. It’s just a puppet in the Jews’ hands. It’s a plaything for the Jews. . . The US government and American Jewry are virtually interchangeable. . . They’re lying bastards. Jews were always lying bastards throughout their history. They’re a filthy, dirty, disgusting, vile, criminal people. . . They’re just unbelievably wicked bastards”

America is totally under control of the Jews, you know. I mean, look what they’re doing in Yugoslavia … The Secretary of State [then Madeleine Albright] and the Secretary of Defense [then William S. Cohen] are dirty Jews

Jews are vicious rats. America is just a goddamn Jew country. They’re a bunch of goddamn crooks there. The Jews control everything and everybody. The United States is a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed. circumcised Jew bastards.- Bombo Radyo, Philippines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O285w-9Qr0s&context=C3bdd7c5ADOEgsToPDskIo4YXVRaCyHgiRA7JIRMpE

golembythehudson on December 22, 2011 at 10:20 PM

I have yet to hear Rand say anything off the wall and I will not fault him for supporting his Dad.

Talon on December 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM

The first problem was the Purchase’s constitutionality. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the executive branch of the government to spend public funds to expand the boundaries of the nation. This was problematic for Jefferson, who had been elected behind a political philosophy that emphasized small government, low taxes, and “strict construction” of the Constitution—in other words, adhering rigidly to the Tenth Amendment’s stricture that all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” During the 1790s, Jefferson had fought vigorously against Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist plan to charter a National Bank, since the Constitution delegated no specific bank-chartering powers to the government and Jefferson rejected Hamilton’s argument that such powers were “implied” by the Constitution.

So by Jefferson’s own standards, the Louisiana Purchase was clearly unconstitutional. When he received word of the Purchase from his emissaries in Paris, Jefferson first response was to draft a proposed constitutional amendment that would have legitimized his actions by authorizing the president explicitly to purchase new territory. However, fearing the amendment would not pass in time to ratify the treaty, Jefferson quickly abandoned his plans for amending the Constitution, instead taking the easier (if more hypocritical) path of claiming the power to acquire territory was “implied” in the Constitution’s clause on treaty-making.”

http://www.shmoop.com/louisiana-purchase-lewis-clark/politics.html

ebrown2 on December 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I have yet to hear Rand say anything off the wall and I will not fault him for supporting his Dad.

Talon on December 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM

When your dad is a well documented White Supremacist, Racist Anti-Semitic, Blame America First, Conspiracy Theorist. Throwing your support behind him isn’t family loyalty, it either means Rand Paul’s judgement is far to poor for him to be an elected official, let alone taken seriously, or Rand is fully aware of what his father is and holds the exact same ideological views.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

If you’re dividing wars between those of defense (when one is under attack or the threat of attack) and those of interventionism, then how do you justify calling the War of 1812 non-interventionist, but calling various 20th and 21st century wars (e.g. WWI, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan) interventionist? Incidentally, what you’re referring to as interventionist wars, most of us would call wars of aggression.

Ummm…yes. There are wars we’ve fought because we’ve intervened in foreign affairs, and there are wars we’ve fought after being attacked. You really don’t understand the difference?

I just gave an example for the War of 1812: the British were seizing American citizens at sea and impressing them into service for the Royal Navy. They were also arming Indians to attack Americans and American territory. Madison presented a list of grievances to Congress, and Congress came back to the president with a declaration of war.

WWI – we were not attacked. Well, some would immediately come back with the Lusitania, but Wilson was itching to get involved in the war prior to the Lusitania, and goaded the Germans. Wilson intervened before intervening militarily. Interventionism.

Viet Nam – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

The Gulf War – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

Then you’re admitting you were incorrect when you said that Paulian non-interventionism had been US foreign policy for the majority of its history (even under the incorrect assumption that all US wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, 1789-1860 is not the majority of US history).

No, I am correct regarding non-interventionism being the foreign policy for the majority of our nation. I never made the assumption that all wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, although you clearly can not discern the difference between defense and interventionism. The Civil War is not an example of interventionism. I specifically said that our current foreign policy of interventionism began with the Spanish-American War. Almost everything since has been interventionism.

Do you consider Lew Rockwell’s website a credible source for information?

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I consider the author I linked to a credible source for information, but generally the authors I’ve read at that website I believe to be credible, having read their works elsewhere.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

You don’t need a Paulian to destroy that pathetic comparison. Just for starters the Iraqi military didn’t invade our homeland or burn our capitol…

MelonCollie on December 22, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Are you actually so ignorant as to think that the War of 1812 started after the British raided America’s capital, or is this the typical disingenuousness of Ron Paul supporters?

Do you understand the difference?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:09 PM

The difference seems to be that impressment as a casus belli suffices to make a war of would-be conquest “non-interventionist”, but support for terrorism as a casus belli does not make a war of liberation “non-interventionist”.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

ebrown2 on December 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Ok? And?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Dr. Ron Paul loves him some Neo-Nazi skinheads…

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PoliticaReportApril1989.pdf

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

The difference seems to be that impressment as a casus belli suffices to make a war of would-be conquest “non-interventionist”, but support for terrorism as a casus belli does not make a war of liberation “non-interventionist”.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

We were attacked by England.

We were not attacked by Iraq. “a war of liberation”…Who were we liberating, ourselves?

I don’t understand how you don’t understand the difference.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM

,,,it either means Rand Paul’s judgement is far to poor for him to be an elected official, let alone taken seriously, or Rand is fully aware of what his father is and holds the exact same ideological views.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Ever considered the possibility that if he loses support from daddy’s fans, Rand Paul is up a creek without a paddle? Or are you just desperate to paint him as nutty as Ron?

MelonCollie on December 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Tee hee hee … more info unearth about your half-cocked father.

RonDelDon on December 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Dr. Ron Paul sure don’t love him no Homosexuals or Black folks though….

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/December1989.pdf

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Sorry, here is the link:

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf

RonDelDon on December 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Ok, there was domestic opposition. You think that somehow nullifies the fact that the Louisiana Purchase is not an example of non-interventionism?
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:03 PM

No, I find the Groundhog Day element very amusing, and on a serious note I thank heaven the fathers of Ron Paul’s political philosophy lost the argument and we got Louisiana which made us a world power. It’s a very helpful reminder that being a purist on principle is very often not the wisest or even most moral course.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Ever considered the possibility that if he loses support from daddy’s fans, Rand Paul is up a creek without a paddle? Or are you just desperate to paint him as nutty as Ron?

MelonCollie on December 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

All Rand Paul had to do was keep his mouth shut. By supporting his father Rand jumped out of the boat and right straight into $hit Creek, now he neither has a paddle or a canoe.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Thank you for proving my point.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Thank you for proving my point that you don’t understand the concept that words mean things. That AUMF uses the word “nations.” There is no way that one could get the impression that it only involved “getting bin Laden and al Qaida.” That is, not unless you ignore 99% of it, and make ten thousand assumptions.

Epic fail.

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

And when I hear Rand say that he agrees with everything his father has said I will count him as an anti-Semite, racist asshole as well.

Until then…………..

Talon on December 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Thank you for proving my point that you don’t understand the concept that words mean things. That AUMF uses the word “nations.” There is no way that one could get the impression that it only involved “getting bin Laden and al Qaida.” That is, not unless you ignore 99% of it, and make ten thousand assumptions.

Epic fail.

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Do you not read what you copy and paste?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Thank you for proving my point that you don’t understand the concept that words mean things. That AUMF uses the word “nations.” There is no way that one could get the impression that it only involved “getting bin Laden and al Qaida.” That is, not unless you ignore 99% of it, and make ten thousand assumptions.

Epic fail.

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 10:40 PM

“Epic fail”

The epitaph of all haters of individual liberty and universal human dignity and essence, like Herr Doktor Paul and his Stormfront friends.

ebrown2 on December 22, 2011 at 10:46 PM

All Rand Paul had to do was keep his mouth shut. By supporting his father Rand jumped out of the boat and right straight into $hit Creek, now he neither has a paddle or a canoe.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Agreed. The principled thing would be for Rand Paul to say “look, dad, you’re my father and I love you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate all you’ve done for me over the years. But there aree some things I just can’t follow you on. Your wink-and-a-nod statements to the truthers, your conspiracy theorizing, and frankly the things you published in your newsletters over the years just can’t be defended. Again, I love you and want the best for you but this is a road I can’t walk with you.”

By endorsing his father, Rand Paul officially signs onto the Ron Paul Project as far as I’m concerned. He’s crossed the line from dutiful son to willing accomplice.

Shame, really.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

I would *want* Ron Paul to evolve on his foreign policy positions…

nicktjacob on December 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

No way

Conservchik on December 22, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Ummm…yes. There are wars we’ve fought because we’ve intervened in foreign affairs, and there are wars we’ve fought after being attacked. You really don’t understand the difference?

I just gave an example for the War of 1812: the British were seizing American citizens at sea and impressing them into service for the Royal Navy. They were also arming Indians to attack Americans and American territory. Madison presented a list of grievances to Congress, and Congress came back to the president with a declaration of war.

WWI – we were not attacked. Well, some would immediately come back with the Lusitania, but Wilson was itching to get involved in the war prior to the Lusitania, and goaded the Germans. Wilson intervened before intervening militarily. Interventionism.

Viet Nam – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

The Gulf War – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

If presenting a list of grievances to Congress suffices to make a war “non-interventionist”, then the Iraq War would fall into that category. The United States presented casus belli as justification for initiating the War of 1812, but it hadn’t been attacked by Britain any more than it was attacked by Iraq prior to the 2003 war. The United States only entered the First World War after indiscriminate submarine warfare by Germany and after the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram in which Germany promised Mexico that it would receive Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona if Mexico aided Germany in a war against the United States. In both Vietnam and the Gulf War, the United States defended allies being attacked (in the former case, by an ideology bent on world domination). The Ron Pauls of the 1810s were arguing No Blood for Canada (with, admittedly, far greater justification than those arguing the wars since the September 11 attacks were part of a conspiracy for oil companies or at the behest of the Elders of Zion) and eventually plotting secession from the United States.

No, I am correct regarding non-interventionism being the foreign policy for the majority of our nation. I never made the assumption that all wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, although you clearly can not discern the difference between defense and interventionism. The Civil War is not an example of interventionism. I specifically said that our current foreign policy of interventionism began with the Spanish-American War. Almost everything since has been interventionism.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

You just stated in one of your posts above that you agreed with Ron Paul about the Civil War being unconstitutional, which would render your statement untrue. And if you further don’t assume that all wars prior to 1861 were “non-interventionist”, then your dating is off by even more. The United States in its early years did not shrink from going to war to defend its interests, nor from expanding through warfare (see, in particular, the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War).

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Ummm…yes. There are wars we’ve fought because we’ve intervened in foreign affairs, and there are wars we’ve fought after being attacked. You really don’t understand the difference?

I just gave an example for the War of 1812: the British were seizing American citizens at sea and impressing them into service for the Royal Navy. They were also arming Indians to attack Americans and American territory. Madison presented a list of grievances to Congress, and Congress came back to the president with a declaration of war.

WWI – we were not attacked. Well, some would immediately come back with the Lusitania, but Wilson was itching to get involved in the war prior to the Lusitania, and goaded the Germans. Wilson intervened before intervening militarily. Interventionism.

Viet Nam – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

The Gulf War – we were not attacked. Interventionism.

If presenting a list of grievances to Congress suffices to make a war “non-interventionist”, then the Iraq War would fall into that category. The United States presented casus belli as justification for initiating the War of 1812, but it hadn’t been attacked by Britain any more than it was attacked by Iraq prior to the 2003 war. The United States only entered the First World War after indiscriminate submarine warfare by Germany and after the interception of the Zimmermann Telegram in which Germany promised Mexico that it would receive Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona if Mexico aided Germany in a war against the United States. In both Vietnam and the Gulf War, the United States defended allies being attacked (in the former case, by an ideology bent on world domination). The Ron Pauls of 1812 were arguing No Blood for Canada (with, admittedly, far greater justification than those arguing the wars since the September 11 attacks were part of a conspiracy for oil companies or at the behest of the Elders of Zion) and eventually plotting secssion from the United States.

No, I am correct regarding non-interventionism being the foreign policy for the majority of our nation. I never made the assumption that all wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, although you clearly can not discern the difference between defense and interventionism. The Civil War is not an example of interventionism. I specifically said that our current foreign policy of interventionism began with the Spanish-American War. Almost everything since has been interventionism.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:28 PM

You just stated in one of your posts above that you agreed with Ron Paul about the Civil War being unconstitutional, which would render your statement untrue. And if you further don’t assume that not all wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, then your dating is off by even more. The United States in its early years did not shrink from going to war to defend its interests, nor from expanding through warfare.

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Do you not read what you copy and paste?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM

I read it. Did you? Funny that you have yet to respond to the point I made, that it refutes your assertion of what Ron Paul supposedly voted for. You’re either very slow, or you are conceding that you were full of crap. Which is it? (that’s a rhetorical question. Everyone already knows the answer to it — you are attempting to divert because you lost the point)

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Agreed. The principled thing would be for Rand Paul to say “look, dad, you’re my father and I love you. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate all you’ve done for me over the years. But there aree some things I just can’t follow you on. Your wink-and-a-nod statements to the truthers, your conspiracy theorizing, and frankly the things you published in your newsletters over the years just can’t be defended. Again, I love you and want the best for you but this is a road I can’t walk with you.”

By endorsing his father, Rand Paul officially signs onto the Ron Paul Project as far as I’m concerned. He’s crossed the line from dutiful son to willing accomplice.

Shame, really.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Exactly, instead, Rand Paul joined his Father Darth Paul…

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM

For all you Paul haters out here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

Enough said…

Scrumpy on December 22, 2011 at 8:50 PM

People on here don’t care about history or facts. America is infallible. They hate us for our freedom. etc, etc.

thphilli on December 22, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Rand, run now before the crazy gene strikes!

rgranger on December 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

If presenting a list of grievances to Congress suffices to make a war “non-interventionist”, then the Iraq War would fall into that category.

Now why did you ignore everything in the paragraph except the last sentence? I gave a list of provocations that demonstrates England was an aggressor against us.

In both Vietnam and the Gulf War, the United States defended allies being attacked (in the former case, by an ideology bent on world domination).

Yeeeesssss….. this is called interventionism. We weren’t attacked. We inserted ourselves into someone else’s business. Surely you aren’t suggesting otherwise?

You just stated in one of your posts above that you agreed with Ron Paul about the Civil War being unconstitutional, which would render your statement untrue. And if you further don’t assume that not all wars prior to 1861 were non-interventionist, then your dating is off by even more. .

DKCZ on December 22, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Render what statement untrue? It was a war between states; not a war of interventionism with another sovereign nation.

The United States in its early years did not shrink from going to war to defend its interests, nor from expanding through warfare

After this entire exchange, you still don’t know what interventionism and non-interventionism are, and I see no sign that you will. Have a good night.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

What if Ron decides to run third party? Does Rand endorse?

This came up in ’08 as well. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now. Paul has first hand experience in running as 3rd party. He knows what’s involved and knows why it’s a pointless endeavor.

Plus, if Paul ran 3rd party, it would hurt Rand’s political future. Endorsement or not (but, I’m of the opinion that he would endorse).

gyrmnix on December 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I read it. Did you? Funny that you have yet to respond to the point I made, that it refutes your assertion of what Ron Paul supposedly voted for. You’re either very slow, or you are conceding that you were full of crap. Which is it? (that’s a rhetorical question. Everyone already knows the answer to it — you are attempting to divert because you lost the point)

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM

This is satire, right? Your post refuted nothing; it in fact supported what I said.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Exactly, instead, Rand Paul joined his Father Darth Paul…

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Rand Paul’s career is questionable. Both his mom and dad were of the same cloth. There is no reason to think the son is any different. The Tea Party didn’t like them, but couldn’t get rid of them. Maybe now they can.

Connie on December 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM

Paul is also correct about the Civil War. It was an unconstitutional war waged by the Union. And Paul is exactly right about Lincoln’s intent.

The Cult ofLincoln

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Quite a few 19th century European Marxists associated with that outfit as well.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 23, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Not a chance, Rand. In fact, I’m starting to wonder about you.

flataffect on December 23, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Rand’s not 1/2 bad but nope to his Pop.

tacodawn on December 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM

I have yet to hear Rand say anything off the wall and I will not fault him for supporting his Dad.

Talon on December 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’m with you there Talon.
I just hope that saying “The apple does not fall far from the tree”
does not apply to Rand some day.

KOOLAID2 on December 23, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Rand Paul’s career is questionable. Both his mom and dad were of the same cloth. There is no reason to think the son is any different. The Tea Party didn’t like them, but couldn’t get rid of them. Maybe now they can.

Connie on December 22, 2011 at 11:37 PM

The tea party loves Rand. They helped him vanquish Trey Grayson in the republican primary when Grayson had the backing of Darth Cheney, Bill Kristol and other establishment types. In fact, Rand is so popular that PPP took a presidential poll about 8 months ago on likely presidential contenders and he was tied neck and neck with Chris Christie. In a very short time, he’s come a long way. Largely because Rand has message discipline and doesn’t venture into taboo subject matter like dad, which is hard to escape from once the hermetic seal is breached. The public is very childlike in it’s understanding of issues and it really does no good to talk about some of this stuff which will infuriate half the country.

Pitchforker on December 23, 2011 at 2:16 AM

Now why did you ignore everything in the paragraph except the last sentence? I gave a list of provocations that demonstrates England was an aggressor against us.

And President Bush obtained authorization for the Iraq War by having Congress pass a bill containing a list of provocations by Saddam. Unlike Madison, Bush didn’t go to war for territorial aggrandizement.

Yeeeesssss….. this is called interventionism. We weren’t attacked. We inserted ourselves into someone else’s business. Surely you aren’t suggesting otherwise?

I’m establishing that in the World according to Ron Paul wars of aggression started by other countries are off-limits to US involvement, regardless of the ultimate danger to the United States. With this foreign policy, communism would have triumphed, as the United States would have been powerless to protect any country from the Soviet Union.

After this entire exchange, you still don’t know what interventionism and non-interventionism are, and I see no sign that you will. Have a good night.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

“Interventionism” is support for a war opposed by Ron Paul and “non-interventionism” is support for a war agreeable to Ron Paul (though he doesn’t seem to be on record as supporting any war fought by the Second Republic).

DKCZ on December 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM

DKCZ, Buy Danish, etc., clearly, its no point arguing with a Ron Paul supporter about the constitutionality or morality of wars in American history. They are inconsistent as all hell on the subject. The Louisiana Purchase wasn’t just an endeavor which frustrated those in Congress who wanted peace with Britain and distance from Napoleon, it also amounted to the radical expansion of the United States at the expense of the Native Americans who had lived on those lands for centuries before Europeans showed up. If Ron Paul fans would be honest with themselves, they would have to say that taking land from indigenous peoples who have lived there for centuries is totally fine. But they won’t. Why? Because if you follow the logic out and connect the dots, that would be tantamount to excusing imperial conquest and it would also make our hundreds of bases around the world and War on Terror not only acceptable, but extremely modest in comparison. And expecting a Ron Paul fan to admit such a thing is expecting Obama to admit he’s a failure.

LevinFan90 on December 23, 2011 at 5:20 AM

All Rand Paul had to do was keep his mouth shut. By supporting his father Rand jumped out of the boat and right straight into $hit Creek, now he neither has a paddle or a canoe.

Yes.

gdonovan on December 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM

He just poisoned his own well. Like others have said, he should have kept his trap shut.

swinia sutki on December 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM

DKCZ, Buy Danish, etc., clearly, its no point arguing with a Ron Paul supporter about the constitutionality or morality of wars in American history.

LevinFan90 on December 23, 2011 at 5:20 AM

You clearly haven’t been following. The topic of discussion is not the constitutionality or morality of wars in American history; the topic is non-interventionism versus interventionism as a foreign policy.

I’m establishing that in the World according to Ron Paul wars of aggression started by other countries are off-limits to US involvement, regardless of the ultimate danger to the United States. With this foreign policy, communism would have triumphed, as the United States would have been powerless to protect any country from the Soviet Union.

DKCZ on December 23, 2011 at 2:26 AM

You’re doing a very poor job of it. Interventionism is not solely about wars and getting involved in wars in which we were not attacked and not under threat of attack, it’s about being involved in foreign entanglements. Our CIA-led coup against Iran’s constitutional monarch is an example of interventionism.

“Interventionism” is support for a war opposed by Ron Paul and “non-interventionism” is support for a war agreeable to Ron Paul (though he doesn’t seem to be on record as supporting any war fought by the Second Republic).

Wow. You are simply being willfully ignorant.

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Ha! I’m giving Dr. Tesla four awards:

1. Most Monologues
2. Most Straw-men Erected (“My point was simply that Romney supporters like to to suggest anybody not Romney is a nutjob and stupid.”).
3. Most Disingenuous Use of Religion Card (“I’m not telling anybody to not vote ROmney because he’s Mormon. I’m making a case that anybody can be called stupid and nuts and I’m tired of Romney supporters dumping on the other candidates.”) – and so on, ad nauseam…
4. Most Brazen Use of the Victim Card (“There are young men being killed overseas in our military and you are whining about me.”)

Allah, Ed and Tina read the threads. They even comment themselves from time to time. None of us need to moderate each other.
Dr Evil on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Really? You think they read every word of every post? Get real. How exactly do you define “moderate” anyway? Any response to another commenter could be considered a form of ‘moderating’.

Buy Danish on December 23, 2011 at 9:19 AM

After this entire exchange, you still don’t know what interventionism and non-interventionism are, and I see no sign that you will. Have a good night.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

= You don’t except my constantly changing and revised definitions that I am keeping in my head, so I am packing up my blocks and going elsewhere to play.

Ergo Sum on December 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Ergo Sum on December 23, 2011 at 10:31 AM

accept, not except…not enough coffee and too much champagne.

Ergo Sum on December 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM

accept, not except…not enough coffee and too much champagne.
Ergo Sum on December 23, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Your you’re forgiven:)

Buy Danish on December 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM

This is the very reason that Rand Paul should have never been voted into office. It’s a “all for one and one for all” family, but I have a news flash for Mr. Rand Paul, if he is to follow in his fathers footsteps as is becomming rather clear then his days in office are numbered.

RiCkY.D. on December 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3