Ron Paul revolution is well beyond the fringe

posted at 1:31 pm on May 28, 2012 by Craig Westover

After a lengthy analysis of the Ron Paul influence evident at the Minnesota GOP Convention May 18-19 in St. Cloud (“Libertarian surge remakes state GOP,” May 20), the burning question for the Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial Board was whether “a caucus-based political system that magnifies populist tides [and enabled Paul supporters to dominate the state convention] serves this state well.”

Couple that with a harsher Washington Post piece published in full online (“The party of Ron Paul?” May 24) — which labeled recently adopted planks in the Iowa Republican Party platform “wacky” and “nutty” and gleefully anticipated “a few highly visible fights” erupting over “Paulite positions in the national platform” — and it’s evident the Strib is a more than a little confused about what the Ron Paul revolution is all about.

Let me do what I can to clarify.

First, let’s understand what a “movement” or a “revolution” is. All movements — the Pat Robertson Republican coup in the 1980s, gay rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights and, yes, the Ron Paul movement — follow a common pattern.

Movements all begin at the margins with people who have little or nothing to lose. Unsuccessful movements never expand beyond the sloganeering fringe. Successful movements — those with an intellectual and moral basis — mature to attract a mainstream following.

The gay-rights movement is a great example. Shirtless hunks in leather tutus and motorcycling “Dykes on Bikes” are no longer the point of the gay-rights spear. It’s the gay lawyer/gay accountant, lesbian legislator/lesbian physician — same-sex couples with kids and fundamental concerns about faith, family and freedom — who are now the face of the movement.

Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do. But focusing on the fringe of the Ron Paul movement is exactly what the Strib and WaPo commentaries actually do.

Libertarians today are on that cusp between being all about the T-shirt and all about ideas. I was a libertarian before it was cool and a Republican when it wasn’t cool.

As a political force in the 1970s, libertarians had little to lose. They were the folks who couldn’t be Democrats because they believed their money was theirs to spend; but they couldn’t be Republicans because they wanted to spend it on drugs and prostitutes.

Times have changed.

Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk.

But, says the Washington Post, Americans aren’t buying that argument. If it were, Ron Paul would get more than 15 percent of the primary vote.

The Strib offers its caucus-questioning advice to an implied majority of “voters who believe government remains a useful tool for improving people’s lives.” Unfortunately, that glass-half-empty perspective on the Ron Paul revolution misses a significant point.

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

A viable presidential challenge built by sticking to principle, not telling people only what they want to hear, is a political story the Strib and the Washington Post would shout from the rooftops — if only the message were a message they wanted to hear.

The power of an idea, personal freedom, doesn’t lie in manufactured popularity.

What about that Paul-inspired “wacky,” “nutty” “constitutional fundamentalism” found in Republican Party platforms?

Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.

It’s a party that stands for something.

That brings us to the WaPo admonition that “Paulites” learn to compromise, lest, says the Strib, the philosophical gulf “that’s already proving difficult to bridge by those seeking to govern this state” grows even wider.

One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.

The Republican problem is buying into the “compromise is good” argument and declaring victory for every move to the left that “could have been so much worse.”

Paulites won’t make that compromise.

Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

All that said, I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves. The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

——–

Craig Westover is a Republican activist and a Ron Paul delegate to the Republican National Convention. Follow him on Twitter: @CraigWestover and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/craig.westover.

This article originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune May 26. 2012.

 

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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 6 7 8

You’re straying just a little bit. The ridiculous claim is that they hate us because we’re free (or some permutation of the phrase). The fact is, they hate us because we’re there. Instead of buying into the propaganda, all one has to do is read bin Laden’s declaration of war published in 1996, in which he specifically states why … and it’s not because we’re free.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

There you go. Trust Bin Laden’s words. That’s all you need to support your isolationist pacifist principles? I would have thought you’d need Ron Paul to agree with Bin Laden first.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

They didn’t sign the bill, Romney did.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It doesn’t matter. The individual mandate was a conservative idea that was proposed by a conservative think tank and that several Republican senators back in the early 90s supported.

Mitt Romney took a conservative idea from the Heritage Foundation and implemented it. Democrats proposed some changes to it and Romney vetoed them but was overriden by the Democrats.

Obama corrupted the conservative proposal in several significant ways that made his health plan NOT a conservative one.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Instead of buying into the propaganda, all one has to do is read bin Laden’s declaration of war published in 1996, in which he specifically states why … and it’s not because we’re free.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I am. Are you?

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

There you go. Trust Bin Laden’s words. That’s all you need to support your isolationist pacifist principles? I would have thought you’d need Ron Paul to agree with Bin Laden first.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Oh, I see. You’re not just ignorant; you’re willfully ignorant.

Good day, then.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Stunning isn’t it?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM

It doesn’t matter. The individual mandate was a conservative idea that was proposed by a conservative think tank and that several Republican senators back in the early 90s supported.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

No, it was never a ‘conservative’ idea, it was a corporatist idea. It was corrupt insurance and healthcare corporations climbing in bed with their cronies in the government, which they donated money to, to their mutual benefit.

Romney was the first, Obama the second, and out of 300 million people they are among the last people who should ever be POTUS.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Oh, I see. You’re not just ignorant; you’re willfully ignorant.

Good day, then.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

If your meaning is that I don’t agree with Bin Laden’s words that if we get out of Islamic lands then all will be well? That’s ignorant?

Your shameful capacity to blame us first knows no limits. What’s next, Ahmadinejad or Saddam Hussein’s words claiming they had and have no weapons programs? Their right to peaceful nuke programs if they do?

I’ll take my ignorance to your delusions any day.

Next non-campaign commercial: “Bin-laden told us if we got out he’d leave us alone.” Brought to you by Ron Paul who thinks the Republican party sucks, but he can’t get attention any other way.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No, it was never a ‘conservative’ idea, it was a corporatist idea. It was corrupt insurance and healthcare corporations climbing in bed with their cronies in the government, which they donated money to, to their mutual benefit.

…At the expense of our freedom and liberty.

If it is a ‘conservative’ idea: Obamacare is funded the same way, doesn’t that suggest that Obama is a ‘conservative’ just like Romney pretends to be?

No, it does not, and it doesn’t make Obama a Marxist, either, any more than it does Romney, because if anything cronyism underlying Obamneycare is fascist, not Marxist, as Romney supporters falsely claim.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

It doesn’t matter how many there are – I don’t want them interfering in my life. If they would stay in their own hell-holes and shut up, all would be bright – but they won’t, hence the need to subdue them.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Wow. That’s an eye opening statement. How far are you willing to go to subdue others? I don’t want to live anywhere where you or anyone who thinks like you has authority of any kind. That is the antithesis of freedom.

JSGreg3 on May 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

snoopicus on May 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM

.
You forget the birth certificate posts.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM

.
Abortion and gay marriage threads will top 300 most times.

listens2glenn on May 29, 2012 at 2:03 PM

“Trust the truthful Iranians. And don’t believe a word the Israelis say.” – Brought to you by Ron Paul, who thinks the Republican party sucks, but can’t get any attention on his own.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 2:05 PM

are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I am. Are you?

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

It’s just odd that you so often place another nation before this one, and have derision for people who aren’t citizens of that nation, expecting them to feel patriotism and loyalty to a nation that isn’t theirs. So once again i ask,……..are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

It’s just odd that you so often place another nation before this one, and have derision for people who aren’t citizens of that nation, expecting them to feel patriotism and loyalty to a nation that isn’t theirs. So once again i ask,……..are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Now look who’s trying to be cute and failing miserably. That’s all you have: lies and evasion.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Wow. That’s an eye opening statement. How far are you willing to go to subdue others? I don’t want to live anywhere where you or anyone who thinks like you has authority of any kind. That is the antithesis of freedom.

JSGreg3 on May 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

No, it’s not at all eye-opening, because you missed the entire point of what was said. The point was that we have to subdue these people because THEY won’t leave US alone. THEY are constantly working to subdue US!

That’s the point that Ron Paul and his idiot adherents don’t get. They believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, that they will leave us alone. They could not be more wrong, therefore, they are dangerous.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Now look who’s trying to be cute and failing miserably. That’s all you have: lies and evasion.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Classic psychological projection, from a master of denial. Kudos to you! You make Doc Trock seem honest and reasonable in comparison.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM

t’s just odd that you so often place another nation before this one, and have derision for people who aren’t citizens of that nation, expecting them to feel patriotism and loyalty to a nation that isn’t theirs. So once again i ask,……..are you an American citizen?

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Now look who’s trying to be cute and failing miserably. That’s all you have: lies and evasion.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM

lol, ok, for anybody not aware, that paragraph was lobbed at me by dante the other day in the greenroom, after i critiqued his messiah, you see for the past month or so Dante thought it would be cute to question my citizenship, i of course knew the intent of the question and ignored it, the intent was to disparage me as an “Israelifirster” or a Jew with dual citizenship/loyalty, you see it is the hallmark of nearly every paulbot on the internet, and we have also seen it numerous times on this thread with disgusting fashion,to make this type of accusation. Of course elsewhere they are more graphic, ” bloodsucking leech, parasite, zionist etc.. is an insult found on nearly every Paul thread on the internet.

so let me clarify for you, yes, i am an American citizen, do you know what else i am? a 9/11 first responder, i’ve got respiratory issues that started about a month after that day and never went away from being at that site. My uncle and father worked in wtc in a investment firm at the upper level.

So when i see a POS like you with your bin laden talking points, justifying his mass murder because your neo-nazi friendly messiah Paul says we deserved it and had it coming i am disgusted. When i see you and your bin laden spokesperson buddies scream that it was the Jooos fault, not al-qaeda i am disgusted. When i have my citizenship questioned by a Islamic mass murder apologist because i support or defend Israel against Paulbot tirades that they constitute all the evil in the world i am also disgusted.

So i think we have a problem here, call it a differing perception of reality.

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Re the islamist apologist

The fact is, they hate us because we’re there. Instead of buying into the propaganda, all one has to do is read bin Laden’s declaration of war published in 1996, in which he specifically states why … and it’s not because we’re free.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Where we on 9/10/01 that we shouldn’t have been? Saudi Arabia? We were there at the invitation of the Saudi monarchy because Saddam Hussein invaded Saudi territory during the first gulf war.
Bin Laden’s declaration also gives the terms of our surrender. That we give up the Constitution for sharia law and convert en-masse to islam.

You may actually be that gutless and devoid of principles that you are willing to go that far to appease these monsters but I doubt it. I think on some level you are actually happy that better men and women do your dirty work by fighting these pigs. That isn’t going stop you from trying to denigrating what they do so you can indulge yourself in some moral preening at the expense of the effort to keep the USA strong and safe though.

You are soooo morally superior for taking bin Laden’s side Dante! Nothing inverted about it!

Actually, people like you, who take to the web and blame the USA for 1400 years of islamic terrorism have done more to undermine Ron Paul then you can imagine. On that note, you finally did your country a service.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM

golembythehudson on May 29, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Well it only took about twenty times before you answered the question. Was that such a hard thing to do?

Apparently it was, since you continue to spout your unhinged paranoid delusions.

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Dante… in a way I resent people like you more that I do the idiots who believe that they are going to paradise to collect 72 black eyed virgins and cool, clear water. There is no reason for them to know better. You just like to crap in your own nest and think of yourself as enlightened for it. Go find someplace else to crap in.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Rand Paul would make a great VP pick. Just putting it out there, people. :-D

Punchenko on May 29, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Where we on 9/10/01 that we shouldn’t have been? Saudi Arabia? We were there at the invitation of the Saudi monarchy

So?

You are soooo morally superior for taking bin Laden’s side Dante! Nothing inverted about it!

Taking his side? You do realize this is the exact same thing the CIA says as well, right? So, for example, I suppose when one parrots the poorly translated “wipe off the map” Ahmadenajad quote, and takes it literally – or believes it, that must mean one is taking his side, too.

Brilliant logic. Absolutely brilliant.

Actually, people like you, who take to the web and blame the USA for 1400 years of islamic terrorism have done more to undermine Ron Paul then you can imagine. On that note, you finally did your country a service.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Fantastic use of a straw man. Well done!

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM

So?

So give al Qaeda a veto on our foreign policy. Lets just grovel to anyone who has a molotov cocktail.

Taking his side? You do realize this is the exact same thing the CIA says as well, right?

The CIA said we shouldn’t have any foreign obligations… Well no, they didn’t. I see you just breezed by the whole “abandon the constitution, adopt sharia law and convert to islam” portion of our appeasement. Leaving Saudi Arabia isn’t going to do it for them.

And no, islamist apologist; “wipe Israel off the map” is what he said, what they say over and over. It isn’t a translation error.

Fantastic use of a straw man. Well done!

Not a straw-man. People like you and the others that I have seen in the Ron Paul echo-chambers are morally repugnant. You have the effect of driving people away as you try to brow-beat them into supporting your candidate. Well done. You finally did something good for the USA.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM

That’s the point that Ron Paul and his idiot adherents don’t get. They believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, that they will leave us alone. They could not be more wrong, therefore, they are dangerous.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Exactly.

The world does not work that way, never has and never will. People do not behave that way, never have and never will.

Ron Paul’s libertarian “it is none of our business” isolationism is based on a utopian ideal that has no basis in history or the reality of human behavior. It is also based on a very narrow view of what “our business” is.

It is extremely dangerous to base foreign policy on a severely flawed and wrong view of human nature, on how humans beings should behave rather than on how they actually behave. It is extremely dangerous to ignore the historic aggressive behavior of many groups of human beings, be they aggressive neighborhood gangs, clans, tribes, city states, nation states, allied groups of nation states, or allied religious extremists. It is extremely dangerous to think allies are unnecessary and that we can sit behind our borders and wait, only confronting threats and aggression, alone and without allies, when it directly attacks us within our borders, the rest of the world be damned.

This is why I abandoned the LP and libertarianism. It is not rooted in reality any more than modern American liberalism is or Soviet communism was. It is why I consider Ron Paul an unserious fringe extremist.

Until the “Ron Paul revolution” stops dreaming utopian fantasies and accepts the real world as it is when it comes to foreign policy it will remain a small fringe minority.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Sorry, but AnnoyingLittleTwerp is right.

Go educate yourself by reading “Milestones” by Qutb, and then come back to us. Islamists want world domination. Why don’t you read what their lovely holy book has to say about how non-believers should be treated.

Quit trying to rationalize or legitimize the evil, barbaric, Middle Ages-style behavior of subhuman religious zealots. How interesting that they are causing problems in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Africa, South Asia, etc… I guess the USA and Israel are to blame for all that, too? Gee, if only we kept our noses out of the Middle East, then all the Islamists would be good little Muslims and live in peace with their neighbors. Ha!

Ron Paul, sadly, is a borderline Islamic terrorism apologist. While the majority of his supporters are probably decent people, it’s no wonder that neo-nazi groups view Paul favorably, especially when you consider historical ties between Islamists and Nazism.

bluegill on May 29, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Okay, bluegill – I’m going to ask you a very simple and direct question right now. Which do you think would motivate enemies to take up arms against you? A). You having a culture they don’t like, or B) You Killing Their Wife and Kids through collateral damage?

The answer is primarily B and that SHOULD BE OBVIOUS. Any attempt on your part to ignore this reality shows just how freaking gone you people are in your war lust. You’ve lost all common sense.

You guys are saying that Islamic fundamentalists attack us, not because we KILL THEM through our collateral damage, but because we’re rich and we’re free? Seriously? Why would us being rich and free motivate them, but US KILLING THEM, NOT MOTIVATE THEM!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? You’re basically suggesting that they don’t CARE IF WE KILL THEM!

YEAH YOU’RE RIGHT! THEY SHOULD LEARN TO LOVE IT.

USA USA USA, RAH RAH RAH, USA USA USA!

Haha, My God In Heaven! Do you see what this pro-war propaganda has done to you? It’s turned you into a nationalistic drone who can’t think outside your little box of propaganda. Break free from it – you have no use for it. You’d be better off without it.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:42 PM

That’s the point that Ron Paul and his idiot adherents don’t get. They believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, that they will leave us alone. They could not be more wrong, therefore, they are dangerous.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

No, you have it backwards. Your interventionist foreign policy and wars of aggression are what indirectly lead to 9/11. Your support for sanctions and CIA covert operations in Iran are now leading us into a war with Iran, which is very dangerous.

The Ron Paul movement, on the other hand, seeks to find peace with all nations and stop fighting over things that happened over 50 years ago in an effort to avoid more conflict, fighting, wars and bloodshed. You know? The more SAFE outcome.

And there was a time when America was not the focus of terrorism and that was when we did not police the world. But as we started policing the world, that’s when the terrorist attacks against us started. So you only have YOUR polices to blame for the terrorism of today.

Don’t turn this around on Paul. You guys have been in power, Paul’s foreign policy HAS NOT. Therefore the blood is at your feet. But you don’t care about their blood, you think they should love the fact that we bomb and kill them. You don’t even think they have a right to hate you for it. To kill you for it.

As long as you continue this asinine foreign policy you can expect more terrorists, more wars, more debt and more bloodshed. Get over 9/11 – have a good cry over it. Accept it for what it was – a message from people who want us to leave them alone. And perhaps we should leave them alone. Why? In order to create less enemies. In order to NOT grow our debt. In order to create LESS bloodshed and not waste our resources. That’s WHY.

Good luck in comprehending this because so far on this site I’m not seeing much hope.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Exactly.

The world does not work that way, never has and never will. People do not behave that way, never have and never will.

Ron Paul’s libertarian “it is none of our business” isolationism is based on a utopian ideal that has no basis in history or the reality of human behavior. It is also based on a very narrow view of what “our business” is.

It is extremely dangerous to base foreign policy on a severely flawed and wrong view of human nature, on how humans beings should behave rather than on how they actually behave. It is extremely dangerous to ignore the historic aggressive behavior of many groups of human beings, be they aggressive neighborhood gangs, clans, tribes, city states, nation states, allied groups of nation states, or allied religious extremists. It is extremely dangerous to think allies are unnecessary and that we can sit behind our borders and wait, only confronting threats and aggression, alone and without allies, when it directly attacks us within our borders, the rest of the world be damned.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

So, basically what you’re saying is that because we’ve policed the world for so long and created so many enemies, that Ron Paul’s libertarian philosophy will no longer work? I disagree – it would work but it would take time.

Even Paul would concede it won’t happen overnight and it’d take many years of redefining our foreign policy and relationships with many nations, but over time the REASONS to attack us would greatly subside. Irrespective of just terrorism, is our role in the middle east that would vastly change to one of peace, which would help greatly in the spending department. Something conservatives used too care about.

And if any nation does attack us, then we simply declare war through Congress, and annihilate them – and we DO NOT rebuild their damn country!

That’s as simple as it needs to be.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:48 PM

What part of the Muslims wanting to behead infidels, don’t you understand?

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

So, basically what you’re saying is …

Ummm, no. I didn’t say anything like that.

…I disagree

Of course you do.

Sorry, you’ll have to find someone else to play this game with.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:48 PM

What part of the Muslims wanting to behead infidels, don’t you understand?

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You’re right, so..

Their different culture is a big part of why attacking them leads to more terrorist attacks against us. So you’re only further illustrating my intended point. We should strive to take the more wise, less damaging path as possible.

I’m glad you’re able to understand that they never were big fans of our culture. But you also need to understand how that’s another reason why your foreign policy is so dangerous. It antagonizes them and makes war more likely with them.

And when I blame the government for causing the 2008 housing bubble, I’m no more “blaming America” than I am when I blame the government for making terrorist attacks and war more likely because of their policies. You can never underestimate the influence of covert operations which the American people may not be aware of.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Of course you do.

Sorry, you’ll have to find someone else to play this game with.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

That’s fine with me.

You wrote a strongly worded and aggressive post suggesting Paul’s foreign policy does not take into account “all the damage we’ve done throughout the world” and I just wanted to point that irony out. I hear it all the time, that he’s too simplistic, as though that’s a negative – haha! I love how both Democrats and Republicans conveniently pretend we can’t see the results of their “COMPLEX” policies. News flash – we can. Most of the time it’s you who complain about it the most, yet you only wish to attack the SYMPTOMS of those problems.

YOUR COMPLEX POLICIES HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AND HAVE LED US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

I’ve never understood how the people who support this “complex” foreign policy and treat it like some grand chess game, fault Ron Paul for THEIR hubris. He just doesn’t agree with you and has a different philosophy centered around the reality that no human has the knowledge necessary to police the world, or centrally plan the economy. And after 2008 and 9/11 you’d think we’d have learned that!

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

And no, islamist apologist; “wipe Israel off the map” is what he said, what they say over and over. It isn’t a translation error.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Expert in Persian, are you?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

What part of the Muslims wanting to behead infidels, don’t you understand?

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

The part where I’ve eaten at their dinner tables. The part where I go to Dearborne, and they try to sell me a stereo. The part where we had them as NATO allies.

Which of these parts don’t you understand? Oh, that’s right… the parts that don’t play into your bigotry.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Coming from someone who I have o doubt backed Bush’s foreign policy utopia of democratizing the Middle East, and ending tyranny in our world, that is f**king laughable.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM

After all, those were protestants that slaughtered 3,000 on 9/11/01.

Weren’t they?

By the way, the slaughter of infidels is ordered by the Koran.

Muslims comprise 1% of our population. As long as they live in accordance with our laws and swear their allegience to our flag, welcome!

But the “Have a Coke and a smile and we’ll go over and bury our heads in the sand” foreign policy of Dr. Paul is grossly naive.

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Expert in Persian, are you?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And your Persian language expertise qualifies you to say that when Ahamdinejad says “We will annihilate Israel and push them into the Sea.” It means something totally different?

They need to get some better translators. They are needlessly suffering from some pretty poor publicity. You might want to drop them a line and see if you could help.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM

That’s the point that Ron Paul and his idiot adherents don’t get. They believe that if we just leave the terrorists alone, that they will leave us alone. They could not be more wrong, therefore, they are dangerous.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Speaking of leaving terrorists alone, Pakistan is a state sponsor of terror similar to Iran, and they created the Taliban pre 9/11. When they destroyed the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan before 9/11, that’s when I knew they were a totalitarian threat. As we now know, Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Iraq.

It’s too bad we left Bin Laden and “the terrorists alone” in Pakistan for all those years, but it wasn’t Ron Paul supporters that were responsible for that.

Unlike Iran, neo-cons support Pakistan, a state sponsor of terror, perhaps more so than Iran—and Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan is far more responsible for 9/11 than Iraq or Iran, yet neo-cons are concerned about Iranian nukes yet don’t seem to care about Pakistan’s nukes…

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Unlike Iran, neo-cons support Pakistan, a state sponsor of terror, perhaps more so than Iran—and Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan is far more responsible for 9/11 than Iraq or Iran, yet neo-cons are concerned about Iranian nukes yet don’t seem to care about Pakistan’s nukes…

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Wow. Who told you all of this? I guess I never knew that Pakistan had nukes. That changes things. We should tell all of the conservative people we know that they need to stop supporting Pakistan.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Coming from someone who I have o doubt backed Bush’s foreign policy utopia of democratizing the Middle East..

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Wrong. Not all Ron Paul foreign policy opponents and critics fit your stereotype. In fact, most probably do not.

I never backed or supported a “foreign policy utopia of democratizing the Middle East”.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

After all, those were protestants that slaughtered 3,000 on 9/11/01.

Weren’t they?

Planning on holding all of Islam responsible for the crimes of a few of its adherents? That type of collective application of justice is usually considered barbaric, by those who preach the virtues of Western values of holding individuals responsible for their crimes.

By the way, the slaughter of infidels is ordered by the Koran.

Should I start pulling out Bible verses some have interpreted as calling for atrocities? It’s not difficult.

Muslims comprise 1% of our population. As long as they live in accordance with our laws and swear their allegience to our flag, welcome!

I guess “Muslims wanting to behead infidels” isn’t a disqualifying attribute then?

Or are we talking about those “beheadings” that aren’t really “beheadings”? More of a metaphorical beheading, perhaps?

But the “Have a Coke and a smile and we’ll go over and bury our heads in the sand” foreign policy of Dr. Paul is grossly naive.

Once again, coming from someone I have no doubt cheered on the Bush Administration as they were laying out, as official policy, the democratization of the Middle East and the ending of tyranny in our world, that is f**king laughable.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I never backed or supported a “foreign policy utopia of democratizing the Middle East”.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

From Bush’s Second Inaugural:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

Feel free to denounce it now.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:51 PM

“a few of its adherents”?

Tell the Coptic Christians in Egypt that its just a few of its adherents.

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Wow. Who told you all of this? I guess I never knew that Pakistan had nukes. That changes things. We should tell all of the conservative people we know that they need to stop supporting Pakistan.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

You might tell that to the clowns who populated PNAC… if you can lift the rock they’ve crawled under.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Tell the Coptic Christians in Egypt that its just a few of its adherents.

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Sounds like an Egyptian problem.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:57 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM

First, you moved the goal posts.

Second, what part of “I never supported or backed” do you not understand?

Third, I have better things to do than continuing to reply to you. Adios.

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

farsighted on May 29, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Are you going to cry for us now?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM

PNAC, uh oh. Another conspiracy has been perpetrated right under out noses.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM

PNAC, uh oh. Another conspiracy has been perpetrated right under out noses.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I dunno… pretty tough to call something a “conspiracy” when they have a website.

Conspiracies should be made of sturdier (or at least more secretive) stuff.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

I dunno… pretty tough to call something a “conspiracy” when they have a website.

Conspiracies should be made of sturdier (or at least more secretive) stuff.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Gosh. All this time they were directing the President and all of conservative thought, including my own. به نظر می رسد توطئه است.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:48 PM

What part of the Muslims wanting to behead infidels, don’t you understand?

kingsjester on May 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You’re right, so..

Their different culture is a big part of why attacking them leads to more terrorist attacks against us. So you’re only further illustrating my intended point. We should strive to take the more wise, less damaging path as possible.

I’m glad you’re able to understand that they never were big fans of our culture. But you also need to understand how that’s another reason why your foreign policy is so dangerous. It antagonizes them and makes war more likely with them.

And when I blame the government for causing the 2008 housing bubble, I’m no more “blaming America” than I am when I blame the government for making terrorist attacks and war more likely because of their policies. You can never underestimate the influence of covert operations which the American people may not be aware of.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Yes, just sit in the corner, in the fetal position and hope the Muslims tat declared war on us don’t really mean it. Need some FDS for your vag!na?

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Being for liberty and freedom is only a bad thing if a person is labeled a libertarian. Otherwise, it is something most people love about this country.

Romney does not stand for liberty or freedom, as he demonstrated with Romneycare. People put down Ron Paul, then say they are for liberty and freedom, and will still go out and vote for the semi-socialist Romney. It is baffling.

cmc on May 29, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Yes, just sit in the corner, in the fetal position and hope the Muslims tat declared war on us don’t really mean it. Need some FDS for your vag!na?

AllahsNippleHair on May 29, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I briefly considered replying to this clueless, lying POS, but I decided that this is the only type of response it’s worthy of…plus, this made me laugh. Thank you!

I will move on because there will no doubt be more of the same from the Ronulans.

JannyMae on May 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

That is the antithesis of freedom.

JSGreg3 on May 29, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Whose freedom?

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Expert in Persian, are you?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Ron paul lost. Say it out loud. It’s over, done, finished. He was defeated. He is going back to Texas with his tail between his legs and all your spamming, flooding money bombs and drooling digital effluence didn’t do a damn thing.

Have a nice night.

V7_Sport on May 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM

It is baffling.

cmc on May 29, 2012 at 6:44 PM

After reading some of the Paulbots comments, it shouldn’t be.

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM

How do you say “Mitt Romney Clinched the Nomination.” in Persian?

میت رامنی از نامزدی مسجل

Hmmm. Who is John Galt? That should have been the title of the post….

Galt23 any tips on Persian? Galt? Come out come out where ever you are? Persian lessons anyone?

Must hurt real bad, this being the third or forth time Ron Paul made a big bluster and then pulled out right at the cusp of winning.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Wednesday headlines: “Alien a$$-clown ends up with fewer delegates than Santorum. Followers upbeat about nomination chances, and Persian rug and language franchises.”

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 11:33 PM

The Real 2012 Delegate Count

iwasbornwithit on May 30, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Ron Paul just got crushed in TX-14, his congressional district.

Guess 30 years and $31 Billion in pork can’t buy you love.

Rebar on May 30, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Ron Paul just got crushed in TX-14, his congressional district.

Guess 30 years and $31 Billion in pork can’t buy you love.

Rebar on May 30, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Just 10% in TX overall and just under 23% in his home county.

The people who know Ron Paul best have spoken, we should heed their advice!

Game over!

Now, we’ll see if the good doctor is a decent man or a narcissistic megalomaniac by dropping out and endorsing Mitt or having a tantrum and going 3rd party.

Stay tuned.

insidiator on May 30, 2012 at 8:17 AM

insidiator on May 30, 2012 at 8:17 AM

No man who is truly decent would endorse a candidate willing to use the military to imprison American citizens without the benefit of a trial.

cavalier973 on May 30, 2012 at 12:06 PM

What I find naive, looney, and grotesque, is the ability of self-proclaimed liberty lovers to nevertheless support massive expansions in government power.

They’ll weep and gnash their teeth over the government forcing them to purchase health insurance, while simultaneously being unaccountably unconcerned with the spying, groping, power-arrogating activities of that same government.

Obama should have somehow tied his “health reform” to fighting terrorism; he would have experienced not a whit of opposition then, especially from “conservatives” who refuse to see that the FedGov is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign policy.

cavalier973 on May 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

In Ron Paul, you have a charisma-challenged old white guy who, without pandering or pushing prejudice, inspires young people with the always sexy message of monetary policy.

Awesome.

cavalier973 on May 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

What I find naive, looney, and grotesque, is the ability of self-proclaimed liberty lovers, to try and foist an unelectable charlatan on the party through attempting to hijack the nomination process. nevertheless support massive expansions in government power.

cavalier973 on May 30, 2012 at 12:10 PM

FIFY.

Rebar on May 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM

RON PAUL:
Racist old nutjob;
A pathetic anti-Semitic;
An unhinged lunatic…period

byteshredder on May 30, 2012 at 4:19 PM

And the Paulestinian Liberation Organization continues the fighting into the third day! Their insipid isolationism has failed to catch on with the more level-headed posters and they still have not managed to make it off the beaches! Will the Paulestinians be able to hold this time?

Dunedainn on May 30, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8