Posted on 08/13/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by chatter4
Great video, well worth hearing. Ron Paul's remarks about Iran, followed by commentaries of Levin, Rush and Beck all in one place.
Unlike Ron Paul, I really DO want to end abortion and these other perversions posing as marriage. You deal with the system you have. You cannot tie both of our hands and both of our feet behind our backs while arming the social revolutionaries with the political/SCOTUS equivalent of nukes.
On the 10th, Paulie wants us restrained by it and our enemies empowered by it. He is blatantly dishonest as usual to describe his delusions in such a way as to call himself pro-life. I want a centralized government on foreign policy, trade, military policy and a bunch of other things. So did the Founders. Also bear in mind that the Founders were remarkable men but they did not have a crystal ball to see the specific circumstances of our time. I doubt that their wildest imaginations would have foreseen legalized abortion at all much less on demand or "marriage" of Adam and Bruce or genuflecting before Al Qaeda for that matter and they certainly did not write a constitution to guarantee as legal rights such evil insanity. (There I go again!!! I am SOOOOO judgmental! You betcha!)
Ron Paul is an airhead who appeals to the "I gotta be me" crowd and he is a dishonest airhead or the least mentally capable article in shoe leather in the entire American gummint.
Maybe we SHOULD elect someone to change the direction of gummint and stop the social revolution but it is a lead pipe cinch that the someone is not the Galveston porkmeister, selective 10th Amendment social revolutionary poseur and surrendermonkey.
You either believe in the obvious truth or you don't but YOU can't have it both ways. I am a recovering attorney. I represented without fee 1100 people arrested (most on felony charges) for sitting in at abortion mills, desterilizing the instruments, pouring raw eggs into the suction machines. About 30 were convicted, mostly of the non-criminal equivalent of parking tickets (infractions) and none of felonies. I absolutely resent Ron Paul's rank dishonesty on the pro-life issue. I don't care about his personal opinions. I care about his ACTIONS as a public official. He wants to play philosopher king while another 50 million babies are slaughtered and counting. He is a rank phony. Paul hides behind the 10th Amendment and SCOTUS in Roe vs. Wade hid behind the 9th Amendment. Those two amendments have generally been ignored for over 200 years except to facilitate baby-killing and perversion. NO THANKS!
If the little twerp REALLY wants to defend the 10th Amendment consistently, he would have to advocate the complete abolition of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and about 95% of the federal government's programs. However nice an idea that might seem to many conservatives as to many fedgov programs, if paleoPaulie were candid and honest, the voting public would stomp his sorry backside into the dustbin of history. Paul's sophomoric nonsense may just thrill the college kiddies who support him since he seems to promise legal drugs, sex however they please with whomever or whatever they please in whatever numbers, abortion to keep their life options open without forgoing sex until marriage, no personal responsibility just a cornucopia of "rights" subsidized by others and no more of those just icky wars that make their empty little heads hurt and no more bills for same.
For nearly fifty years, I have been a movement conservative. I have never seen such a disgrace as Ron Paul sullying the name of the movement by calling himself conservative. He is a libertarian and not a conservative and he makes it up as he goes along. I was a Libertarian Party State officer as a college kid back before we invented the wheel but then I grew up. He is 76 and by 2016 he will be eighty. He has never grown up. Maybe he can be packed off to Sunnyvale Farm in a straitjacket by 2016. You well know that he will NEVER be POTUS.
Amen...I could not have said it better re Ron Paul. Keep it up. Libertarians are would be anarchists.
Paul's not going to get the nomination.
So then who will these college kids vote for?
Likely a write-in or a third party.
In other words, Obama.
The military threat from them is regional.
The US doesn't need to be the defender of the world.
There was a great fear when the Indians and Paki's got the bomb as well, but they have kept each other in check so far.
Who wants them with a nuke as well?
But the fact is, we have very little we can do.
China may be able to do more then we can regarding N.Korea.
No one is suggesting that we should not maintain our nuclear arsenal; no one is suggesting that we should not continue to develop the most advanced weapons systems on earth; no one is suggesting that we should not have gone after Al Qaeda, after they repeatedly struck at us. As Jefferson wrote in a memo to General Washington, in 1793, we should "punish the first insult." Jefferson applied this to the Barbary Pirates, very effectively.
But while we deal with out enemies from a position of strength; and retaliate for any mischief; there is nothing in that which extrapolates to trying to treat other peoples as the British treated the Irish--a terrible mistake that has been harmful to both Nations--by trying to make them into something else.
Your abusive comments about Dr. Paul add nothing to your argument, which to the extent of calling for strength, I would concur with. To the extent, however that it looks towards permanent antagonisms, it is something quite different. You mention Patton, who was not only a great warrior, but like Washington against some of what you seem to advocate.
You also seem to have a disproportionate focus on Iran. Surely the hostage crisis of 1979 & 1980, does not quite measure up to the actual war that we had with North Korea; with the continued provocations by North Korea, today. Nor do Iranian nuclear developments pose the threat of North Korea's actual nuclear arsenal + superior rockets. It strikes me that you are doing precisely what Washington warned against, and that is letting your foreign policy views by driven by your own like & dislikes.
Again, read what Washington actually said. It is extremely relevant to what is going on today. (Washington/Bush Debate on Foreign Policy.)
William Flax
Every quote in history by every person how ever lived will not change the fact that Ron Paul is a crackpot. Nutty little libertaian crackpot.
Probably not. His age is certainly against him. But he came in a very close second in the Iowa straw polls, over the weekend. It is absolutely idiotic for those claiming to be Conservative Republicans to be insulting 27.6% of the most active Republicans in an at least moderately Conservative State, by the comments some are making on this thread.
And by the way. While Dr. Paul, despite his age, does appeal to campus Conservatives, for all the right reasons; there were very few of them visible in the C-Span coverage of the Iowa meeting. The fact that Paul--if he should make it on to the ticket--would bring a lot of non-aligned youth into the Republican Party is a net plus.
This thread, however, is totally counter-productive. In stead of focusing on Obama, many here are focused on a terribly destructive inter-family feud, which does nothing worthwhile to meeting the real threats to the American future.
William Flax
The man has been overwhelmingly reelected in his district, repeatedly. He has one of the most consistent voting records of anyone in the past generation in Congress. He votes against all of the things that most Conservatives question. He is respected among Conservative economists as a sound foe of Keynesian folly. His record is as commendable as your slander is ridiculous.
Obama, on the other hand, is a crackpot demagogue. Why would you attack Ron Paul, rather than Obama, if you need to denounce someone?
William Flax
Only if the Republican party is too stupid and won’t capitalize on Paul’s bi-partisan appeal and not nominate him.
Which means you are right.
LOL - that's what I love about the Paulbots.
Iran should be treated as we treated the Japanese High Command after WWII. Ahmadinejad: hanged by the neck until dead. The offending mullahs likewise. Even Eisenhower did not tolerated Mossagh Dagh taking over Iran. We did not nation build or direct the Shah as to how to govern. He was happy to be our friend and understood tye consequences if he were not. If we had not had a succession of Nixon/Kissinger, Feckless Ford, and followed by Spineless Carter (taking out Reza Pahlevi from the Peacock Throne in favor of the lunatics), we would have a lot fewer problems in the Islamofascist world. In foreign and military policy, Ron Paul is nothing but a Carter wannabe without Naval Academy the degree in nuclear physics. This cowardly excuse for foreign policy did not work for Neville Chamberlain or for his American counterparts (America Firster isolationist nincompoops who folded their collective tent after their stupidity was rewarded with Pearl Harbor destruction). FDR refused to allow oil to the Japanese war machine and the attack on Pearl Harbor followed almost immediately. They had been given aid and comfort by the paleopeacecreep crowd whyining against a manly foreign policy and demanding opportunities for profits from trade to arm our enemies.
As to my disagreements with Washington's expressed beliefs in this nation's impotent infancy when Kumbaya made more sense than an interventionist stance as it has not since about 1820, I will be sure to take it up with him personally if I meet him in the hereafter. If he does not know what happened in the 215 years or so since his death to make for a verrrrry changed foreign policy among the sane, I will be sure to fill him in.
Be sure to get paleoPaulie to get back to us if and when Israel or the first American city are nuked by Ahmadinejad or his ilk. Oh, there I go again, abusing poor Ahmadinejad for publicly promising to nuke Israel and us and poor, poor misunderstood paleoPaulie for his eagerness to serve Ahmadinejad's cause or your and his appalling naivete in refusing to recognize threats to the US.
A more contemporary source of occasional wisdom in a despicable cause was Lenin who accurately predicted that when America was to be hanged, her businessmen would be eager to profit from selling the rope. That is, in a nutshell (paleoPaulie should pardon the expression) essentially the paleoisolationist/pacifist foreign "policy."
As to Patton, wasn't he the magnificent field commander who angered Eisenhower and FDR by speaking openly of his desire to use the existing army in Europe to invade and conquer the soviets??? Whatever differences I may have with his memory (his belief in reincarnation or whatever) are not on that score.
If the early peace enthusiasts (far better men than paleoPaulie, each and every one, however defective until Pearl Harbor) of America First whom you and I well know are paleoPaulie's role models (until mugged by reality and the Japanese High Command), including Charles Lindbergh, Cyrus McCormack and John Flynn, could learn from their despicable errors at the cost of the lives of the crews of USS Arizona, Maryland, Texas and soooo many other American warships, you and Paulie are luckier. You can read about Pearl Harbor (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the Islamofascist intended fate for Western Civilization, the United States, Israel, Christianity and Judaism) and change your minds before a nuclear Pearl Harbor.
Since Bush and Washington were hardly contemporaries and had never actually debated, I am not interested at all in fairy tales of the, ummmm, "peace community" taking both out of context to make paleoweenie points.
I grew up in New Haven, Connecticut and lived in its immediate vicinity for many years until moving to rural Illinois a little over a decade ago. John Flynn was the editor of the then quite conservative New Haven Register owned by John Day Jackson. I respect Flynn (Executive Director of America First) and a benefactor of the local college I attended for his honesty in admitting the errors of America First. I respect him for his accomplishments and not for his early foreign policy blunders. I can respect Ron Paul's expressed views on many non-military and non-foreign policy issues. I can despise him simultaneously for being a serial liar as to being a pro-lifer (effectively in public policy)n while hiding behind the skirts of the long-dead 10th Amendment and for a wide variety of other rank dishonesties. This is not abuse but rational evaluation of the crackpot who is Ron Paul. He will be no more missed than was Harold Stassen.
Iran should be treated as we treated the Japanese High Command after WWII. Ahmadinejad: hanged by the neck until dead. The offending mullahs likewise. Even Eisenhower did not tolerated Mossagh Dagh taking over Iran. We did not nation build or direct the Shah as to how to govern. He was happy to be our friend and understood tye consequences if he were not. If we had not had a succession of Nixon/Kissinger, Feckless Ford, and followed by Spineless Carter (taking out Reza Pahlevi from the Peacock Throne in favor of the lunatics), we would have a lot fewer problems in the Islamofascist world. In foreign and military policy, Ron Paul is nothing but a Carter wannabe without Naval Academy the degree in nuclear physics. This cowardly excuse for foreign policy did not work for Neville Chamberlain or for his American counterparts (America Firster isolationist nincompoops who folded their collective tent after their stupidity was rewarded with Pearl Harbor destruction). FDR refused to allow oil to the Japanese war machine and the attack on Pearl Harbor followed almost immediately. They had been given aid and comfort by the paleopeacecreep crowd whyining against a manly foreign policy and demanding opportunities for profits from trade to arm our enemies.
As to my disagreements with Washington's expressed beliefs in this nation's impotent infancy when Kumbaya made more sense than an interventionist stance as it has not since about 1820, I will be sure to take it up with him personally if I meet him in the hereafter. If he does not know what happened in the 215 years or so since his death to make for a verrrrry changed foreign policy among the sane, I will be sure to fill him in.
Be sure to get paleoPaulie to get back to us if and when Israel or the first American city are nuked by Ahmadinejad or his ilk. Oh, there I go again, abusing poor Ahmadinejad for publicly promising to nuke Israel and us and poor, poor misunderstood paleoPaulie for his eagerness to serve Ahmadinejad's cause or your and his appalling naivete in refusing to recognize threats to the US.
A more contemporary source of occasional wisdom in a despicable cause was Lenin who accurately predicted that when America was to be hanged, her businessmen would be eager to profit from selling the rope. That is, in a nutshell (paleoPaulie should pardon the expression) essentially the paleoisolationist/pacifist foreign "policy."
As to Patton, wasn't he the magnificent field commander who angered Eisenhower and FDR by speaking openly of his desire to use the existing army in Europe to invade and conquer the soviets??? Whatever differences I may have with his memory (his belief in reincarnation or whatever) are not on that score.
If the early peace enthusiasts (far better men than paleoPaulie, each and every one, however defective until Pearl Harbor) of America First whom you and I well know are paleoPaulie's role models (until mugged by reality and the Japanese High Command), including Charles Lindbergh, Cyrus McCormack and John Flynn, could learn from their despicable errors at the cost of the lives of the crews of USS Arizona, Maryland, Texas and soooo many other American warships, you and Paulie are luckier. You can read about Pearl Harbor (and Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the Islamofascist intended fate for Western Civilization, the United States, Israel, Christianity and Judaism) and change your minds before a nuclear Pearl Harbor.
Since Bush and Washington were hardly contemporaries and had never actually debated, I am not interested at all in fairy tales of the, ummmm, "peace community" taking both out of context to make paleoweenie points.
I grew up in New Haven, Connecticut and lived in its immediate vicinity for many years until moving to rural Illinois a little over a decade ago. John Flynn was the editor of the then quite conservative New Haven Register owned by John Day Jackson. I respect Flynn (Executive Director of America First) and a benefactor of the local college I attended for his honesty in admitting the errors of America First. I respect him for his accomplishments and not for his early foreign policy blunders. I can respect Ron Paul's expressed views on many non-military and non-foreign policy issues. I can despise him simultaneously for being a serial liar as to being a pro-lifer (effectively in public policy)n while hiding behind the skirts of the long-dead 10th Amendment and for a wide variety of other rank dishonesties. This is not abuse but rational evaluation of the crackpot who is Ron Paul. He will be no more missed than was Harold Stassen.
I’m not a Paulbot. I’d rather Palin if she runs.
If she doesn’t, and the Republicans pick someone besides Paul, Obama is a shoe-in.
What I love about idiot Republicans is they’d rather lose to Obama than have a shot with Paul. They did the same with McCain in 08.
Thanks for nothing.
Uh...you're welcome. (I'll never understand the Paulbots, but I suppose that's a healthy thing...)
At least we agree on one thing. I do like Palin.
I'm not in the tank for any of them right now.
The elction is fifteen months away, for crying out loud.
The situation is still very fluid.
The current "Ron Paul isn't getting enough MSM love" bitch fest over on Zero Hedge is something to behold. And as with every thread in Paulestine, they have some strong words for them Jews (except Jon Stewart... since he did a sympathetic segment on Paul, he's a good Jew today).
“I hope he runs as a third party candidate. He will only hurt Obama.”
I beg to disagree. My thought is that if he were to run on a third party ticket, he’d be a spoiler for our side just as Perot helped Clinton get elected. Unfortunately, there are quite a few who’d never vote for BHO but would vote for RP. For one thing, his name is linked to the Tea Party in the media and Liberal talking points. (They call him Conservative, plus he ran as Repub last time as well.) So he wouldn’t take any votes away from BHO, but likely would from the Repub candidate. Then, bingo - a second term of BHO because voters who don’t want him will now be split.
I just reread your post, and it’s spot-on. RP wouldn’t endorse the Repub nominee even if it were Jesus Christ, because he’s so arrogant he thinks only HE (RP) is pure enough.
I just hate that he’s brainwashed so many kids who don’t know diddly yet, and poisoned them against any good conservatives. He’s spawned blind koolaid drinkers who are no better than those of The Wan.
In fact, he seems to be a player who gets perverse kicks out of all this - just like the games he plays with bills in Congress such that he gets regular, hefty earmarks but can say he always votes “no” to earmarks.
I hope Rick Santorum can hang in there - at least he had the guts to take the “good doctor” on in debate and, despite being treated unfairly and cut short by the moderators, did a fine job of it.
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.