Quotes of the day

posted at 10:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

“‘Oh, I’d probably have trouble,’ Paul said to a question of supporting Gingrich’s candidacy, adding that he wouldn’t be able to support the nominee in general if the ‘policies of the Republican Party are the same as the Democrat Party.’…

“‘I’m gonna come in, I think, first or second,’ Paul said today in an interview airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s ‘Political Capital with Al Hunt.’ ‘If I did come in fifth or sixth, that would be a real shocker.’…

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said in the interview, yet he wouldn’t commit to supporting him as the 2012 Republican candidate and refused to rule out a third-party run.

“‘I think he probably understands how the market works as a businessman a little bit better than a guy like Gingrich,’ Paul said of Romney.”

***

“Based on discussion with a dozen supporters at candidate events across the state — including a Paul rally of about 500 here Wednesday night – the Paul Posse contains a considerable ‘Ron or I’m Gone’ population.

“Of those people interviewed, three said they would vote for the Republican nominee if it was not Mr. Paul, and two said they were not sure. But seven respondents said they would support only Mr. Paul in the general election – either as a write-in or a third-party candidate (the latter of which Mr. Paul has not ruled out). Ideally, they said, he would be the Republican nominee…

“‘I would not vote for anyone else,’ said Eric Grote, who travelled to Iowa from Turkey, where he lives half the year, to attend Mr. Paul’s rally in Des Moines. He wore a big Tea Party button. ‘All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are reading from the same sheet of music,’ he said.”

***

“The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government. In every speech Paul reaches a moment in which he relays that We don’t have to agree on everything: people should have their own religion, their own intellectual pursuits and the right to live their private lives however they see fit. That last part strikes some as a tacit acceptance of liberal positions on social issues like abortion and gay marriage—and on some level it is. While Paul himself would support state bans for such things, his stay-out-of-people’s-business philosophy is absolute at the federal level. ‘I like that he’s for less governmental involvement in our lives,’ said Erin Nevius, a 24-year-old who classifies herself as independent and attended a Paul town hall on Thursday. ‘For being a Republican, I think he has some pretty liberal ideas.’

“Couple that with Paul’s support for the Occupy movement–its spirit, not its preferred tax policy–and you have a liberal-friendly message. ‘Wealth is being accumulated into smaller and smaller hands,’ he said on Thursday. ‘Right now, big business makes more money paying high-paid lobbyists going to Washington to get a good deal than trying to satisfy you, the customer. And that needs to be reversed.’ Paul’s message focuses on the weak economy, a grievance pretty much everyone can get behind. There is always the possibility that liberal voters will realize how conservative he is on issues like taxation, entitlements or abortion, but Paul’s libertarianism acts as a buffer. And that could make all the difference when voters caucus Tuesday night across Iowa.”

***

“Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He’d be the first to admit he’s not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

“Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians…

“Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul’s philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.”

***

“Rep. Ron Paul is most associated with his economic and foreign policy views, but one of the secrets to his success is the appeal he’s making to Iowa’s socially conservative electorate, something that may come as a surprise to those who know him as a gadfly libertarian.

“On table outside a Paul town hall meeting in a public library here, attendees were offered fliers promoting Ron Paul as a ‘pro-life champion’ and somebody who would ‘defend traditional marriage.’ None of the materials mentioned anything about foreign policy, unless you count the linguine recipe in the ‘Ron Paul Family Cook Book.’…

“And one of the advantages of having been dismissed as a crank who couldn’t win the caucuses is that it has allowed Paul to skate under the radar and make it easier to thread the needle between his appeal to libertarians and to social conservatives. Had he been taken seriously as a front-runner earlier in the process, he’d probably be subject to negative ads informing conservatives that Paul does support the right of individual states to allow gay marriage. Instead, the lower profile has allowed him to quietly make his case to social conservatives, and expand his base beyond libertarians.”

***

“But looking at the primary season merely through the lens of winners and losers misses an essential point about Ron Paul, I think. Winning the GOP nomination (and maybe even the presidency!) may be this year’s goal, but the ultimate, oft-stated purpose to Paul’s 35+ years in public life has been to spread the message of freedom, of constitutionally limited government. Even a losing primary season—say, like Jerry Brown’s underdog role against Bill Clinton in 1992—becomes a prime opportunity for salesmanship. Paul, unlike the rest of the non-Romney field, has the money and stamina for such a fight.

“Another objective, as Silver points out, is that Paul ‘could certainly control a substantial enough minority to become a power broker at the Republican National Convention, something that is an explicit goal of his campaign.’ In my sporadic conversations with Paul insiders, the convention/delegates strategy has come up every time. If they can’t prevail in a brokered convention, the Paulities at least hope to get a prime-time speaking slot, a hand in the platform-writing, and more besides…

“So Ron Paul’s in it for the long haul. Republicans gearing up for a post-Iowa purge festival should be asking themselves one question: Do they really want to alienate the enthusiastic supporters of the only GOP candidate who either talks convincingly about cutting government or appeals noticeably to the non-Republican swing voters who tip most modern elections? The answer to that question may determine the future of the Republican Party.”

***

“But there’s a paradox buried inside Paul’s rise in the Republican field, a time bomb ticking away. Call it the curse of the ‘Paulbots.’

“The more Paul rises, the more he needs to temper his rhetoric and fine-tune his message (especially given the kind of baggage he carries). And the more he needs a fine-tuned message, the more he has to control his fractious fans. But people who organize themselves online today are notoriously hard to control…

“But things are about to get a bit crazy. Paul’s late surge and possible win next week in Iowa are going to generate a huge burst of national media attention and plenty of hard-edged questions about his past and views. And the Paulbot base doesn’t handle criticism very well…

“If the Internet hyper-empowers small groups of people, enabling them to punch above their weight, it also hyper-exposes them. In the coming days, as Paul’s star rises, his online base is going to be tested as much as he is.”

***

“In response to these remarks, Wead pointed to the Constitution. ‘A lot of what Ron Paul says and believes is misrepresented. He believes strongly in the Constitution,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing dangerous about the U.S. Constitution. If we decided we needed to react, as a president he would take it to the U.S. Congress. We’d decide; we’d declare war; we’d win it, and then we’d get out.’”


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 4 5 6

No. That’s why I think we should have DNA evidence to execute someone.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:26 AM

So you’re honestly saying you would have been against capital punishment before DNA evidence was the norm?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:30 AM

It’s a stupid point by you, anyway, because New York is still less than 10% Jewish.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:26 AM

Its a stupid point, but its your stupid point. Israel or New York, the fact that they are Jews does not make them moral authorities.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

What’s a few innocent lives if it earns us a vicarious thrill when we read about some scumbag who got the needle? Omelet, eggs, etc.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:28 AM

You really are stooping to a new low.

First you invoke your mother to gain some kind of sympathy card and moral high ground. That’s despicable.

Now you imply that those of us who support capital punishment are “thrilled” by it.

You’re a pretty sick person.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

I think it would guarantee a Romney win against obama.

menoname on December 31, 2011 at 3:29 AM

Eh, unless the economy massively rebounds, Romney’ll win no matter who his VP is. I think the obvious ‘odds’ play is Rubio, especially with the importance of those Florida electoral votes.

Good Solid, are you claiming Israel’s position on the death penalty is that of Mosaic Law?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 3:29 AM

I’m saying that if you claim to get your authority from Mosaic Law, but you’re going against the decision made by the world’s largest concentration of Jews, you might want to rethink from where you derive your authority.

But no, I don’t think they’re a theocracy who solely determined their position on capital punishment through Mosaic Law. Of course there was a secular element to that decision. I just think it’s foolish to say that Israel is ‘soft,’ or that they don’t have civilization, or that they’re ‘too weak’ to fight off the Muslim hordes because of their stance on the death penalty.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:34 AM

My problem with the death penalty is its not evenly applied. I live in WA state. Home of the green river killer. He killed over 40 people and DIDN’T get the death penalty . If he didn’t deserve it. Who does? The poor Black kid who shot someone during a robbery? The illegal immigrant who killed his farm boss? The Indian kid who killed his principal?I just don’t get it.

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:35 AM

So you’re honestly saying you would have been against capital punishment before DNA evidence was the norm?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:30 AM

Duh. Ever hear of reliable eye witnesses or videotape?

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:35 AM

My problem with the death penalty is its not evenly applied. I live in WA state. Home of the green river killer. He killed over 40 people and DIDN’T get the death penalty . If he didn’t deserve it. Who does? The poor Black kid who shot someone during a robbery? The illegal immigrant who killed his farm boss? The Indian kid who killed his principal?I just don’t get it.

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:35 AM

I agree with how frustrating that is. I think the Green River killer struck a deal to take the death penalty off the table if he told them where all the bodies are. Different states have different statutes about punishment.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:37 AM

Now you imply that those of us who support capital punishment are “thrilled” by it.

You’re a pretty sick person.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

As opposed to someone who says that opponents of the death penalty are weak, that they don’t deserve to live in civilization, that they don’t care about the victims?

Yeah, sorry, I think I’ll treat your opinions on my ‘sickness’ with an Everest-sized grain of salt, given the ridiculous amount of moralizing you’ve done on this thread.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:37 AM

My problem with the death penalty is its not evenly applied. I live in WA state. Home of the green river killer. He killed over 40 people and DIDN’T get the death penalty . If he didn’t deserve it. Who does? The poor Black kid who shot someone during a robbery? The illegal immigrant who killed his farm boss? The Indian kid who killed his principal?I just don’t get it.

Politricks on December 31, 2011 at 3:35 AM

It’s also not in all 50 states. Doesn’t that encourage people to commit heinous crimes in non-CP states?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:37 AM

It is uncivilized.

Our society was far more civilized in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries than it is now, and we used the death penalty for far less egregious crimes (some of which I would disagree with). However, some really monstrous crimes that were mentioned on this thread would never be tolerated in those time periods. We are too tolerant of those things that are uncivilized. And that’s what makes US uncivilized.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Duh. Ever hear of reliable eye witnesses or videotape?

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:35 AM

Eye witness testimony is very shaky. At least with DNA evidence you’re establishing some certainty.

But look at Cameron Todd Willingham’s case, made famous due to Rick Perry’s very tangential involvement. A lot of the evidence against him was supported by an arson ‘expert,’ who ended up being wrong on almost all of his findings, even though he was a veteran.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

He doesn’t get it. I notice a lack of logic in many of them. Lots of nonsensical stuff.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Eye witness testimony is very shaky. At least with DNA evidence you’re establishing some certainty.

That’s why the term “reliable” eye witness is used.

But look at Cameron Todd Willingham’s case, made famous due to Rick Perry’s very tangential involvement. A lot of the evidence against him was supported by an arson ‘expert,’ who ended up being wrong on almost all of his findings, even though he was a veteran.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM

No one ever brought up “expert witness”; at least not me. Another non sequitor.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:45 AM

Its a stupid point, but its your stupid point. Israel or New York, the fact that they are Jews does not make them moral authorities.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:31 AM

No, actually, it’s anuts’s stupid argument, but I don’t expect you to be paying attention.

And yes, it makes them more of an authority on Mosaic Law than you. So if you’re going to support capital punishment, don’t derive your authority from the Pentateuch. Which anuts specifically said he does.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:45 AM

That’s why the term “reliable” eye witness is used.

Yes, because people were only executed when there were ‘reliable’ eye witnesses. And it’s incredibly easy to establish how reliable an eye witness is. It’s an exact science!

No one ever brought up “expert witness”; at least not me. Another non sequitor.

So you don’t care about any scientific findings in a case besides DNA? Yeah, sure. “Modern science” executed an innocent man less than a decade ago.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:45 AM

He doesn’t get it. I notice a lack of logic in many of them. Lots of nonsensical stuff.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM

Your entire argument, especially your contentions about death penalty opponents, is a giant appeal to emotions. Seeing you talk about ‘logic’ is hysterical.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM

No, actually, it’s anuts’s stupid argument, but I don’t expect you to be paying attention.

No, it was yours.

And yes, it makes them more of an authority on Mosaic Law than you.

Gee, I thought it was Anuts point and here you are asserting it again?

So if you’re going to support capital punishment, don’t derive your authority from the Pentateuch. Which anuts specifically said he does.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:45 AM

The bible isn’t synonymous with modern Israel.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM

Our society was far more civilized in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries than it is now, and we used the death penalty for far less egregious crimes (some of which I would disagree with). However, some really monstrous crimes that were mentioned on this thread would never be tolerated in those time periods. We are too tolerant of those things that are uncivilized. And that’s what makes US uncivilized.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:41 AM

Oh, for sure. Slavery, child labor, disenfranchising minorities…we were a lot better off back then.

Among literate individuals, we were more cultured and probably a bit more intelligent. That’s about it, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:54 AM

Gee, I thought it was Anuts point and here you are asserting it again?

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM

Anuts’s point is that capital punishment is just/proper because of Mosaic Law. Are you honestly having trouble keeping up, or are you being purposely obtuse just to bug me?

If it’s the latter, I have to give you a round of applause, because it’s working. Excellent troll job, sharrukin.

The bible isn’t synonymous with modern Israel.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 3:48 AM

It’s still synonymous with modern Jewry. I’d love to hear which country has a better handle on Judaism than Israel. Is it Mozambique? I’ve got 5 bucks on Mozambique!

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 3:58 AM

It doesn’t matter what the conviction was for, or whether they were re-captured or not. The point was that you claimed that there were no prison breaks since you never heard about them (which is laughable in itself because it’s so Pauline Kael-like: “I don’t know how Nixon got elected because no one I know voted for him!”)

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:24 AM

Of course it matters. If a pickpocket escapes from prison and kills someone, how is that an argument for capital punishment? They wouldn’t have been given the death penalty from their first offense no matter what. It’s only valid when the escapee is serving a life sentence in lieu of the death penalty and then escapes.

And also, I didn’t say there were no prison breaks. I asked to be shown some because I hadn’t heard about any. You guys posted links, and what was the total body count from those recent escapes? Zero. And two of the escapees wouldn’t have been executed under any circumstances, if the information in those articles re: their original offenses is correct.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:03 AM

Remember guys, this is the person accusing me of not using logic:

These people don’t care. Those dead innocents mean nothing to them. They’re more worried about protecting rapists and murderers than they are about children.

Sick. This is why our society is so screwed up.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Bulletproof logic, right there.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:05 AM

They are hiding behind a fence and unwilling to deal with constant rockets being fired at them by shooting back. They have artillery and fighter bombers and should make such attacks very painful for their enemies.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Yeah, you’re right, the Israeli army is hiding. But you’re on the front lines, right sharrukin?

Non sequitor.

You’re thrashing about in a very silly manner now.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:13 AM

Murder is murder, dukecity. Why are you coddling killers? You can’t even follow your own moral edict. Why should anyone else listen to you?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:09 AM

Well, I’m done.

I’m bookmarking this thread, in case we lose in 2012. One of many threads that I’ll use as a reminder that we truly are the ‘stupid party,’ and we’re going to 100% deserve 4 more years of Obama if that ends up being the case. That, plus a few hundred bottles of vodka, should be enough to get me through the month of November.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:11 AM

I have never asserted Israel is any less authority of Mosaic Law. I’m only saying in terms of capital punishment, they’re not applying it. The application or non application is not an argument of authority.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:14 AM

No, it’s only synonymous with Judaism.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:16 AM

I have never asserted Israel is any less authority of Mosaic Law. I’m only saying in terms of capital punishment, they’re not applying it. The application or non application is not an argument of authority.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:14 AM

Neither are we. I don’t remember the last time we stoned an adulterer. So we’re really just arguing degrees, aren’t we?

Jews have been arguing about the true meaning of Mosaic Law for over 2,000 years. Hence the Talmud, Midrashim and the canon of Responsa. Saying that Israel isn’t following Mosaic Law just because they aren’t executing killers is a bit short-sighted.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:18 AM

In terms of capital punishment. I’m accurate in my assertion.

“If a man spills blood, so too shall his blood be shed by man.”

Mosaic interpretation in all five books of Moses on God’s Law.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:24 AM

I will give you guys credit for piquing my curiosity. I should probably read some of the recent Rabbinic commentary on capital punishment. Haven’t really had a reason to do that since I was in school.

Especially in the wake of the Shalit case, it should be a bit of a hot topic.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:26 AM

In terms of capital punishment. I’m accurate in my assertion.

“If a man spills blood, so too shall his blood be shed by man.”

Mosaic interpretation in all five books of Moses on God’s Law.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:24 AM

Like I said, if you’re purely taking a literal reading of the Pentateuch, then we should also be killing fornicators and witches. Christine O’Donnell should have been strung up in the town square.

But if Judaism has taught me anything, it’s that nothing is quite that simple. Hence the hundreds of thousands of pages of post-Biblical Jewish scholarship.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:29 AM

In terms of capital punishment. I’m accurate in my assertion.

“If a man spills blood, so too shall his blood be shed by man.”

Mosaic interpretation in all five books of Moses on God’s Law.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 4:24 AM

And in the new testament.

It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword. He is God’s servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer Romans 13:4

And Thomas Aquinas… “The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state,

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 4:30 AM

And in the new testament.

It is not without purpose that the ruler carries the sword. He is God’s servant, to inflict his avenging wrath upon the wrongdoer Romans 13:4

And Thomas Aquinas… “The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state,”

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 4:30 AM

You should tell that to Karol Wojtyla next time you see him. I think he disagreed.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:36 AM

How did this even become about capital punishment, anyway? I don’t think there’s been a Ron Paul related post for like 4 pages. This is like being on the Wikipedia page for Rebecca Black and ending up on Averroes. I don’t even understand how we got here.

God I hate the internet sometimes.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:49 AM

“The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state,”

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 4:30 AM

that’s exactly what the despotic communists rulers in Eastern Europe and former USSR preached and did…they’d be delighted 9where they are now) that they have been vindicated :-)

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 4:51 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:49 AM

To be clear, I understand that we’re discussing capital punishment because Ron Paul is currently anti-DP, and every other major candidate for the GOP nod is at least tentatively pro-DP. And, obviously, being pro-DP is a pillar of “true conservatism.”

Still, man…wow.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:57 AM

You should tell that to Karol Wojtyla next time you see him. I think he disagreed.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 4:36 AM

Gee, the scriptures, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas VS Pope John XII who turned the Vatican into a brothel and was nailing his own niece… oh wait. That was the other guy. Pope John Paul II was a different pope. Oh well. Same point. Some Pope who thinks he should do things his own way doesn’t trump far better sources.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 4:57 AM

that’s exactly what the despotic communists rulers in Eastern Europe and former USSR preached and did…they’d be delighted 9where they are now) that they have been vindicated :-)

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 4:51 AM

You know what despotic communists rulers also did? They went to the crapper! You know who else took a poop? Jesus. So Stalin is sorta Christlike.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM

that’s exactly what the despotic communists rulers in Eastern Europe and former USSR preached and did…they’d be delighted 9where they are now) that they have been vindicated :-)

jimver on December 31, 2011 at 4:51 AM

It’s also what the Chinese and North Korean leaders currently do. Well, at least they’ve got the blessing of Tommy Aquinas.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM

You know what despotic communists rulers also did? They went to the crapper! You know who else took a poop? Jesus. So Stalin is sorta Christlike.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:00 AM

If Iran, North Korea, China and the US were the only countries where people went to the john, you might have a point.

How many countries do you believe justly use the death penalty? Is it just us, sharrukin? Maybe Japan and Taiwan, also?

Gee, the scriptures, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas VS Pope John XII who turned the Vatican into a brothel and was nailing his own niece… oh wait. That was the other guy. Pope John Paul II was a different pope. Oh well. Same point. Some Pope who thinks he should do things his own way doesn’t trump far better sources.

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 4:57 AM

So Israel doesn’t know about Mosaic Law, and the Catholic Church doesn’t know about the New Testament. Let me guess, if I want to know how to hit a fastball, I should ask you before I ask Albert Pujols, right?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:04 AM

So Israel doesn’t know about Mosaic Law, and the Catholic Church doesn’t know about the New Testament. Let me guess, if I want to know how to hit a fastball, I should ask you before I ask Albert Pujols, right?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:04 AM

If you want to make an argument, then make the argument. Stop trying to find some authority to do it for you!

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:08 AM

If you want to make an argument, then make the argument. Stop trying to find some authority to do it for you!

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:08 AM

Says the guy falling back on St. Augustine because the Pope is against the death penalty. Hey, it’s not my fault the Pope is on that side of the debate. Take it up with the Catholic Church.

But I’m glad you’ve finally found some common ground with Islam: Love of capital punishment. If you can find some bands that you both like, I see the beginning of a beautiful friendship. You an Iron Maiden fan?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:13 AM

So Israel doesn’t know about Mosaic Law…

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:04 AM

They may know it through and through. It doesn’t take away the fact that they aren’t applying it. It would make an argument if and only if Israel said not applying capital punishment is consistent with Mosaic Law. Is that what you believe them to be doing?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:14 AM

How about we bring this back? Put it on pay-per-view. Now that’s a deterrent.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:16 AM

They may know it through and through. It doesn’t take away the fact that they aren’t applying it. It would make an argument if and only if Israel said not applying capital punishment is consistent with Mosaic Law. Is that what you believe them to be doing?

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:14 AM

Having talked to Rabbis who make that exact argument, yes, I believe that’s what they’re doing. I think they are using a modern interpretation of Mosaic Law.

And, for the record, so are we, or else we’d be killing people for breaking the Sabbath and false prophecy.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:21 AM

So, guys, how about that Ron Paul???

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM

So, guys, how about that Ron Paul???

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:22 AM

Isn’t he against the death penalty? :-)

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:26 AM

The Knesset is responsible for writing laws. It is a parliamentary and it is secular.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:27 AM

Isn’t he against the death penalty? :-)

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:26 AM

Currently, yeah.

“You know over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid to all my beliefs but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty.”

He’s been pretty flexible about it in the past, though, which is strange for him. I think his stance is more based on his complete distrust of all things relating to the government.

But yes, Ron Paul is one of the few major candidates I know who is both pro-life and anti-DP.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:29 AM

The Knesset is responsible for writing laws. It is a parliamentary and it is secular.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:27 AM

I know. I think that Israel’s stance on the death penalty has both a religious and secular basis.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:30 AM

But the funny thing is, I think Ron Paul’s stance on capital punishment is one of his least important stances when it comes to his electability. If anything, it might actually help him slightly among indies. So it’s strange to spend so long debating it, since it’s going to be such a tangential topic for the 2012 election.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:39 AM

I know. I think that Israel’s stance on the death penalty has both a religious and secular basis.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:30 AM

If it’s religious in basis, it is certainly not Biblical. I cannot imagine what other religion Israel would find influence in one of its laws.

Respectfully, it would take the most compelling of arguments I’ve ever seen to convince me that the very explicit commandment in all five books (I still believe its the only one which fits this claim–must be somewhat important) is exactly the opposite of what it says must be done. There is simply no reason (yet, admittedly) for me to consider that prospect. Far too many other subjects could an argument (and several compelling) make but the language and the repetition is so stark on this one its chances are very much nil.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 AM

But the funny thing is, I think Ron Paul’s stance on capital punishment is one of his least important stances when it comes to his electability.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Ha! I definitely agree with that.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:42 AM

If it’s religious in basis, it is certainly not Biblical. I cannot imagine what other religion Israel would find influence in one of its laws.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 AM

I agree, it would be post-Biblical. You’d have to start with the Mishnah and then work your way forward. Understandably, very few people besides serious scholars of Judaism ever wander into the territory of the Talmud, let alone the Midrashim or the Responsa. There’s a lot of it, it’s dense, and it doesn’t have many non-Jewish applications.

I enjoyed it when I briefly studied it, though I’d never want to dedicate my life to it, as some Rabbis do.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 AM

Respectfully, it would take the most compelling of arguments I’ve ever seen to convince me that the very explicit commandment in all five books (I still believe its the only one which fits this claim–must be somewhat important) is exactly the opposite of what it says must be done. There is simply no reason (yet, admittedly) for me to consider that prospect. Far too many other subjects could an argument (and several compelling) make but the language and the repetition is so stark on this one its chances are very much nil.

anuts on December 31, 2011 at 5:41 AM

Don’t underestimate those Rabbis from the Talmud. In one of my favorite stories, they win a theological argument with God himself, leading him to exclaim joyfully “My sons have defeated me!”

It’s in the Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 59b. As an example of how far afoot from the actual Biblical text some of these debates go, the argument in question is about making an oven.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:56 AM

The central thesis of Paul’s stump speech is that the government’s singular role is to protect our liberties. And part of true liberty, Paul believes, is making personal choices without interference from the federal government.

This is why Ron Paul has a bunch of die-hard fans.

p0s3r on December 31, 2011 at 6:05 AM

This is why Ron Paul has a bunch of die-hard fans.

p0s3r on December 31, 2011 at 6:05 AM

I thought it was the buffalo chicken dip recipe from his Ron Paul Survival Newsletter.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 6:06 AM

What’s hilarious is the most rabid Ron Paul Mitt Romney haters get their panties in a bunch when anyone makes the slightest derogatory comment about Mitt Romney Ron Paul.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Fixed.

itsnotaboutme on December 31, 2011 at 7:23 AM

agree, it would be post-Biblical. You’d have to start with the Mishnah and then work your way forward. Understandably, very few people besides serious scholars of Judaism ever wander into the territory of the Talmud, let alone the Midrashim or the Responsa. There’s a lot of it, it’s dense, and it doesn’t have many non-Jewish applications.

I enjoyed it when I briefly studied it, though I’d never want to dedicate my life to it, as some Rabbis do.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 5:50 AM

========================================================

Doesn’t have many non-Jewish applications??? I’m not sure what you were reading but it was not the Talmud or Gemmara. The Talmud is part of the Torah that was given by G_d at Mt. Sinai..it is just the oral Torah. The idea that it does not obtain to non-Jews is silliness. As Jews we believe that everything that happens in the world is a result of the actions and non-actions of the Jews. That is a core part of the Talmud.

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 7:47 AM

The threat of going third party is really disgusting to me.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:07 AM

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said in the interview, yet he wouldn’t commit to supporting him as the 2012 Republican candidate and refused to rule out a third-party run.

It’s such a blasted shame. If only the other candidates would speak about our constitutional rights the way Ron Pal does, it would be terrific. Every single member of the GOP should be speaking about our freedoms the way Ron Paul does… except for all the other nutty stuff.
But as for this quote on Romney.. it doesn’t even make any sense to me. If he really believes what he says he believes when it comes to liberty, then why would he think Romney is the least objectionable of all the candidates? What’s even strange to me is how he has dissed the other libertarian candidate.
There is something else going on in the Ron Paul mind. What that is God only knows.

JellyToast on December 31, 2011 at 8:12 AM

The idea that it does not obtain to non-Jews is silliness. As Jews we believe that everything that happens in the world is a result of the actions and non-actions of the Jews. That is a core part of the Talmud.

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Yeah, I understand the whole “oral Torah vs. written Torah” thing. But I don’t think many non-Jews are very interested in the Talmud or the other post-Biblical Jewish writings, except as a bit of eclectic philosophy. Just like I have some interest in Sikhism, but I’m unlikey to read the entire Adi Granth. Hell, even most Jews don’t do very much study of the Talmud, if any.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 AM

The threat of going third party is really disgusting to me.

mike_NC9 on December 31, 2011 at 8:07 AM

If he gets any significant wins in these primaries and then decides to go third party, Obama is pretty much assured a second term. I almost think he’d enjoy doing that to us all out of spite. The media wouldn’t even bother covering the GOP candidate.

Third party talk will be our doom.

JellyToast on December 31, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Yeah, I understand the whole “oral Torah vs. written Torah” thing. But I don’t think many non-Jews are very interested in the Talmud or the other post-Biblical Jewish writings, except as a bit of eclectic philosophy. Just like I have some interest in Sikhism, but I’m unlikey to read the entire Adi Granth. Hell, even most Jews don’t do very much study of the Talmud, if any.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 8:13 AM
====================================================
So, saying the Talmud is “post-biblical” is historically wrong. Moses received the oral Torah at the same time he received the written Torah..See Maimonides 13 principles of faith…

but even more important is that it is not important what man wants, it is what HaShem wants

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 AM

So, saying the Talmud is “post-biblical” is historically wrong. Moses received the oral Torah at the same time he received the written Torah..See Maimonides 13 principles of faith…

but even more important is that it is not important what man wants, it is what HaShem wants

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 8:32 AM

How is the Gemara not post-Biblical? The last bits of the OT were most likely written in exile around 500 BC. The Gemara was 200-500 CE. Even if you believe that the Mishnah comprises the oral Torah, the Gemara is a later redaction of the Mishnah by Rabbis. It’s post-Biblical by definition. And then all of the other writings that are post-Talmud.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 31, 2011 at 8:41 AM

What’s even strange to me is how he has dissed the other libertarian candidate.
There is something else going on in the Ron Paul mind. What that is God only knows.

JellyToast on December 31, 2011 at 8:12 AM

To me it’s simple. Ron Paul knows, and has always known, he can’t win the Presidency. I think he runs for his own ego, a narcisstic thrill. If he were truly serious about everything he says why hasn’t he accomplished anything towards these so-called ideals in all these years of public service. And as I tell his supporters, the perpetual money grubbing campaigning doesn’t count as an accomplishment. He is just a politician with perhaps an even bigger ego than most.

Deanna on December 31, 2011 at 8:43 AM

My problem with the death penalty is its not evenly applied. I live in WA state. Home of the green river killer. He killed over 40 people and DIDN’T get the death penalty . If he didn’t deserve it. Who does?

Putting aside the race-victimology for a moment, as with all chicken-or-egg equations, my question is why didn’t Washington execute the serial Green River murderer? Equal application of criminal penalties is essential to a just legal system, absolutely.

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM

What’s hilarious is the most rabid Ron Paul haters get their panties in a bunch when anyone makes the slightest derogatory comment about Mitt Romney.

I suspect he feels this way because of the knee-jerk defenses of Mitt by his supporters, which of course are the result of the sort of unhinged nature of the attacks on him, i.e. “I’ll never vote for Romney/O’Bomney the RINO/socialist/Democrat”, blah, blah, blah.

I personally have dropped to Romney for lack of a viable alternative. Not happy about it…stunned by some of the idiotic things he has done and his flip-floppery…and with no one else to support who can win.

Must rid the world of Our Idiot President.

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Our problem Mr. paul and others is not so much the economy -it is the moral depravity of the masses – so many of whom who no longer love America but themselves or their special interest group that has been politically divided and sectioned off from love of those value created this great nation.

Our economic arguments are merely a symptom of our moral corruption. Is it greed, envy or both? Are we now a nation that has so lost its focus,that the conservative party openly insists that we shouldn’t worry about killing innocent babies while we argue about important things like money?

Didn’t Nazi Germany raise itself from economic despair – only to become an efficient industrial machine? Have we so confused our priorities that we no longer care about God, family, and freedom – only to religate those values to a secondary role -or does separation of religion now mean the irrelevancy of right and wrong?

Don L on December 31, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Putting aside the race-victimology for a moment, as with all chicken-or-egg equations, my question is why didn’t Washington execute the serial Green River murderer? Equal application of criminal penalties is essential to a just legal system, absolutely.

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM

He plead guilty through a plea bargain where he gave the prosecutors information on more of the killings and where the bodies were. Also, the prosecutors in the Green River case wanted to solve as many of the murders as they could and I don’t think they had the evidence to prove them. So justice was served for more victims than a death penalty trial might have. I say might have because you never know with juries.

Deanna on December 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Are you the SIP yet?

hawkdriver on December 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Heh. I’m not a WO. Our SIPs a W4 with about 5000 hours.

BadgerHawk on December 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM

My problem with the death penalty is its not evenly applied. I live in WA state. Home of the green river killer. He killed over 40 people and DIDN’T get the death penalty . If he didn’t deserve it. Who does? The poor Black kid who shot someone during a robbery? The illegal immigrant who killed his farm boss? The Indian kid who killed his principal?I just don’t get it.

Politricks on December 31, 2011

If I’m not mistaken, he pled out to avoid the death penalty by disclosing all of the murders he committed and where the bodies could be found. That is gold to the prosecution and victims’ families.
It’s common for serial killers to use that as a factor in attempting to mitigate their sentence. The killers know it, their Public Defender knows it, or the scum just don’t care.
Arizona used to have the Gas Chamber. I’ve come in contact with more than one murderer over the years who I did recommend death. Hell, a couple of ‘em I would have “dropped the pill” (cyanide into a bucket of sulpheric acid) meself. Especially the baby killers and cop killers.

The rest of the quotes about Ron Paul being this ‘n that – the last thing he is socially conservative.

How on earth could the Great Libertarian say:

“Romney would be the least objectionable of his party’s potential nominees, Paul said.

Even the old, odd curmudgeon wouldn’t vote for him I bet.
It’s been nice knowin’ ya, Ronnie and the PaulBots.
(sorry, yer too white to be a MoTown band)

And this gem:

“On table outside a Paul town hall meeting in a public library here, attendees were offered fliers promoting Ron Paul as a ‘pro-life champion’ and somebody who would ‘defend traditional marriage.’

LOL. Does anyone believe that? So much for that “Libertarian”.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Ron Paul is not a LEADER. Compare and contrast him versus Reagan:

http://woody.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/12/ron-paul-vs-ronald-reagan.html

Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney for President for God’s sake! What’s wrong with you people?

Woody on December 31, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Instead of chewing on fellow Republicans, how about attacking Obama, the TRUE enemy.

Yup, its looking like the only thing that will fix the American mess is more Obama, more taxes, more foreclosures, more TARP, more bankruptcies, more EPA legislation, more SOCIALISM!

If voters can’t get behind the Republican candidate with the BOLDEST plan for change, then Obama will make America into another Europe.

Iran is waiting for someone like Ron Paul…..and Americans want to elect him. Give your heads a shake.

Sparky5253 on December 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM

But but but… Ron Paul!

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM

So justice was served for more victims than a death penalty trial might have. I say might have because you never know with juries.

Deanna on December 31, 2011 at 9:07 AM

And yet … it doesn’t feel like justice, does it? Not a good case to compare to other death penalty trials, imo, due to the plea bargain. It’s quite different from a caught-in-the-act murder. An extra-judicial execution of the suspect might have served society much better, but we do not reserve this right to law enforcement.

Jaibones on December 31, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Wow, this thread took a weird turn. Capital punishment? Geez.

What’s hilarious is the most rabid Ron Paul haters get their panties in a bunch when anyone makes the slightest derogatory comment about Mitt Romney.

I suspect he feels this way because of the knee-jerk defenses of Mitt by his supporters, which of course are the result of the sort of unhinged nature of the attacks on him, i.e. “I’ll never vote for Romney/O’Bomney the RINO/socialist/Democrat”, blah, blah, blah. ~snip~

Jailbones

The use of broad brushes on this site has reached a peak that’s been unheard of up until now. Painting anyone who opposes a candidate, for logically stated reasons, as a “hater” seems to have become a habit around here. I guess the trend started with the PDS crowd, many of whom have truly spewed hateful rhetoric at Palin and her supporters, and it’s mushroomed.

Instead of chewing on fellow Republicans, how about attacking Obama, the TRUE enemy. ~snip~

Sparky5253 on December 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Yes, we should focus on attacking Obama, but we are also conducting a primary, where we need to decide on the best candidate to oppose him. Characterizing all criticism as “bashing” will get us nowhere. Neither will painting people who simply disagree with us as “haters.” I’m not suggesting you’re doing those things, but many here are.

JannyMae on December 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Ron Paul’s is no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.
Both are loons that will eventually either self destruct, or cause the destruction of the world.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Settle down, Captain Hyperbole.

JohnGalt23 on December 31, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I’ll duck the death penalty thing other than to say I support it, though I wish it were more consistently applied. My beef is the amoral way winning has outpaced justice in the criminal justice systemn. It shouldn’t be about who can sway a jury better or has a nicer smile, but about the very real concept of guilt vs. innocence.

Pual is a loon, and has quietly played a great many people while talking out of both sides of his mouth..

I’ll be glad when Mr. One bill in twenty years.. fades from the spotlight, and his legion of Paulbots. Won’t miss you at all, won’t miss..

Ron Paul’s is no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.
Both are loons that will eventually either self destruct, or cause the destruction of the world.

Kini on December 30, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Settle down, Captain Hyperbole.

JohnGalt23 on December 31, 2011 at 12:46 PM

this either,..

Why is it, that dispite Paul’s epic indifference to Iran’s nuke program, his nitemarish dismmisal of Israeli security, and his lack of interest that even a restrained nuclear Iran may well require ramping up Col War II, with all the expenses and pitfalls that promises…

The Paulbots just yawn,…

Must be nice to not worry about things like life and death when Unca Paul says not too..

I remember air raid drills under a grade school desk, I did my time in the Cold War walking fence outside a nuclear missile base in Cheyenne Wy. in minus 50 degree snow.

and you folks just blow off a nuclear Iran like it was just another country like Japan, and not the greatest sponsor of terror in the world today..

perhaps you’ll gonna fall back on the “we deserve it” Paul school of thought?

Paul is insane, I could give a damn that some are so adoring of his economic stances, they ignore all else about him, his foreign policy is a trainwreck in progress. Only the most committed America Firsters cannot see that.

mark81150 on December 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Deanna on December 31, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Bingo! And if he runs 3rd party it’s apparent he places his ego above the good of the nation.

dukecitygirl on December 31, 2011 at 3:41 PM

i have this friend and he like farted? and some blood came out with the fart and stuff.

is this the sort of thing he should like go to the doctor for?

eh on December 31, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Had the radio on yesterday to hear an interview with Stephen Crowder. The host then took some calls from the audience. The first caller was a Paultard. This automaton for the Dr. kept saying that the host and Crowder didn’t understand freedom or the constitution because they didn’t support Herr Paul.

It was unbelievable.

Stick to blimps and overpasses Paulbots.

tom daschle concerned on December 31, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Why is it, that dispite Paul’s epic indifference to Iran’s nuke program, his nitemarish dismmisal of Israeli security, and his lack of interest that even a restrained nuclear Iran may well require ramping up Col War II, with all the expenses and pitfalls that promises…

The Paulbots just yawn,…

Um, I think you’re quite mistaken. We “Paulbots” (I prefer the term “rebel scum”) get our foreign policy information from experts, not the sissies who have never put on a uniform telling us what to be scared of. My experts include the following people:

1. Recently retired chief of Mossad (the Israeli Intelligence Agency, perhaps you’ve heard of them.) Meir Dagan called “attacking Iran the stupidest thing he had ever heard of”.
2. Newly hired chief of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, just said “that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon”
3. Dr. Robert Pape of the Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, which hold the most extensive database on terrorism in the world, has confirmed everything that Ron Paul asserts. In case you think he’s some sort of liberally biased person, note that his operation was funded in large part by the Rumsfeld Defense Dept. and the military uses his information for planning purposes.
4. The slew of ex-intelligence officers who have actually worked in and around the Middle East who confirm what Ron Paul is saying. The latest of these has been ex Marine and CIA agent, Michael Steele, but Michael Sheuer, Lt. Col. Anthony Schaeffer, and Col. MacGregor have all validated what Ron Paul says.
5. The fact that only 4% of Defense personnel bear 80% of the casualties and take only 1% of the budget. Where’s the other 99% going? The troops know the score, that’s why they contribute to Ron Paul more than any other candidate.

Please look these things up for yourself.

I will not be controlled by fear. over and out.

republicanmother on December 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

sharrukin on December 31, 2011 at 5:08 AM

I sorry, but I have to say it again. I find myself reading your entire thread of comments when you decide to get into a protracted conversation and concede you are one of the best debaters that we have on Hot Air. I’m sure you already know this. One question though, if I may. Did I understand you to say one time that you are an unbeliever or agnostic? I honestly do not recollect for sure but that is my impression of what you might have said in the past. And if I do recall that correctly, how is it that your Biblical knowledge is so in depth? The facts you’re citing are not only quite correct, the logic of which verses you are using are very appropriate for the arguments you make. IMHO.

hawkdriver on December 31, 2011 at 9:13 PM

republicanmother on December 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Save some of the Kool-Aid for the other nutballs, would ya please?

catmman on December 31, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Ron Paul always looks like his collar is choking him. Has anyone else noticed that?

bluegill on January 1, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6