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 4 5 6 7 8

No need to make this a pissing contest, PaulBot.
You know she’d win anyway.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:10 PM

I don’t think he was the one making this a pissing contest. But I still thank him for his service to his country.

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Sorry about that head injury then…

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Classy way to wrap up Memorial Day.

Want to anchor for MSNBC?

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM

F^%$ no. I’m nobody’s bot. Which is more than can be said for you.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Sure you’re not.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Iraq isn’t the nation in question and you know it. Israel is.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Ah ah. No moving the goal posts. Let me remind you of what you said:

Yeah, yeah, “It’s not our war!”, “It’s needless!”, “It has nothing to do with us!”. We’ve heard it all before, over and over again. That doesn’t make it any more true. Historical fact disagrees with you.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:01 PM

So back to “historical fact” … when did Iraq attack us?

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM

The “racist newsletter” thing would only matter if Paul were not a champion of defending individual liberty, nor ending the drug war which disproportional effects blacks. When you defend liberty you necessarily defend the minority, which often includes blacks. He also routinely provided free health care to low income blacks and minorities, rather than take government cheese.

The earmark and newsletter thing is nothing more than a smokescreen or ruse to avoid the embarrassing foreign-policy questions YOU can’t answer.

SO TAKE YOUR RACE-BAITING TACTICS AND SHOVE RIGHT UP YOUR MITT ROMNEY.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Ron Paul said a lot of nasty racist, sexist and homophobic stuff in his newsletter or allowed his good racist buddy Murry Rothbard to write it with his tacit approval.

If Ron Paul actually got the GOP nomination, those letters would sink his candidacy so fast there wouldn’t be enough time to plug the holes in his sinking ship.

I am against using our hard earned tax dollars to fund needless wars. Especially wars that have nothing to do with us.

Uppereastside on May 28, 2012 at 7:17 PM

I can understand how you oppose going to wars but there are things that Ron Paul vetoed that had absolutely nothing to do with war but everything to do with keeping Americans safe and promoting freedoms around the world. And at each opportunity…Ron Paul voted against it.

For example, Ron Paul was the only person to vote against the House Resolution to support Iranian protesters back in 2009.

Ron Paul would not do anything to stop investors from doing businesses in Iran since he voted against HR 1400, which aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. But then again, why make it harder for foreign companies to invest in Iran’s energy sector if he thinks that Iran is using these nuclear plants for peaceful purposes or that the rest of the world should be fine with Iran using these nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs?

Ron Paul also voted against the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.

He was the only politician to vote no on a bill to condemn the Chinese government’s religious persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Again, he was the lone “nay” voter in the House resolution honoring heroic Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

Its not surprising that he was the lone no vote two years ago on a resolution expressing condolences to the people of Burma after they were hit by a devastating cyclone or that he was the only member of the House to vote against a 2007 resolution “noting the disturbing pattern of killings of numerous independent journalists in Russia since 2000, and urging Russian President Vladimir Putin to authorize cooperation with outside investigators in solving those murders.”

He was also the lone voter on H.Res. 180, the “Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007″ which would “require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan [and] prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies.” Its amazing to me that Ron Paul would vote no on businesses who were making money in countries were mass genocide were taking place.

But then again, its not surprising that he would vote no on a resolution that required the Secretary of Defense to keep track of companies operating within the United States that are associated with the People’s Liberation Army of China.

So, I understand but don’t agree with Ron Paul’s black line opposition to wars but when you look at his voting record, he’s spineless when it comes to American defense and national security.

Source.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Tell it to the Swiss… amongst the most prosperous nations on Earth. And without selling themselves into permanent alliances with anyone.

Imagine that.

JohnGalt23 on May 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Apples and Oranges. As they say on Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other.” I wonder how much Nazi money is still in Swiss banks.

oldroy on May 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Yeah. Once again, someone tries to bring up military service and it blows up in their face.

So what are you? A Mittbot? Way to go.

iwasbornwithit on May 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Paulbot delusion in full bloom. If anything was blowing up in ANYONE’s face, it’s that tube of lube you are squeezing…

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM

If Ron Paul actually got the GOP nomination, those letters would sink his candidacy so fast there wouldn’t be enough time to plug the holes in his sinking ship.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM

To be precise, it would sink faster than this carrier.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:22 PM

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Classy way to wrap up Memorial Day.

Want to anchor for MSNBC?

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Guess you missed most of this conversation…when you play with the adults you are going to get sent to the children’s table once in a while…And I didnt’ see you chastising it when it was going after twerp…

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Do you even bother researching the “why” or are you just satisfied with the superficial “what”?

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

You kids will have to amuse yourselves, I need to go to work…gotta take care of that 48%

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Guess you missed most of this conversation…when you play with the adults you are going to get sent to the children’s table once in a while…And I didnt’ see you chastising it when it was going after twerp…

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM

:O <— shocked face

"Mommy," you just pulled a classless post, but sure call me a child.

I'm sure working your way through college, though, is more admirable than serving your country or something. *smh

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Simply more Paultard BS, just spouted by the Good Doctor himself.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

You kids will have to amuse yourselves, I need to go to work…gotta take care of that 48%

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

*snort

Heroic of you. Stay classy.

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Simply more Paultard BS, just spouted by the Good Doctor himself.

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Using the juvenile “Paultard” doesn’t speak highly of your intelligence nor your ability to engage an opposing argument/viewpoint, so it’s no wonder you’ve run from my previous question.

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Dante,

Ron Paul said:

I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

We knew exactly what was going on in Iran. Out of all the revolutions on this planet, this was the most public protest for all to see. We saw it happen in real time with twitter, Youtube videos, news reports, intelligence briefings, etc.

The founding fathers couldn’t even get accurate, up to the minute information about the French Revolution as we did with Iran.

Speaking of the French Revolution, the founding fathers were most certainly observed, judged and commented on that that revolution. Moreover, the American ambassador to France was very influential in what happened in France at that time. Benjamin Franklin was also in France as well giving his input on this while working for the U.S. Government. Thomas Jefferson certainly supported the French Revolution.

So…once again, Ron Paul fails on both excuses for not supporting H. Res. 560.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

All of you stop right now. Look at this place! Put down your weapons and grab some mops. I want this place spotless by morning.

katy the mean old lady on May 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM

All of you stop right now. Look at this place! Put down your weapons and grab some mops. I want this place spotless by morning.

katy the mean old lady on May 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Yes ma’am. (muttering as I go to work..)

oldroy on May 28, 2012 at 11:47 PM

katy the mean old lady on May 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM

But….they started it!

oldroy on May 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Well I guess that’s one way to completely avoid the point.

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Well I guess that’s one way to completely avoid the point.

Dante on May 28, 2012 at 11:48 PM

What was the point?

Ron Paul explained his rationale for not supporting it by citing historical and constitutional reasons. However, his assertions are not supported by the historical facts.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:52 PM

All of you stop right now. Look at this place! Put down your weapons and grab some mops. I want this place spotless by morning.

katy the mean old lady on May 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM

….I got a bucket!..(hope you won’t be needing it for the storms hitting Florida)

KOOLAID2 on May 28, 2012 at 11:53 PM

It was never down to Paul or anyone. Paul never had a chance to win, ever.

Rebar on May 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Yes he did, that’s why Rush Limbaugh smeared him the day after Santorum flubbed that important debate performance, the same debate in which Ron Paul got such high marks for his performance. That’s why the GOP establishment has been cheating at so many of the caucuses.

Winners don’t cheat; losers do.

FloatingRock on May 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM

That’s why the GOP establishment has been cheating at so many of the caucuses.

Winners don’t cheat; losers do.

FloatingRock on May 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM

O Brother….cheaters…blah..blah..smeared..blah..blah.. Why don’t you people just sue?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 AM

In fact, just declare Ron Paul the winner. I declare him the winner of the fewest votes for number of times “running” for President.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:02 AM

So, I understand but don’t agree with Ron Paul’s black line opposition to wars but when you look at his voting record, he’s spineless when it comes to American defense and national security.

Source.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Yeah it takes a lot of guts to vote with the rest of your party. You may disagree with his positions on these issues but to say that he is “spineless” is preposterous.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Apples and Oranges. As they say on Sesame Street, “One of these things is not like the other.” I wonder how much Nazi money is still in Swiss banks.

oldroy on May 28, 2012 at 11:19 PM

You said:

When you isolate yourself from the world you are cutting your own throat.

Well, the Swiss have done a damn fine job of isolating themselves from the world, by your standards, and are rich, free, and incredibly stable.

So, it would appear that your statement, on its face, is other than true. Your rather lame attempt to dodge that truth notwithstanding.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:05 AM

O Brother….cheaters…blah..blah..smeared..blah..blah.. Why don’t you people just sue?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:00 AM

They are suing, thank goodness. You may not like Ron Paul but you should not be OK with the perversion of the process in favor of any candidate. Say what you will about his strategy, but Ron Paul and his supporters have acted completely within the rules of the GOP. Romney cannot say the same.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Yeah it takes a lot of guts to vote with the rest of your party. You may disagree with his positions on these issues but to say that he is “spineless” is preposterous.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Ron Paul is spineless and the charge isn’t preposterous.

Refusing to get involved in the affairs of other nations is the most spineless position a President can take. If you cannot fight for a principle, then you have no principle to fight for. If you’re not willing to fight for something you believe is wrong, then doing nothing about it is not equivalent to doing something about it. An attempt to be morally neutral is a moral evil.

The refusal to intervene demonstrates that whatever principle you claim to uphold doesn’t really matter much to you if you’re not willing to go to the mat for it. If one claims to champion liberty and freedom but is willing to be silent or to stand back while dictators beat, shoot and imprison people and not speak out for what is right and good, then freedom and liberty do not mean much to that person.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

We knew exactly what was going on in Iran.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:42 PM

You might want to look up hubris somewhere. Because you just engaged in the most imperious form of it.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Refusing to get involved in the affairs of other nations is the most spineless position a President can take.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

And when other nations’ Presidents choose to get involved in our political affairs?

Oh, but I forget… you support some countries doing exactly that, don’t you?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM

So, it would appear that your statement, on its face, is other than true. Your rather lame attempt to dodge that truth notwithstanding.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:05 AM

The Swiss have not isolated themselves. They simply claim neutrality and take the cash. You can’t really be neutral if you are taking cash, now can you?

Could you answer a question I have about the Swiss? How long did it take them to give back all of the Nazi Gold? How much blood money (gold fillings, watches, wedding bandss etc., you know…personal items) did they keep for how long?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

And he has said that if the Congress declared war for whatever reason, he would duly prosecute that war in his position as commander in chief. He just doesn’t believe that presidents are kings and can decide to wage war without a declaration of war from Congress. Why should the president be allowed to put American blood and treasure on the line to intervene in a foreign country. Surely if the cause were just and worthy, the American people would support that war and a declaration of war would be forthcoming.

I don’t even look at in terms of spineless vs. brave. It is simply constitutional or it is not. If there is no declaration of war by the Congress, it is not Constitutional. Why should my life or money be put on the line for another country by the whims of the executive branch?

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 AM

The Swiss could not be neutral if we didn’t provide security for all of Western Europe.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 AM

You’re vote for Johnson might as well be a vote for Obama.

CW on May 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Everybody that has been paying attention knows that voting for Willard is as good as voting for 0bama since 0bama got his most progressive ideas from Mittens [Ex: 0bamacare].

Doesn’t it feel good to be embracing liberalism as you are doing today? /s

DannoJyd on May 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM

And when other nations’ Presidents choose to get involved in our political affairs?

Oh, but I forget… you support some countries doing exactly that, don’t you?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I have no problem with other nations being involved in our political affairs. They’ve been doing that since our nation was born and they won’t stop doing so via diplomacy, trade, and spycraft.

While its a nice ideal that every nation shouldn’t be involved in each other’s affairs, its a naive and stupid idea that has no basis in reality.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Exactly. So let’s let the Swiss and the rest of Europe pay for their own national defense rather than subsidizing their wretched social welfare state.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:19 AM

The Swiss could not be neutral if we didn’t provide security for all of Western Europe.
oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Weren’t they neutral before we provided that security? Through both WWs???

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

While its a nice ideal that every nation shouldn’t be involved in each other’s affairs, its a naive and stupid idea that has no basis in reality.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Just repeating so they can read it again. Naive and Stupid.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Refusing to get involved in the affairs of other nations is the most spineless position a President can take. If you cannot fight for a principle, then you have no principle to fight for. If you’re not willing to fight for something you believe is wrong, then doing nothing about it is not equivalent to doing something about it. An attempt to be morally neutral is a moral evil.

The refusal to intervene demonstrates that whatever principle you claim to uphold doesn’t really matter much to you if you’re not willing to go to the mat for it. If one claims to champion liberty and freedom but is willing to be silent or to stand back while dictators beat, shoot and imprison people and not speak out for what is right and good, then freedom and liberty do not mean much to that person.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You sure are generous with other people’s lives and money!

What a bedrock of morality you are!

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Weren’t they neutral before we provided that security? Through both WWs???

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

In fact they were, aryeung.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Ron Paul is spineless and the charge isn’t preposterous.

Refusing to get involved in the affairs of other nations is the most spineless position a President can take. If you cannot fight for a principle, then you have no principle to fight for. If you’re not willing to fight for something you believe is wrong, then doing nothing about it is not equivalent to doing something about it. An attempt to be morally neutral is a moral evil.

The refusal to intervene demonstrates that whatever principle you claim to uphold doesn’t really matter much to you if you’re not willing to go to the mat for it. If one claims to champion liberty and freedom but is willing to be silent or to stand back while dictators beat, shoot and imprison people and not speak out for what is right and good, then freedom and liberty do not mean much to that person.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

“… to protect the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic” does not allow for military being used to protect other countries from threats foreign and domestic. Championing liberty and freedom means not sending our servicemen to die for reasons not included in their oath nor justified by the Constitution.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Carefully absent from this pro-Ron screed is any mention of his xenophobic tendencies or his racist ones. It’s well and good to be a fiscal conservative — one who is careful with other people’s money — but it’s not good to ignore the reality of our modern day world, or to expect that anyone would agree with a characterization of minorities as being lesser people.

The supposed “ghost writer” of Paul’s newsletter pieces, Lew Rockwell, is still associated with Mr. Paul.

I got into an argument with a Ron Paul supporter over at the LA Times where he claimed that Ron Paul had proven his non-racist credentials by voting for MLK Day. I shut him up completely by pointing out that the vote he was talking about was a vote to move MLK day — in the two votes to inaugurate an MLK day, one in 1979, the other in 1983, Ron Paul voted “no”. Paul’s votes are in the Congressional Record — there’s no getting around that, and a vote to move a proposed holiday he later voted “no” with respect to establishing cannot be counted as a “yes” vote for the holiday.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

When did Germany attack us? I guess that was a war we shouldn’t have gotten involved in too, huh?

Dunedainn on May 28, 2012 at 11:14 PM

They declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor. Duh.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:24 AM

They’ve been doing that since our nation was born and they won’t stop doing so via diplomacy, trade, and spycraft.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Thus Ron Paul’s support for the Dept of State, and free, unrestricted trade. As far as spycraft, any nation who tried to do to us what we did to Iran in 1953 would be signing their death warrant. Why, exactly, should we be surprised that they have reacted any differently than we would?

Once again, try looking up that “hubris” thing.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Weren’t they neutral before we provided that security? Through both WWs???

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 12:20 AM

So when you help to finance the build-up of Nazi Germany, you can call yourself neutral? Oh. I see you take money from both sides, so you call yourself neutral. Doesn’t matter what people are doing with that money or the money you are lending them. Neutrality. Got it.

The US is not Switzerland. mK? Switzerland would not exist today without our defense of Western Europe. mK? It would be a vacation spot for Communist Brass.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

The Swiss have not isolated themselves. They simply claim neutrality and take the cash. You can’t really be neutral if you are taking cash, now can you?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Are you retarded?

Who, exactly, are the Swiss taking cash from to affect their neutrality?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:28 AM

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

It is good to see that you are so heavily invested in the most important issues of the day like MLK Day…

And there are plenty of people that bring up the racism charge against Ron Paul any time his name is mentioned.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:28 AM

So when you help to finance the build-up of Nazi Germany, you can call yourself neutral?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Ooookaaaaaayyyy… so now the Swiss were, in fact, part of the Axis Powers?

Once again, are you retarded?

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Wow. Who would’ve guessed that a Ron Paul fan wouldn’t know the first thing about banking? mmmmmKaaaay????

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:31 AM

The Paultards have a naive view of international politics in the same way liberals are naive about guns.

Liberals have this crazy idea that if people didn’t have guns, there’d be no violence. Its a nice idea but the problem is that not everyone agrees to go along with it. The law abiding people will turn in their guns while the criminals keep theirs and will become even more free to commit crimes.

Like wise, just because some hold to the idea of political neutrality doesn’t mean other people will follow along too. If America sits on the side lines doesn’t mean every other nation will do.

When good nations sit on the side lines, the bad nations have more incentive to bad because there is no impediment to their evil.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Wow. Who would’ve guessed that a Ron Paul fan wouldn’t know the first thing about banking? mmmmmKaaaay????

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I’ll repeat, since apparently you had trouble reading the question the first time around.

Were the Swiss part of the Axis Powers? Retards might think so. I just want to be clear which side of the line you are on.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:34 AM

As far as spycraft, any nation who tried to do to us what we did to Iran in 1953 would be signing their death warrant. Why, exactly, should we be surprised that they have reacted any differently than we would?

Once again, try looking up that “hubris” thing.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:25 AM

If you know your history, several European nations tried to topple the American nation in its infancy.

Communist countries seek to do what we did to Iran but only by more covert and subtler means.

Now, Islamic nations and terrorists are trying to topple our country as well.

So…each nation does what it can to influence other nations. To deny that they don’t is naive and stupid.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:36 AM

What is the St. Gotthard rail tunnel? How was it used in the war to move supplies to Axis powers?

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM

The Paultards have a naive view of international politics in the same way liberals are naive about guns.

Liberals have this crazy idea that if people didn’t have guns, there’d be no violence.

Your analogy fails on the grounds that it assumes that anyone is arguing for the US to not have guns. It is so disingenuous as to be a lie. We could cut the defense budget in half, and we would still have the most powerful military on the planet, by far.

Like wise, just because some hold to the idea of political neutrality doesn’t mean other people will follow along too. If America sits on the side lines doesn’t mean every other nation will do.

Where? In Europe? Sounds like a European problem. In Israel? Sounds like an Israeli problem. In Korea? Sounds like a Korean problem.

He who defends everything, defends nothing.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Communist countries seek to do what we did to Iran but only by more covert and subtler means.

Now, Islamic nations and terrorists are trying to topple our country as well.

So…each nation does what it can to influence other nations. To deny that they don’t is naive and stupid.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Please provide a case where Communist or Islamic nations used their intelligence services to try to instigate a coup d’etat in the US, or admit that you cannot.

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:40 AM

“… to protect the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic” does not allow for military being used to protect other countries from threats foreign and domestic. Championing liberty and freedom means not sending our servicemen to die for reasons not included in their oath nor justified by the Constitution.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Wrong on many points. The Constitution allows the establishment of treaties with other nations, and, included in such treaties, are treaties of mutual defense.

As an example of a treaty of mutual defense, consider the relations between France and the United States during the Revolutionary war. Although the treaties which brought Lafayette to our shores and the French fleet to fight the Battle of the Chesapeake were penned before the Constitution was enacted, it was obvious that these events motivated the Founding Fathers to give wide latitude as to the kinds of treaties allowable.

There are no words in the Constitution about protecting our country from all threats foreign or domestic — those words come from an Oath which various elected officials take, and which are similarly exacted from all who enroll in our military services:
Here is the Oath of Allegiance exacted of every naturalized person at the time they become a citizen:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Here is the Oath of allegiance exacted of every enlisted member of our Armed Services:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The Oath of Allegiance as exacted of members of the Continental Army:

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

The common thread here is that the enemies to be opposed are those designated by the various heads of our Government — from the pre-Constitution Continental Congress and the post-Constitution President of the United States.

The choice of enemies is also dictated by the various treaties we have signed, including treaties of defense.

RachDubya has exactly the kinds of xenophobic tendencies which I hear repeatedly from Paul supporters, and is a very big reason why I would never vote for him. It’s the old “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” kind of thinking — if Herr Doktor’s supporters are so enthused about such an untenable position, there’s got to be a very good reason.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:43 AM

“… to protect the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic” does not allow for military being used to protect other countries from threats foreign and domestic. Championing liberty and freedom means not sending our servicemen to die for reasons not included in their oath nor justified by the Constitution.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Once again, history refutes the Paultard’s understanding of the Constitution and history.

Under President Jefferson, there was no Congressional authorization to commence war against Triopli which we know today as the Barbary Wars.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

And there are plenty of people that bring up the racism charge against Ron Paul any time his name is mentioned.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 12:28 AM

With very good reason.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:23 PM

:O <— shocked face

"Mommy," you just pulled a classless post, but sure call me a child.

I'm sure working your way through college, though, is more admirable than serving your country or something. *smh

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:27 PM

So sensitive…and so hypocritical. And guess what, I’m not running for the presidency, touting my service to the country, and chastising other candidates, as Dr. Paul did…but hold on, I’ll get you another dead chicken…

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Um…St. Gotthard. Um….can we explain neutral Switzerland’s closed borders? Well, closed to Jews anyway. And that blood money? Yeah, they paid reparations of 60 million dollars after the war. Trouble is that it took 50 years to admit that they kept about 550 million (worth 5 or 6 billion today) more of the Jewish money stolen by the Nazis.

Neutral….sure.

oldroy on May 29, 2012 at 12:49 AM

lovingmyUSA on May 28, 2012 at 11:24 PM

*snort

Heroic of you. Stay classy.

aryeung on May 28, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Repetitious much? Limited vocab? Put down the crack pipe…

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Once again, history refutes the Paultard’s understanding of the Constitution and history.

Under President Jefferson, there was no Congressional authorization to commence war against Triopli which we know today as the Barbary Wars.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Two points here: one, that while I was completely tactful and factual, without even expressing an opinion on Ron Paul, you immediately resorted to labeling and snark. Secondly, that something occured previously does not make it Constitutional. The actions in Libya were justified for the reasons you list as being something we should in general aspire to as a military, and are not only unconstitutional but also in violation of the War Powers Act. By your rationale, ObamaCare is Constitutional simply by merit of having passed, since history is proof enough of merit.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Presumptiousness coupled with rudeness does not a good argument make.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 1:03 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 29, 2012 at 12:29 AMThere’s plenty of evidence that the Swiss allowed the Cattle cars to move through their nation as those cars were taking Jewish victims from their home countries to the death camps. That wasn’t the act of a ‘neutral’ nation.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:05 AM

RachDubya has exactly the kinds of xenophobic tendencies which I hear repeatedly from Paul supporters, and is a very big reason why I would never vote for him. It’s the old “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” kind of thinking — if Herr Doktor’s supporters are so enthused about such an untenable position, there’s got to be a very good reason.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:43 AM

What do you think that “very good reason” is?

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 1:08 AM

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Once again, history refutes the Paultard’s understanding of the Constitution and history.

Under President Jefferson, there was no Congressional authorization to commence war against Triopli which we know today as the Barbary Wars.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

While some may be deserving of the title, Rach is NOT one of them.

lovingmyUSA on May 29, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Carefully absent from this pro-Ron screed is any mention of his xenophobic tendencies or his racist ones. [...] or to expect that anyone would agree with a characterization of minorities as being lesser people.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

It’s sickening how old, white, establishment Republicans like yourself so often accuse Ron Paul and his younger, more racially and ethnically diverse supporters of being racists. Most younger people know from personal experience that they and their peers who grew up after the civil rights movement in our multi-cultural public schools are generally speaking far more tolerant of other races and cultures than our older family members.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Under President Jefferson, there was no Congressional authorization to commence war against Triopli which we know today as the Barbary Wars.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Wrong. There was Congressional authorization — passed Feb 6 1802, and entitled “An Act for the Protection of Commerce and the Seamen of the United States Against the Tripolitan Cruisers”

WHEREAS the regency of Tripoli, on the coast of Barbary, has commenced a predatory warfare against the United States:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, that it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be proceeded against, and distributed according to law; and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That on the application of the owners of private armed vessels of the United States, the President of the United States may grant to them special commissions, in the form which he shall direct, under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when so commissioned, shall have the like authority for subduing, seizing, taking, and bringing into port, any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, as the before-mentioned public armed vessels may by law have; and shall therein be subject to the instructions which may be given by the President of the United States for the regulation of their conduct; and their commissions shall be revocable at his pleasure. Provided, that before any commission shall be granted, as aforesaid, the owner or owners of the vessel for which the same may be requested, and the commander thereof, for the time being, shall give bond to the United States, with at least two responsible sureties, not interested in such vessel, in the penal sum of seven thousand dollars; or, if such vessel be provided with more than one hundred and fifty men, in the penal sum of fourteen thousand dollars, with condition for observing the treaties and laws of the United States, and the instructions which may be given, as aforesaid; and also, for satisfying all damages and injuries which shall be done, contrary to the tenor thereof, by such commissioned vessel; and for delivering up the commission, when revoked by the President of the United States.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That any Tripolitan vessel, goods or effects, which shall be so captured and brought into port by any private armed vessel of the United States, duly commissioned, as aforesaid, may be adjudged good prize, and thereupon shall accrue to the owners and officers, and men of the capturing vessel, and shall be distributed according to the agreement which shall have been made between them, or, in failure of such agreement, according to the discretion of the court having cognizance of the capture.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the seamen may be engaged to serve in the navy of the United States for a period not exceeding two years; but the President may discharge the same sooner, if in his judgment, their services may be dispensed with.

APPROVED, February 6, 1802.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Carefully absent from this pro-Ron screed is any mention of his xenophobic tendencies or his racist ones. [...] or to expect that anyone would agree with a characterization of minorities as being lesser people.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

If anything it’s the “ANYBODY BUT OBAMA THE KENYAN COMMUNIST!!!” voters who most resemble your own racist xenophobes accusations. Oh, and look, Romney shared a meal with one of them just a few days ago.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:16 AM

The actions in Libya were justified for the reasons you list as being something we should in general aspire to as a military, and are not only unconstitutional but also in violation of the War Powers Act. By your rationale, ObamaCare is Constitutional simply by merit of having passed, since history is proof enough of merit.

RachDubya on May 29, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Thomas Jefferson’s actions in the War of Tripoli was indeed constitutional both by the laws of its time and by the laws of today.

The fact that nobody, including the Founding Fathers who were alive at the time, and including Congress, didn’t object to the constitutionality of his actions reveals that those who were present at the drafting of the Constitution had no Constitutional objections to our actions towards Tripoli.

Your analogy that “ObamaCare is Constitutional simply by merit of having passed, since history is proof enough of merit” is flawed.

I’m not saying history makes Jefferson’s actions acceptable because it happened in history and that history is enough to vindicate his actions.

I’m saying that Thomas Jefferson’s actions were acceptable because it triggered no Constitutional objections precisely because his actions WERE constitutional as understood by everyone, including the Founding Fathers.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM

It’s sickening how old, white, establishment Republicans like yourself so often accuse Ron Paul and his younger, more racially and ethnically diverse supporters of being racists. Most younger people know from personal experience that they and their peers who grew up after the civil rights movement in our multi-cultural public schools are generally speaking far more tolerant of other races and cultures than our older family members.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:09 AM

This isn’t even a case of the pot calling the kettle black — this is a case of the pot calling the Grail black.

Ron Paul is what he is, as evidenced by his writings and his acts, and nothing his supporters can say about him diminishes those writings and acts one whit.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:13 AM

That isn’t a declaration of war. Its a statue passed by Congress. Moreover, the passage of that statue occurred AFTER Thomas Jefferson took military action:

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President’s powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war.1422 Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli ”and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . .” But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton’s view.

Source.

There’s a difference between a statue and a formal declaration of war. Congress never passed a declaration of war during the Barbary wars.

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

This isn’t even a case of the pot calling the kettle black — this is a case of the pot calling the Grail black.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:18 AM

If you think calling me “black” is an insult then the joke is on you.

Also, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you haven’t actually refuted my demographic argument, because you can’t. I’m right.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Ron Paul is closer to Obama than Romney is.

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Prove it.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 1:35 AM

So, I understand but don’t agree with Ron Paul’s black line opposition to wars but when you look at his voting record, he’s spineless when it comes to American defense and national security.

Source.

Conservative Samizdat on May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM

First of all, thanks for not being as rude as most people on this site. It’s a nice change of pace. I don’t care about the racism charge.

All I’m truly interested in is his philosophy.

As to your statement that Paul is somehow weak in defending us against foreign enemies – I don’t agree. He just has a different philosophy centered around what keeps us safe.

Paul thinks creating less enemies helps keep us safe.
Paul thinks sanctions lead to war and make us less safe.
Paul thinks we should mind our own business, in order to create less enemies and keep us safe.

Paul voted in favor of military action in Afghanistan to go after those responsible for 9/11. Why? Because we were attacked directly by those individuals. He did not, however, support the sudden shift into nation-building. Why? No authority in the Constitution to steal money from U.S. citizens in order to build schools on the other side of the world. Nation-building is completely unconstitutional and un-American. We conservatives don’t support federal funds going to schools in American, but they DO IN AFGHANISTAN!? Yikes.

Paul certainly believes in defense, as he said when asked about Iran on Foxnews – “If Iran is a real threat, Congress should examine it and decide if it’s worth going to war, then declare war, get in, fight it and win it”.

Besides that, I hear the neoconservative side say that Paul would make us “less safe” but my response to that is – What motivated 9/11? Do you care? Why not? Let me ask you a different question then. What motivated the housing Bubble? DO you care? Why do you care about what caused that, but not what caused 9/11?

See – Neoconservatives seem to understand how unintended consequences from big government intervening into the economy can create economic booms and then busts. But the moment one tries to apply that same principle to our foreign policy they say you “hate America first”!

Paul’s foreign policy is the same as his economic policy. Less government intervention will make us more safe.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 1:36 AM

I have no problem with other nations being involved in our political affairs. They’ve been doing that since our nation was born and they won’t stop doing so via diplomacy, trade, and spycraft.

While its a nice ideal that every nation shouldn’t be involved in each other’s affairs, its a naive and stupid idea that has no basis in reality.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I like realists (and your posts in this thread), which is one reason I find Ron Paul to be such a bad, slimy joke.

He is a blind, idealistic hippie who is absolutely clueless about how evil people’s minds work, to the point that he’s dangerous.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 29, 2012 at 1:42 AM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Islamists hate our freedoms and way of life. THAT is what motivated 9/11.
See how easy it is.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

If anything it’s the “ANYBODY BUT OBAMA THE KENYAN COMMUNIST!!!” voters who most resemble your own racist xenophobes accusations. Oh, and look, Romney shared a meal with one of them just a few days ago.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:16 AM

I’m not sure where I come across as a racist xenophobe. I believe in a robust foreign policy which includes the use of armed force in support of treaties we have concluded with other nations — Ron Paul does not. I have always supported the concept of the equal playing field with respect to access to Government by all of our citizens — Ron Paul has not.

Do I really have to start quoting from Paul’s newsletters about how “Euro-American Civilization” is under attack and what his complaints and solutions are?

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Islamists hate our freedoms and way of life. THAT is what motivated 9/11.
See how easy it is.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

I was all for killing our enemies until they’re all dead or they surrendered unconditionally but that’s not what the neo-cons did, instead they bankrupted our own country and the future of our own children in order to improve the lives of our enemies. What is the point of that?!?

I dare you to place your hand on a holy book appropriate for your religion and swear to god that there is absolutely no merit to the argument that if China or some other nation had troops on our soil or occupying nations in our borders that American’s wouldn’t resent it and do something about it. I sure would!

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 1:53 AM

That is just a stupid argument. Ron Paul is closer to Obama than Romney is.

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:28 AM

They at least have the same foreign policy views.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 2:02 AM

There’s a difference between a statue and a formal declaration of war. Congress never passed a declaration of war during the Barbary wars.

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

You didn’t say that you were looking for a declaration of war. Here’s your comment to which I replied:

Under President Jefferson, there was no Congressional authorization to commence war against Triopli which we know today as the Barbary Wars.

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 12:44 AM

The Act to which I refer was Congressional authorization for the commencement of war.

There is nothing which says that the said commencement has to be preceded by an Act authorizing same — especially when said commencement was preceded by a Declaration of War against the United States by the Bey of Tripoli

All Presidents, including Jefferson, have the obligation to defend the United States, and there is no obligation to do it via a Declaration of War. Now, to continue such an action requires a budget, and Congress certainly has the ability to act in that regard — and, historically, has.

By the way, James Madison was President during the Second Barbary War, not Jefferson, and his Congress authorized similar acts to those allowed Jefferson.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Well, if they follow Ron Paul, they believe that 9/11 was an inside job caused by the Bush White House.

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:54 AM

I support Ron Paul and I don’t believe that. Speak for yourself!

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 2:19 AM

You really don’t know the history of the conflict that we have with Islamic extremism, do you?

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Of course I understand, you condescending jerk! Better than you! It’s people like you who’ve bankrupted American improving the lives of our enemies!

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Romney has SAID MULTIPLE TIMES (but you seem too deaf to even hear it) that the first day he is in office he will defund the agency that controls Obamacare. DEFUND!!!

Voter from WA State on May 29, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Yes, follow the sweet cooing words of your Shepard and trust that he’ll never lead you to the slaughter—like he did that other flock.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 2:31 AM

I’m not sure where I come across as a racist xenophobe.

unclesmrgol on May 29, 2012 at 1:48 AM

You’re the one that made the accusations about racist xenophobia.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 2:38 AM

He is a blind, idealistic hippie who is absolutely clueless about how evil people’s minds work, to the point that he’s dangerous.

Bizarro No. 1 on May 29, 2012 at 1:42 AM

One of the selling points of Ron Paul, IMO, is that he grew up before the hippie movement. In fact his principles are not from the hippie movement but rather from the Constitution and Bill of Rights and our nations founding principles. Is the Constitution and BOR too idealistic for your tastes? Was George Washington a flower-child before his time?

If so, I should probably reconsider the hippie movement, maybe it isn’t all bad.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Conservative Samizdat on May 29, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Did you really just link to your own blog to support your point? What a pathetic dork.

iwasbornwithit on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 AM

Islamists hate our freedoms and way of life. THAT is what motivated 9/11.
See how easy it is.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 29, 2012 at 1:43 AM

That’s part of the answer, but not the entire one. The most exhaustive study on this clearly shows that the #1 cause of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation. We’ve known for DECADES that they don’t LIKE our culture, and we certainly knew that WELL BEFORE 9/11. The fact that we bomb them, occupy them and sanction them is what actually MOTIVATES them to KILL THEMSELVES in order to kill us. Not merely disliking our culture. The same study also found that the #1 group who commits the most acts of suicide terrorism are not religious at all. Now that addressed the xenophobia side – the idea that their faith makes them inherently evil.

Do you notice how you overlook the fact that we bomb them? That we kill them with collateral damage? That we won’t take our THUMB OFF OF THEM?

Stop ignoring it. Stop removing it from the equation!

You sound like a Democrat who’d say “the rich” are responsible for the 2008 economic collapse. Why do Democrats say that? So they never have to accept the fact that GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION largely caused it. And likewise, foreign military intervention/occupation is what has encouraged most acts of terror against us and because some past Republicans have supported those actions they now can’t admit what the true cause is.

Get over it and accept it.

I know you have probably entrenched yourself in this false belief that they hate us entirely because we’re rich, and we’re free but you’re only living in ignorance.

Study the issue, watch some YouTube video’s on Blowback and you’ll come to the same conclusion. But you have to be willing to admit you were wrong about some things.

I WAS wrong about a lot of things. I can still remember arguing in support of that STUPID war in Iraq! It’s embarrassing some of the lines I used. The truth is I had no idea the things WE’D done in the middle east. I was NEVER told the OTHER SIDE of the story in a way that was consistent with my limited government beliefs.

Islamist’s don’t LIKE our culture, that’s true. But that’s not entirely what motivates them to kill themselves in order to attack us. What motivates them to attack us is our policies and aggression toward them dating back a very long time.

Government intervening into the economy and foreign nations is unwise. Do me a favor and don’t argue with me, just think about it. Let it ruminate.

If you can’t ever acknowledge the simple fact that our foreign intervention/occupation’s do have unintended consequences, then this has nowhere to go and you’re living in la-la land. Hell, even PAUL WOLFOWITZ understands the concept of blowback.

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:45 AM

fatlibertarianinokc on May 29, 2012 at 3:45 AM

So? Kill ‘em all – problem solved! The reason we are having problems now, is because we didn’t finish the job in the first round (732)!

OldEnglish on May 29, 2012 at 4:04 AM

The words ‘ ron paul’ are the litmus test for sanity. If it turns yellow, you have a ron paul supporter.

tom daschle concerned on May 29, 2012 at 6:42 AM

Well, I see we’ve established that Mitt Romney’s Swiss bank account was named “Hitler2.”

I’m at a loss for words (mark that down, classy lady).

aryeung on May 29, 2012 at 6:59 AM

There’s a difference between a statue and a formal declaration of war. Congress never passed a declaration of war during the Barbary wars.

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

I love the Barbary War argument. It’s so predictable and a sign the user has no idea what he’s talking about.

war powers

Dante on May 29, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8