Ron Paul to all the other non-Romneys: Drop out

posted at 12:45 pm on January 11, 2012 by Tina Korbe

After Ron Paul finished a distant second in the New Hampshire primaries last night, his campaign released a statement that calls for all the other candidates except Mitt Romney to drop out of the race. From the campaign:

The race is becoming more clearly a two-man race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, the candidate of authentic change. That means there is only one true conservative choice. …

We urge Ron Paul’s opponents who have been unsuccessfully trying to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney to unite by getting out of the race and uniting behind Paul’s candidacy.

Ron Paul has the boldest plan to cut spending, a dedication to protecting life, and a lifelong dedication to the Constitution and limited government. He also has the necessary support to campaign nationwide against Mitt Romney.

The statement also points out that Ron Paul has been shown in national polls as able to beat Obama — unlike any of the other non-Mitts. Like nearly everything Paul says, the statement is bold. Were it not Ron Paul making it — were it, say, Rick Santorum — it would probably be a more welcome sentiment to concerned conservatives. Those pesky foreign policy positions …

Still, for all that Mitt Romney has so far received little credit from the media for his doubleheader of victories and for all that Republican strategists routinely dismiss Ron Paul as a viable alternative to Romney, the two both proved a remarkable ability to attract support from Republicans of all ideological stripes. According to the exit polls,  42 percent of Republicans who consider themselves conservative on most policy matters voted for Romney and an additional 19 percent of Republicans who consider themselves conservative voted for Paul. In other words, they numbered one and two among conservative Republicans no less than among moderate-to-liberal Republicans.

Nevertheless, New Hampshire is a unique animal, known for the moderate tendencies of its residents. We’ll have a much better picture of the preferences of the entire GOP base after South Carolina.

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 4

What does Atlas Shrugged author think of Libertarians? In her own words.

Q: What do you think of the Libertariaan movement?

Ayn Rand: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works?

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

what i am trying to say is, we dont need to be in that part of the world or feel responsible for its pacification. if we are not there, other powers would worry about iran, namely the russians, indians and chinese.
the countries that has more to fear from iran is the saudis and all the other sunni states. they have lots of money, let them worry about the iranians.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 4:47 PM

We wouldnt need to be there if there wasn’t oil. But there is so we must deal with the people in the area. Letting them get a nuke will get us something much worse than North Korea.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Thats another thing that gets my blood pressure up.

Ron Paul has the most support of military personell. He gets the most $ donations….

What they don’t tell you is how much, well I’ll tell you. He got $34,000.00 From polifacts (I know) “After we conducted this rough check, Paul’s campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, said by email that their numbers showed that Paul garnered $34,480 from members of the military”

WOW a whole 34 G’s. Now that’s support.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Honest question – For those who are strongly anti-Romney, which would you choose: Romney or Paul? I know it’s a false choice, but humor me.

Dead Hand Control on January 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

i’d actually choose romney!! >____<

Sachiko on January 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

The cost of every product, every single one would esclate exponetially. When the cost of fuel rises, the the cost of delivering those products also rises. Stop seeing this so simplisticly because it is not that easy.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 4:54 PM

You’re right. If Iran blocked this waterway:

http://www.insideofiran.org/en/images/stories/march11/womrights/Strait_of_Hormuz_map.jpg

the global price of oil would rise to $11 and the price of every other good would rise to infinity.

EddieC on January 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Mittens. Paul’s foreign policy isnt based in reality.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

So, our choices of candidates are an anti semitic bigoted kook or a greasy status quo party hack whose stance on a given issue depends on what day it is? I don’t get the impression the GOP is taking the trajectory of our country very seriously.

Looks like I’ll be staying home again, hoping the GOP dies. Wake me when its over. Or don’t. I don’t really care anymore. I’m not meant to be represented anymore apparently.

austinnelly on January 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

So, our choices of candidates are an anti semitic bigoted kook or a greasy status quo party hack whose stance on a given issue depends on what day it is? I don’t get the impression the GOP is taking the trajectory of our country very seriously.

Looks like I’ll be staying home again, hoping the GOP dies. Wake me when its over. Or don’t. I don’t really care anymore. I’m not meant to be represented anymore apparently.

austinnelly on January 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

This is becoming more and more clearly understood day by day.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Dear Ron Paul: Pound sand.

ConservativeLA on January 11, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Bury head in sand and smoke wacky backy if Iran gets nukes.

Will the voters of South Caroline puh-LEEZE send Ron Paul to the funny farm, and let an adult run against Romney?

Steve Z on January 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

the global price of oil would rise to $11 and the price of every other good would rise to infinity.

EddieC on January 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Are you sure you didn’t mean to say that the the global price of oil would rise to eleventy?

Because it would pretty much amount to the same thing as what you wrote… nonsense.

$11 per… what? Barrel? Because I gotta tell ya, that doesn’t sound like a “rise” to me.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Will the voters of South Caroline puh-LEEZE send Ron Paul to the funny farm, and let an adult run against Romney?

Steve Z on January 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM

This

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

The good news is he,s not running for his congressional seat again.So after next January he can retire to the funny farm were he can sing all day.Their coming to take me away Ha Ha Hee Hee .Any man who would stand on stage and call Bradley Manley the person who leaked the secret documents a patron and political hero is just plain nuts.

logman1 on January 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Beautiful, just, beautiful. Hat tip to you!

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Looks like I’ll be staying home again, hoping the GOP dies. Wake me when its over. Or don’t. I don’t really care anymore. I’m not meant to be represented anymore apparently.

austinnelly on January 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Don’t give up. This is what our enemies (Collectivists) want us to do. The GOP/Left nor the Media have absolute control over “We the People”.

If Romeny ends up the Nominee we still have the opportunity to recreate 2010 and wipe out the RINOS and the Marxists out of the House and Senate for 2012.

With Mitt being a Centrist, he won’t have the “Stones” to go against both branches that are dominated by pro-constitutional political representatives. If Obama or Paul become president, the House and Senate are our last defense.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM

To the Paulites out there – Paul does want someone else policing the waters – the Founders didn’t believe in that – despite their sometimes voiced concerns over a standing army – they never had any qualms with a very robust navy – and they all used it, from Washington on down. Any historian of any worth knows full well a country’s economic health is driven by control of the seas. I realize many of you choose to discount this truth – but it is. All the economic dynasties were sea powers. If we leave, China more likely than not will fill the void to our detriment.

As to the straights of hormuz questions. Paul has said he will do nothing to stop it – zippo, he doesn’t see that as rising to the definition of war. To those who say let the Saudis handle it, I am impressed by your desire to have a major global conflict arise in the middle east – because that is what will happen – and suggest we will be able to stay out of it. If you believe that – please don’t vote, you will get my 20 year old males locked in not a war of our choosing with limited casualties but a knock out drag out shooting killing war, that may manage to suck in China, Russia and the US, and that would probably mean Russia absorbing the eastern European states, because Europe sure as he!! cannot defend herself.

Lastly, Paul is no Federalist, which is where Santorum bothers me as well. So is Paul going to legalize prostitution and override every state’s laws on the subject. He dislikes govt only when it doesn’t support what he wants, which he then would approve of a higher govt authority forcing it on an unwilling state. I haven’t heard him say he approves of Roe v Wade, but I can’t see why it would bother him. He seems to agree with the concept.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Actually, most military don’t donate to Herr Doktor so he doesn’t get the most support from military folks.

This is easy…

catmman on January 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM

We wouldnt need to be there if there wasn’t oil. But there is so we must deal with the people in the area. Letting them get a nuke will get us something much worse than North Korea.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:00 PM

no we dont need to be there for oil. if the iranians ended up blocking the straight, prices would of oil would go up, consumption would go down and a balance would be achieved.
a nuclear iran is only dangerous to its neighbors and we are not one of those neighbors. why we have to be the ones spending our blood and treasure putting iran in line?

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

And the goal posts move!

Can you really be so gullible as to believe politicians who have worked to expand government throughout their entire political careers are going to cut spending just because they say so now?

Yes, there are examples of Newt “talking about” cutting spending. There are even more examples of Newt actually doing the opposite:

Newt Gingrich Is No Conservative

So believe what you will–what a politician seeking the GOP nom is telling you, or the sum of his actions over his career.

EddieC on January 11, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Sorry, Fast Eddie. This is what you said:

Exactly. That’s why we should go with a candidate who won’t even propose cutting government spending, or, if we’re lucky, will work to expand it, like Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman, or Santorum.

EddieC on January 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

So, now you’re walking it back, claiming you don’t believe Newt when he proposes cutting spending? And you ignored my links to Santorum and Romney formally proposing their own plans for cuts? How dishonest of you!

Your premise was that Ron Paul is the only one proposing cutting government spending. That is completely false. You can try and walk it back all you want. It won’t change it. Whether or not you believe them is another story.

JannyMae on January 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

To the Paulites out there – Paul does want someone else policing the waters – the Founders didn’t believe in that – despite their sometimes voiced concerns over a standing army – they never had any qualms with a very robust navy – and they all used it, from Washington on down. Any historian of any worth knows full well a country’s economic health is driven by control of the seas. I realize many of you choose to discount this truth – but it is. All the economic dynasties were sea powers. If we leave, China more likely than not will fill the void to our detriment.

As to the straights of hormuz questions. Paul has said he will do nothing to stop it – zippo, he doesn’t see that as rising to the definition of war. To those who say let the Saudis handle it, I am impressed by your desire to have a major global conflict arise in the middle east – because that is what will happen – and suggest we will be able to stay out of it. If you believe that – please don’t vote, you will get my 20 year old males locked in not a war of our choosing with limited casualties but a knock out drag out shooting killing war, that may manage to suck in China, Russia and the US, and that would probably mean Russia absorbing the eastern European states, because Europe sure as he!! cannot defend herself.

Lastly, Paul is no Federalist, which is where Santorum bothers me as well. So is Paul going to legalize prostitution and override every state’s laws on the subject. He dislikes govt only when it doesn’t support what he wants, which he then would approve of a higher govt authority forcing it on an unwilling state. I haven’t heard him say he approves of Roe v Wade, but I can’t see why it would bother him. He seems to agree with the concept.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Ayup

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Those pesky foreign policy positions …

Oh, Tina, those pesky facts and that pesky thing called history. Check out the pesky history of conservatism and then check out the pesky history of progressive foreign policy.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Who would be more conservative in office? Ron or Mitt?

Valiant on January 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM

.Lastly, Paul is no Federalist, which is where Santorum bothers me as well. So is Paul going to legalize prostitution and override every state’s laws on the subject. He dislikes govt only when it doesn’t support what he wants, which he then would approve of a higher govt authority forcing it on an unwilling state. I haven’t heard him say he approves of Roe v Wade, but I can’t see why it would bother him. He seems to agree with the concept.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

There’s a federal law against prostitution???

LOL. No. Try again, dude.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Lastly, Paul is no Federalist, which is where Santorum bothers me as well. So is Paul going to legalize prostitution and override every state’s laws on the subject. He dislikes govt only when it doesn’t support what he wants, which he then would approve of a higher govt authority forcing it on an unwilling state. I haven’t heard him say he approves of Roe v Wade, but I can’t see why it would bother him. He seems to agree with the concept.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Son, go to the registrar of whatever school taught you Political Science, and tell them you want your money back, because they clearly did a very poor job teaching you about federalism.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

To those who say let the Saudis handle it, I am impressed by your desire to have a major global conflict arise in the middle east – because that is what will happen – and suggest we will be able to stay out of it.

i dont want a war in the middle east, i just reject the proposition that we are the responsible for the world stability.
you fear that we would not be able to stay out of that conflict? why not? apart from oil, that region is literally on the other side of the world.
on the other hand, assuming our role of world police, we are actually engaging in multiple wars. its an herculean task that soon enough we wont be able to pay for.
i really see little sense in this.

If you believe that – please don’t vote, you will get my 20 year old males locked in not a war of our choosing with limited casualties but a knock out drag out shooting killing war, that may manage to suck in China, Russia and the US,

this war wont happen because of nukes. mutually assured destruction will prevent this shooting war you are so afraid of.

and that would probably mean Russia absorbing the eastern European states, because Europe sure as he!! cannot defend herself.

the europeans have nukes and would not let that happen.

Lastly, Paul is no Federalist, which is where Santorum bothers me as well. So is Paul going to legalize prostitution and override every state’s laws on the subject

i think is main line is, states get to decide such stuff.

. He dislikes govt only when it doesn’t support what he wants, which he then would approve of a higher govt authority forcing it on an unwilling state. I haven’t heard him say he approves of Roe v Wade, but I can’t see why it would bother him. He seems to agree with the concept.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

no he is prolife and want to remove roe vs wade so that states could decide by thenselfs the abortion policy.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM

WHO IS RON PAUL?

RightXBrigade on January 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM

To the Paulites out there – Paul does want someone else policing the waters – the Founders didn’t believe in that – despite their sometimes voiced concerns over a standing army – they never had any qualms with a very robust navy – and they all used it, from Washington on down. Any historian of any worth knows full well a country’s economic health is driven by control of the seas.

Zomcon JEM on January 11, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Just to add, Thomas Jefferson, who Ron Paul has compared himself and his Libertarian ideas to, was considered an Anti-Standing Army candidate that opposed Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson send the USMC and the Navy to fight our nations first war against the Islamist Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. So, our first official use of the Navy was against Islamists. Which is why Thomas Jefferson acquired and studied the Koran. To learn how to defeat a determined bully and enemy. Stand up to them.

Ron Paul is no Thomas Jefferson.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Son, go to the registrar of whatever school taught you Political Science, and tell them you want your money back, because they clearly did a very poor job teaching you about federalism.

JohnGalt23 on January 11, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Yeah…I thought it best to just let that one go. He’s clearly at a disadvantage.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Just to add, Thomas Jefferson, who Ron Paul has compared himself and his Libertarian ideas to, was considered an Anti-Standing Army candidate that opposed Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson send the USMC and the Navy to fight our nations first war against the Islamist Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. So, our first official use of the Navy was against Islamists. Which is why Thomas Jefferson acquired and studied the Koran. To learn how to defeat a determined bully and enemy. Stand up to them.

Ron Paul is no Thomas Jefferson.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Oh goody, another clueless use of the First Barbary War. Our merchant ships were attacked and the president responded in defense. This is nowhere close to being antithetical to Paul.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Who would be more conservative in office? Ron or Mitt?

Valiant on January 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM

That’s a trick question. Neither.

Mitt was Left of Center in office, has shown no conservative principals at all. Being a Business man is not the same thing as believing in Capitalism or Conservatism as George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet have clearly reminded us of.

Ron Paul uses both Leftits and Captialist ideas and is just basically an anarchist. He promotes “Free Market” capitalism which but what Libertarians really want is no Government or moral judgement at all. This is where Ron Paul and his Libertarians shine, in the ideas of Amoral behavior.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:47 PM

no we dont need to be there for oil. if the iranians ended up blocking the straight, prices would of oil would go up, consumption would go down and a balance would be achieved.
a nuclear iran is only dangerous to its neighbors and we are not one of those neighbors. why we have to be the ones spending our blood and treasure putting iran in line?

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Yes we do. Oil goes up, consumption goes down, economy goes down. We’ve seen that before and its not that hard to grasp.

A nuclear Iran is a danger to us. With a nuke they can go about do what they want as North Korea can. Maybe you missed the North sinking a South destroyer. What did we do about it? Nothing because the North has nukes so instead of holding a flying circus and sinking all thier navy we do nothing. If we do have to do something it’ll end up with having to wipe a city or more off the map because of the nukes.

You really think a country thats already supporting terrorist in the mideast, south america and other places, that have sent arms, training, men to kill our troops in Iraq and Afganistan, and have attacked oil tankers before wont be a hell of a lot worse if they get a nuke? Lets not even think about what would happen if they set one off in a city in the US. Hell the money it would cost us alone would be more than what RP talks about cutting. Long term costs would be multi-trillions. I’m not going to even talk about the cost of life.

Your kidding yourself.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Oh goody, another clueless use of the First Barbary War. Our merchant ships were attacked and the president responded in defense. This is nowhere close to being antithetical to Paul.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

So, you just attack others with insults without links or proper retorts. This is what Libertarians do best, act like Intellectual elitists by insulting others without any coherent response to their opponents points. This much you share with the Left and Collectivism.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM

There’s a federal law against prostitution???

LOL. No. Try again, dude.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:31 PM

You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.
Perhaps that stems from seeing only what you want to see – whether it’s there or not.

Solaratov on January 11, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Yes we do. Oil goes up, consumption goes down, economy goes down. We’ve seen that before and its not that hard to grasp.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The majority of our oil comes from North America. Very little comes from the Persian Gulf.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:52 PM

And yet when something happens in the gulf the price of oil goes up even here, funny that.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Oh goody, another clueless use of the First Barbary War. Our merchant ships were attacked and the president responded in defense. This is nowhere close to being antithetical to Paul.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 5:45 PM

They were attacked even during the first two Presidents and before the nations founding. Thomas Jefferson did, indeed study Islam before setting out and deciding to go to war with the Islamic Barbary Pirates. This history is not in dispute. Ron Paul is constantly compared to Mr. Jefferson by so called Libertarians. I distinction needs to be made that Mr. Jefferson was in complete control of his faculties and his reason. Mr. Paul is not.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Yes we do. Oil goes up, consumption goes down, economy goes down. We’ve seen that before and it that hard to grasp.

so to protect our economy, we need to spend trillions in oversea wars that end up trashing our economy with debt. gotcha, makes sense!/

A nuclear Iran is a danger to us. With a nuke they can go about do what they want as North Korea can. Maybe you missed the North sinking a South destroyer. What did we do about it? Nothing because the North has nukes so instead of holding a flying circus and sinking all thier navy we do nothing. If we do have to do something it’ll end up with having to wipe a city or more off the map because of the nukes.

if we are not present in that region of the globe, i am sure the iranians will have other targets for their nukes. i bet on the saudis. let their neighbours worry about it.

You really think a country thats already supporting terrorist in the mideast, south america and other places, that have sent arms, training, men to kill our troops in Iraq and Afganistan, and have attacked oil tankers before wont be a hell of a lot worse if they get a nuke? Lets not even think about what would happen if they set one off in a city in the US. Hell the money it would cost us alone would be more than what RP talks about cutting. Long term costs would be multi-trillions. I’m not going to even talk about the cost of life.

Your kidding yourself.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

if we are not present in that region of the globe, i am sure the iranians will have other targets for their nukes. i bet on the saudis. let their neighbours worry about it.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM

this war wont happen because of nukes. mutually assured destruction will prevent this shooting war you are so afraid of.
nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Which shows that you just don’t know much about the Iranians or islam (sort of like ronpaul).
A-jad has stated on numerous occasions that Iran would welcome a nuclear conflagration – because that would sunnon the 12th Imam and lead to islam conquering the world.
Mutually Assured Destruction isn’t a deterrant unless BOTH parties are afraid of it.

You still need a little educatin’, son.

Solaratov on January 11, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Which shows that you just don’t know much about the Iranians or islam (sort of like ronpaul).
A-jad has stated on numerous occasions that Iran would welcome a nuclear conflagration – because that would sunnon the 12th Imam and lead to islam conquering the world.
Mutually Assured Destruction isn’t a deterrant unless BOTH parties are afraid of it.

You still need a little educatin’, son.

Solaratov on January 11, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Zomcon JEM was afraid a war with china or russia might arise out of an hypothetical middle east conflict. with these players, MAD works.
i know islam well and its possible that some iranian leadership actually believes that apocalyptic stuff, but this is for their neighbours to worry about. i reject the proposition that we have to assume the role of world police and drafted into spending our blood and treasure to put iran in line.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM

so to protect our economy, we need to spend trillions in oversea wars that end up trashing our economy with debt. gotcha, makes sense!/

Its not just the economy thats being protected. And if you Paul supporters really do care about the economy why do we rarely see any of you complaining about entitlements. Its always the military spending, funny that.

if we are not present in that region of the globe, i am sure the iranians will have other targets for their nukes. i bet on the saudis. let their neighbours worry about it.

Yeah. So they are messing around in South America because…?

if we are not present in that region of the globe, i am sure the iranians will have other targets for their nukes. i bet on the saudis. let their neighbours worry about it.

Yeah. So they are messing around in South America because…?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

i reject the proposition that we have to assume the role of world police and drafted into spending our blood and treasure to put iran in line.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:14 PM

We dont need to police the world, we do need to deal with parts of the world that effect us. We cant stick our heads in the sand and wish it away.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:19 PM

And yet when something happens in the gulf the price of oil goes up even here, funny that.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM

What a great reason to quit foreign oil and increase our output, which would drive down costs.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 6:21 PM

And if you Paul supporters really do care about the economy why do we rarely see any of you complaining about entitlements. Its always the military spending, funny that.…

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I’d like to see them all ended. How about that?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

if the iranians ended up blocking the straight, prices would of oil would go up, consumption would go down and a balance would be achieved.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I wonder, do you think that the US consumption needs to go down?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:23 PM

What a great reason to quit foreign oil and increase our output, which would drive down costs.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Nothing wrong with that. Its not going to happen anytime soon though.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I’d like to see them all ended. How about that?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I wouldnt mind not having a military but thats about as realistic as getting rid of all entitlements. Have any ones that have a real chance of going away?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Its not just the economy thats being protected. And if you Paul supporters really do care about the economy why do we rarely see any of you complaining about entitlements. Its always the military spending, funny that.

i am allways talking about small goverment here in HA.

Yeah. So they are messing around in South America because…?
Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM

venezuela you mean, i think that is a waste of money on their part. they might be dreaming they are soviet union and want to set up a missile base there.
ofcourse, they would not be doing such things if we were not present in the middle east.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I wonder, do you think that the US consumption needs to go down?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:23 PM

let the market decide. if the oil gets too expensive, then naturally consuption would go down.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:38 PM

venezuela you mean, i think that is a waste of money on their part. they might be dreaming they are soviet union and want to set up a missile base there.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, others, or is Hezbollah not armed and funded by Iran?

ofcourse, they would not be doing such things if we were not present in the middle east.

Yeah they are launching attacks in Brazil and Argentina because of us. After all it is always are fault.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, others, or is Hezbollah not armed and funded by Iran?

ofcourse, they would not be doing such things if we were not present in the middle east.

Yeah they are launching attacks in Brazil and Argentina because of us. After all it is always are fault.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:49 PM

i am a bit lost, what exactly is happening in all those countries?
links to news please.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM

When neither party follows the laws set forth in the Constitution then you sort of have “anarchy through tyranny”. Paul dares demand strict adherence to the law of the land which is the antithesis to anarchy. Anyone who suggests a Constitutionalist is an anarchist is a complete moron.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Yeah they are launching attacks in Brazil and Argentina because of us. After all it is always are fault.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Paul merely points out the unintended consequences from our foreign intervention. Just as he does with our economic intervention. You seem to have no problem grasping one, but are offended by the other, even though they’re both one in the same. Odd.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM

i am a bit lost, what exactly is happening in all those countries?
links to news please.

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Well you could start with:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/TerrOrgCrime_TBA.pdf

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Paul merely points out the unintended consequences from our foreign intervention. Just as he does with our economic intervention. You seem to have no problem grasping one, but are offended by the other, even though they’re both one in the same. Odd.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 11, 2012 at 7:06 PM

No I’m offended that its ALWAYS our actions as if they do nothing on thier own. Democratic talking points always offend me. Other countries have thier own motivations. If you think that Iran isnt playing a long game of thier own you are kidding yourself.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Mittens. Paul’s foreign policy isnt based in reality.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

And Mitten’s policy is to make Bain Capital go global? Wow.

TheAlamos on January 11, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Well you could start with:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/TerrOrgCrime_TBA.pdf

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 7:18 PM

that is it?
some obscure islamic terrorist\drug traffickers that as you know are all over the world, deal drugs and were planing some terrorist attacks that to my knowledge never happened?
pffff

nathor on January 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I wouldnt mind not having a military but thats about as realistic as getting rid of all entitlements. Have any ones that have a real chance of going away?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 6:30 PM

You were talking about entitlements and lamenting how Paul supporters supposedly never address them. I said I’d like to see them all go away. So now you’re complaining about that?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM

So if we just stick our heads in the sand, no foreign entity will ever bother us again.

Total and utter bullsh!t, that’s pacifism.

Pacifist always get crushed by their enemies,

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 7:47 PM

No I’m offended that its ALWAYS our actions as if they do nothing on thier own. Democratic talking points always offend me. Other countries have thier own motivations. If you think that Iran isnt playing a long game of thier own you are kidding yourself.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 7:25 PM

And one of the reasons we (Paul supporters) warn about intervention – is that yes, they will attack us, but they’ll attack us because they don’t want us over there! So, often times you guys end up proving our point without realizing it.

The entire Iran conflict WAS started by us way back in the 1950′s when we overthrew their democratically elected leader. This is where this all started.

Of course they do actions of their own, but this is OUR COUNTRY so we’re responsible for our OWN ACTIONS first and foremost. Secondarily, the United States is the most powerful nation and military in the history of the world and as a result we HOLD THE POWER to END these conflicts.

The Paul suggestion is that we recognize the inciting incident so that we don’t make the same mistakes again and to point out how our meddling in the Middle East has dangerous consequences. At this point the best bet is to leave Iran alone. Stop putting sanctions on them.

Let’s face it – the reason people like you demonize Iran is because of their faith and more importantly, their culture. And for years we’ve been keeping our powerful thumb on that nation because they dare choose a culture and faith that’s very different from ours. If the Iranians wanna live in la-la land and force religion down their people’s throats – then so be it. That’s THEIR NATION AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THEM.

I could care less. I would never want to live there, but it’s not my choice or responsibility to change their culture. It’s not yours either. I have no doubt we could be on reasonably good terms with Iran – IF WE WANTED TO. WE HOLD THE POWER TO CHANGE THIS RELATIONSHIP, IRAN DOES NOT. And that’s the truth whether you like it or not.

fatlibertarianinokc on January 11, 2012 at 7:49 PM

You were talking about entitlements and lamenting how Paul supporters supposedly never address them. I said I’d like to see them all go away. So now you’re complaining about that?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM

All of them really isnt addressing them is it?

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM

>The statement also points out that Ron Paul has been shown in national polls as able to beat Obama

Unfortunately Mittens has the rich bankers (Goldman Sachs is his top donor) and the corporate media on his side.

We’ll see Romney vs. Obama in the general election.

Four more years of deficit spending and interventionist foreign policy, here we come. Thanks neoconservatives for fucking over the Republican party once again.

popularpeoplesfront on January 11, 2012 at 7:50 PM

You were talking about entitlements and lamenting how Paul supporters supposedly never address them. I said I’d like to see them all go away. So now you’re complaining about that?

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Libertarians hold no moral values whether it be philosophical or religious. They just blurt out policy points with no coherent rationality or reason other than being Anti-Governmental and Anti Establishment. They want to cut all government at every level and use no ethics or moral judgement in doing so using an anthing goes and “do it if it feels good” hippie point of view.

So, yes, Libertarians do want to cut entitlement programs, the military, and the entire US government system while simultaneously embracing every Marxist Social issue as well.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Let’s face it – the reason people like you demonize Iran is because of their faith and more importantly, their culture.

Ahhh the race card. More democratic talking points.

If the Iranians wanna live in la-la land and force religion down their people’s throats – then so be it. That’s THEIR NATION AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THEM.

Thing is they are not just doing that are they?

I could care less. I would never want to live there, but it’s not my choice or responsibility to change their culture. It’s not yours either. I have no doubt we could be on reasonably good terms with Iran – IF WE WANTED TO. WE HOLD THE POWER TO CHANGE THIS RELATIONSHIP, IRAN DOES NOT. And that’s the truth whether you like it or not.

Hmm where did I say I wanted to change their culture? Ohhh thats right, more of the race card stuff.

Its nice you have no doubt we could be on good terms with the current holders of power there. Its too bad that their actions over past 30 years put doubt in my mind. As for Iran not having the power to change the relationship, you dont think that they could stop supporting terrorists, sending arms to insurgents that kill our troops, and stop building a nuke? I think that would change the relationship but I guess thats just me.

Sultanofsham on January 11, 2012 at 8:07 PM

I recycled these form 2008 but I think they still work for 2012.

Movie Poster: Conspiracy Theory

YouTube: Ron Paul Campaign Blimp. Goes down in Flames.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 8:19 PM

So if we just stick our heads in the sand, no foreign entity will ever bother us again.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 7:47 PM

No one is making that argument.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Libertarians hold no moral values whether it be philosophical or religious.

Egfrow on January 11, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ok, so you’re a willfully ignorant person who has no opinion worth listening to.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Ron Paul is a joke. He’s:
* an anti-semite
* a 9/11 truther
* believes Iran deserves to have a nuclear weapon
* wants to decimate our armed services
* is an isolationist
* has been running for president since the 1980′s, ego-maniac
* is not a conservative
* is not a conservative
* did not like Ronald Reagan

Mark7788 on January 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I see that the unfounded fear of Ron Paul goes deep in here. Do yourselves a favor and actually research his positions and then ask yourself who is the true, limited government Conservative in the race. Then, you won’t be surprised when you see Ron Paul gaining in the polls in upcoming states as well. Ron Paul is the true not-Romney and these posers need to bow out.

Decoski on January 11, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Bmore on January 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM

I’m up Norf, HON! Nice to meet yewwws.

Laura in Maryland on January 12, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Decoski on January 11, 2012 at 11:56 PM

You guys really need to get a couple of different talking points booklets. Or at least learn to phrase the things that you say a bit differently from the last dozen paulbots who keep saying the same things over and over.
You really are becoming tiresome.

Solaratov on January 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Ron Paul is a joke. He’s:
* an anti-semite
* a 9/11 truther
* believes Iran deserves to have a nuclear weapon
* wants to decimate our armed services
* is an isolationist
* has been running for president since the 1980′s, ego-maniac
* is not a conservative
* is not a conservative
* did not like Ronald Reagan

Mark7788 on January 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM

All of these are false.

Dante on January 12, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Ok, so you’re a willfully ignorant person who has no opinion worth listening to.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Do you Ron Paul Libertarian have any actual substance to your rebuttals or is labeling and attacking insults all you people can d0?
Libertarian, such as yourself, operate with the same tactics as the Left except that you all pretend to be Conservatives or Constitutional Patriots using half the language of the Right and the Left.
Your ideas are naive and dangerous and are more tantamount to a mass temper tantrum as policy rather than a clear and coherent political and philosophical ideology such as your the naive and ridiculous Non Aggression Axiom which is a rip off of Ayn Rand’s version without any philosophical undertones or merit.

You collectively act as angry teenagers rebelling against any authority in any form. Ron Paul has achieved very little as a Senator following his Libertarian Utopia plan. Libertarian Ideas will drag this nation into ruin faster and worse than the Marxists. You you all base your ideas on simplistic world views from disgruntled cooks. You are in a cult and should grow up.

Oh, and 911 was perpetrated by Islamic Terrorists who hate western freedoms, not the US Government. Just to be clear

Egfrow on January 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Does Romney/Paul win the GOP The White House and get rid of Obama?

Dino V on January 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Do you Ron Paul Libertarian have any actual substance to your rebuttals or is labeling and attacking insults all you people can d0?

Egfrow on January 12, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Because this, and most of the rest of your post wasn’t an insult either?

Libertarian != anarchist or immoral, and saying it over and over won’t make it so. The Founders were very religious and moral people, yet they wrote the Consitution the way they did as a very limited government for very specific reasons. So why does someone who wants a very strict reading of the Constitution to be the basis of our current government somehow make a person immoral now? Or would you argue that the Founders were immoral and lacking in religion despite every evidence to the contrary?

gravityman on January 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I’ve got another suggestion to Paul and the Paulites, why don’t YOU drop out? You with your weirdo foreign policy, legalization of drugs, etc. What a complete weirdo. Maybe Paul can join the freak show at the carnival after he’s booted out of the race once and for all….

jfs756 on January 12, 2012 at 3:12 PM

So if we just stick our heads in the sand, no foreign entity will ever bother us again.

D-fusit on January 11, 2012 at 7:47 PM

No one is making that argument.

Dante on January 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Paul’s argument is that if the US had (at some undefined point in history) withdrawn its influence strictly to within its borders, that those who oppose freedom and who want to kill us would then leave us alone. And the US would be a wealthier nation. And the world would be a safer place.

Which is basically the same as the head-in-the-sand argument.

This is why, aside from his certain defeat if nominated (his racist, antisemitic back story insures this), Paul must be defeated, leaving way for a conservative with a chance to represent the GOP.

shinty on January 12, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Paul does have a valid point. As long as Paul is in the race, no other candidate can garner the support needed to overtake the Republican establishment’s pro Romney machine.

aposematic on January 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4