Rush Limbaugh: "Ron Paul puts on the Tinfoil Hat"

"There was a big difference between Ross Perot and the surrender monkey. Ross Perot did not want to see our military destroyed. Nor did he blame America for every problem in the world. Ross Perot wanted America safe through strength. Cut and Run thinks if we appease our enemies enough they will leave us alone."

I must have missed the big "peace in our time," surrender-first speech. Sorry. I don't get C-SPAN3 on my local cable provider.

"How did that work for England under Nevile [sic] Chamberlain?"

Particularly lousy, because England kept up this thing called THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Being an imperialist nation means you have to involve yourself in world domination games, and appeasement is akin to quitting the game. However, aren't you the type that said we went to war in Iraq for world peace and nation-building and national defense? Did I miss that C-SPAN episode where the U.S. decided to go the world domination route? Or have we gone back to the Manifest Destiny/bear any burden b.s.?

"The most important duty of a president is to keep America safe. Cut and Run thinks the best way for us to be safe is to surrender."

If I see you and your buddy in a schoolyard fight, it is not surrendering if I let you both have at it and walk on. How is it surrendering to say that it is wrong that America has been standing up for borders in Pakistan, Korea, Kuwait and now Iraq, and should instead divert that military might to police its own? Surrendering is saying that the countries and citizens we should protect are thousands of miles away, not within our own sovereign territory? Who knew? Besides you, of course!

You are partially attributing quotes to me from another poster. In any event - it really does not make sense suggest that you can put words in Bachmann's mouth from another person if she doesn't specifically and at random say she disavows their comments when making her own remarks.

Yet somehow you haven't

It's been done countless times over the years here long before Limbaugh ever said a word about Ron Paul and no one needs his help - he hasn't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg. You, like many other Paulbots, just act as though the facts were never presented from post to post and start over again with your talking points fresh as though they haven't been repeatedly debunked and as though you never saw or heard any of the troubling things about Ron Paul. This post of yours demonstrates that same thing again, and it is a waste of time and impossible to have any kind of a rationale discussion with people who engage in this kind of behavior. It seems as though this is the same kind of personality cult mentality that got Obama into office - Paul to you simply represents your own personal idea - who he really is and what he actually says and does never seem to enter into the picture of how you promote him or analyze him.

You know damn well that complaints about Paul’s dangerously naive foreign policy are not referring to wanting to close bases in Okinawa or Germany. There are valid points on both sides of those issues. There are NOT valid points on both sides of the issues when it comes to Iran and other Islamofascist states. Paul falsely accuses both the U.S. and Israel of creating hatred by bombing when neither the U.S. nor Israel has ever attacked Iran. Facts like that are lost on Paul.

The point is that Paul is indeed crazy and his supporters are even worse. I am glad to see that Paul and his supporters are finally being recognized as being ultimately no different than LaRouche and his supporters, something I have been saying for years. Brainwashed robots following a crazy old man. It isn’t 1850 anymore. Time to get with the f’ing program.

“Your right...I would nuke their ass....Paul would just roll over and hand them the keys.”

But you know that nuking Iran—or the Kabaa, for that matter—won’t happen no matter how much it would reduce the possibility of Islamists attacking us. The same attitude that America has against India, Pakistan, China, North Korea—oh, heck, every country that has gotten nukes—prevails, and that attitude is essentially “Aw, crap, whaddyagonnado?”

Because there ain’t a damn thing you CAN do, even INCLUDING nuking them, that will prevent those nukes from being used if they are truly crazy enough to send suicide bombers with backpacks. Maybe we can take a few out before they are used, but the reality is that the way Iran has set their program up seems to have been with bombing in mind.

What doesn’t make sense is your entire ‘response’ to me. You, like many others whose entire campaign is about attacking any possible vein of support for Paul, refer to me as a “Paulbot.” Frankly, I can see supporting other candidates if they win the primary. I know darn well that many of you would never do the same for Paul or anyone who held his political platform, no matter the person. Seems to me that you are the cult types, because you expect us to worship at the altar of the GOP 24/7, while you are only held to that standard when it’s a candidate you like. It is shameful that you’d malign Paul and his supporters if they decide not to stay within the GOP if he loses, all the while you trash them personally.

But then, this happens time and again from milquetoast “Republican” supporters of Powell, Ah-nold, Cain, and lately, Gingrich. It’s always the other folks, those pointing out the shortcomings of your current cause celebre, who the are ‘cultists.’ That the candidates being derided are caught out in clear political snafus or worse, policy differences from the mainstream and the GOP primary voter, well, that’s all window dressing and “electability” is far more important. Until you dump the ‘electable’ types for someone better (i.e., whose policies are more unknown). Who are you supporting today? Santorum? Who was it last week? Perry? Cain? Huckabee?

"There are NOT valid points on both sides of the issues when it comes to Iran and other Islamofascist states. Paul falsely accuses both the U.S. and Israel of creating hatred by bombing when neither the U.S. nor Israel has ever attacked Iran. Facts like that are lost on Paul."

The U.S. attacked Iran's elected government in the 50s and has supported attacks against its current theocratic one ever since the 80s. I don't support their current government or the one that we dealt with in the 50s, but I do think we have a lot of reasons to hate Iran, just as their government has plenty of reasons to hate us. I disagree with you; there are different approaches as to how we deal with Iran. One is the attitude Reagan took in Lebanon--leave, ignore them and other Islamofascist states, and stop funding them and their enemies in the region via foreign aid programs both national and international. That would be Paul's approach. Yours is 'bomb them and hope they don't get more pissed off.' That is a different approach.

"The point is that Paul is indeed crazy and his supporters are even worse."

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard." Yeah, Paul is as crazy as those darn mobocrats back in the late 1700s. Should have been put down by the King, what ho!

"I am glad to see that Paul and his supporters are finally being recognized as being ultimately no different than LaRouche and his supporters, something I have been saying for years. Brainwashed robots following a crazy old man."

Right. Anyone who remotely agrees with Paul must be brainwashed. That's the way to get us to come over to agree with you. Insult us. Perhaps if you call us a bunch of f'ing meathead morons who have $#!# for brains we'll think your way faster. Don't you think what you are doing is counterproductive, if you really believe that the people who disagree with you are wrong AND brainwashed? You're arguing with a zombie, after all. If your characterization is true, it just makes you look dumb and annoys the zombie.

"It isn’t 1850 anymore. Time to get with the f’ing program."

Yeah, I guess it's a hardball world. I've gotta jump on the team and come on in for the big win.

Is there a single LyndRon LaPaul supporter who isn’t an expert at rationalization? You construct convenient straw man arguments based on twisting both the arguments of those who do not support Paul as well as the arguments of Paul himself. For example, you say that my approach would be to “bomb them and hope they don’t get more pissed off.” This is laughable, of course, as neither I nor anybody on “my side” ever articulated such an approach.

You then said that Paul’s approach would be the same as Reagan’s, which is completely false. Paul has never articulated a consistent approach to Iran and what he has said over the years is certainly not what you said. Paul’s approach is remarkably consistent with Noam Chomsky as well as that of the 1979 hostage takers. That is to say that Paul blames the U.S. for overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953 when in fact the government was increasingly unstable. “Meddling” did not lead to Iranian aggression and state-sponsored terrorism against the U.S. in the last sixty years. Radical Islam did. That happens whether we “meddle” or not and history has shown that not meddling will lead us to things like 9/11.

Paul’s foreign policy, if you are correct, is to “ignore them.” Few people would argue with this. We have tried “ignoring them” in the past and we ended up with 9/11, Pearl Harbor, WWI, WWII, and so on. The fact is the U.S. will be attacked and hated regardless of whether we “ignore them” or not. Suggesting that things will magically get better if we ignore our enemies - whether they are Islamic nations or not - is not supported by reality. I’m terribly sorry, but that’s the way it is.

“We don’t fight wars to win anymore...we fight them to make friends....that is the problem.”

Now THAT we agree on 100%. To interject a note of disagreement into an otherwise happy moment, I have to say that this is WHY I can support Paul’s foreign policy even though I disagree with the notion that we might not project our military strength abroad. Because I don’t feel like we allow our military to fight with all the tools that could be at their disposal, as part of the objective these days is to become buddies with our enemies. Doesn’t work. Never did. Never will. If our country doesn’t have the stomach to fight to win wars of attrition, given the measures that might be necessary—and it hasn’t proven that it does have that will, going back to the Philippine Insurrection—we shouldn’t even be considering fighting unless national defense is at stake directly. We only embarrass our nation and endanger its soldiers when we tie their hands.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.