BUT Paulbots who think the way now is to undermine Romney and help re-elect Obama are stupid as hell.

Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Seeing a lot of foreign invaders in Vineland, are you?

Loosen up on the tin foil. It’ll help blood get to your brain.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

HAHAHA Nice!

Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Seeing a lot of foreign invaders in Vineland, are you?

Loosen up on the tin foil. It’ll help blood get to your brain.

It would be quicker for me to tell you what part I agree with, and here it is:

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Hmmm… so Iran is not a sovereign state, huh?

I should have known by your public proclamation of respect for ABBA that you are an idiot.

It would make me feel a lot better about voting Romney if Rand Paul were on the ticket.

OTOH, I worry about Rand Paul getting ‘Palinized’ and tossed under the bus.

I’m so loving this.

I suggested months ago that Rand Paul for VP is a genius move by Romney, and I still hope he does it. It doesn’t get him a state (he already has Kentucky, for what it’s worth), but I thought it would get him the great majority of his Dad’s kook supporters … looks like I was wrong about that.

If you always keep in mind that Ron Paul and his bots are flower children, you will never overestimate their maturity/capabilities!

There’s a lot of time left, but with Paul supporters joining the nutbag fringe evangelical voters in saying “I will never vote for that Mormon Romney”, I’m not sure how Romney wins. Are these just really vocal but tiny minorities of the conservative coalition? Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

Jaibones on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I think you’ve narrowed it down properly, but from my experience it’s a “both” rather than an “either/or” case…

Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

Jaibones on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

In my experience, there are two types of Ron Paul supporters:

The first type is the “legalize weed” crowd. (I think most of these are young adults who have no political ideas besides knowing (rightfully) that most politicians are power-hungry egoists.)

The second are the libertarian idealists. While I’d love to see the government restricted completely to the limits in the Constitution, it’s certainly a situation of “you-can’t-get-there-from-here”. Paulites don’t see that. As with most idealists, failure to see reality will hurt your cause, rather than help it.

(Note that I think there are some Ron Paul followers who are outside both of these types. It seems that they aren’t a very vocal faction, though.)

I suggested months ago that Rand Paul for VP is a genius move by Romney, and I still hope he does it. It doesn’t get him a state (he already has Kentucky, for what it’s worth), but I thought it would get him the great majority of his Dad’s kook supporters … looks like I was wrong about that.

There’s a lot of time left, but with Paul supporters joining the nutbag fringe evangelical voters in saying “I will never vote for that Mormon Romney”, I’m not sure how Romney wins. Are these just really vocal but tiny minorities of the conservative coalition? Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

I couldn’t disagree with anything you wrote, there. I’d simply add that balance in foreign policy is an important, if elusive, thing. (Battleships don’t grow on trees. :) )

“Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ. Buffer zones are very useful in protecting more valuable real estate. If you can keep the crack dealers out of your neighborhood, you don’t have to get them off your block. And you definitely don’t have to yell “get out of my yard!”

That should do in explaining my position.

Your second sentence was a bit mangled. (Happens to me sometimes.)

I’m not sure “the world’s policeman” is a false premise. Can’t one argue that we’ve been basically the first line of defense in Europe since WWII? Our military presence has allowed the socialistic policies prevalent in Europe today to fester (again, like OmahaConservative’s toe). (Let’s not forget Japan.)

I’d never argue for isolationist policy for the US (as I think Paul does). But, I do think that it’s time we make sure we’re “gettin’ somethin’” for our trouble.

RedCrow on June 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

That was well said, but I would disagree with you on one point. It wasn’t what you said but the (you understood (grammar term)) false premise JohnGalt23 provided in his listings, which you patently accepted to disagree with him on a different issue. The US is not now, nor has it been, “the world’s policemen”.

His foreign policy views wrt Iran are very realistic. On some level, that is why they scare the Right so much. Realism recognizes the primacy of nation-states, and the necessity of recognizing constraints on resources when considering how to deal with foreign policy issues. RP has said that it’s natural for Iran to seek a weapon. Well, as sovereign state surrounded by questionable characters like Russia, Iraq and the Af-Pak theater, of course they want a bomb. Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge, Iran would still seek the bomb. And RP claims we’ve blown our credibility with other nations over Iraq, and we cannot afford to handle an invasion of Iran by ourselves. What part of that do you disagree with?

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It would be quicker for me to tell you what part I agree with, and here it is:

What part of that do you disagree with?

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

I don’t usually post on “dead” threads, and you might not see this, but your comment is as juicy as OmahaConservative’s pus-filled toe.

How anyone can say that Ron Paul’s policy views toward Iran are realistic is beyond my comprehension. At worst, a nuclear Iran uses the weapon to annihilate Israel, which they’ve threatened to do. (This is completely different from our experience with the USSR, who were not religious fanatics.) At best, Iran uses their nuclear capability to bully the entire region, forever occluding any chance at stability in the ME.

“Questionable characters like Russia, Iraq, and the Af-Pak theater”?!? I don’t know if you made a mistake in phrasing, but to mention “questionable characters” that Iran has to deal with is patently absurd.

“Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge”?? Who else is going to be in charge of Iran? The 4-H club?

The only thing Ron Paul says on foreign policy that makes any sense whatsoever is that we should stop being the world’s policeman. (Still, someone has to keep the world a relatively safe place, and as you may have noticed Europe is out.)

Having said all of that, I appreciate a RP supporter that isn’t a fanatical idealogue.

First of all, we have a new candidate for most scrambled analogy in the universe.

Second, it’s still pretty early Sunday morning here, and I have yet to graze.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM

It was scrambled only if you weren’t able follow w/o help.

I knew what I meant, said it in a sensible way, and the point I made still stands: The GD is a great rock ‘n’ roll band the same way that The Beatles are one when compared to The RS i.e. the Beatles are more of a pop band than they are a great rock ‘n’ roll band like The RS (listen to their differing versions of “I Wanna Be Your Man” for a taste of what I mean), and the GD, who do not ever rock w/a good groove, really don’t know much about what great rock ‘n’ roll music is! :)

volunteered on Rand’s campaign and i generally agree with his father. I think his foreign policy views are unrealistic in the age of nuclear Iran and others. However, I have not figured out why Ron’s campaign seems to attract the nuts. Ideology is fine, but in the end you accomplish nothing if you cannot get elected.

pgrossjr on June 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM

His foreign policy views wrt Iran are very realistic. On some level, that is why they scare the Right so much. Realism recognizes the primacy of nation-states, and the necessity of recognizing constraints on resources when considering how to deal with foreign policy issues. RP has said that it’s natural for Iran to seek a weapon. Well, as sovereign state surrounded by questionable characters like Russia, Iraq and the Af-Pak theater, of course they want a bomb. Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge, Iran would still seek the bomb. And RP claims we’ve blown our credibility with other nations over Iraq, and we cannot afford to handle an invasion of Iran by ourselves. What part of that do you disagree with?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I am going to have to investigate him some more. In the video I mistook him for Randy Rhoads and was pretty sure I was wrong so I’ll be looking into his stuff now that I found him.

2) the GD are to rock ‘n’ roll as The Beatles are to The Rolling Stones when it comes to rock ‘n’ roll

3) your sense of humor isn’t very good! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

First of all, we have a new candidate for most scrambled analogy in the universe.

Second, it’s still pretty early Sunday morning here, and I have yet to graze.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I noticed you mentioned Rick Derringer upthread – do you like any of his solo stuff?

Someone doesn’t pay very close attention…

Ann Coulter’s Grateful Dead interview

From Human Events piece on John Kasich:

Along with explaining the numbers and spelling out their long-term impact, Rep. Kasich would spice his talk with references to his passion for the music of the Grateful Dead and his love of basketball and tennis.

You were saying?

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

lol

1) you had no link/reference in the post I responded to, so ‘you weren’t paying close attention’ does not compute here

2) the GD are to rock ‘n’ roll as The Beatles are to The Rolling Stones when it comes to rock ‘n’ roll

3) your sense of humor isn’t very good! :)

Resist We Much on June 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Poor Mr. Axlerod, he gets all the blame.

How much acid were they on at the time?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Someone doesn’t pay very close attention…

Ann Coulter’s Grateful Dead interview

From Human Events piece on John Kasich:

Along with explaining the numbers and spelling out their long-term impact, Rep. Kasich would spice his talk with references to his passion for the music of the Grateful Dead and his love of basketball and tennis.

You were saying?

‘Toon of the Day: Frenemies

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/06/toon-of-day-frenemies.html