Posted on 08/26/2007 6:30:16 AM PDT by SJackson
Well, it was predictable. The talking points used by supporters of Ron Paul (i.e. Paulbots, Paulites, etc.) have now changed.
You can always tell when the marching orders are given to a group by the sudden shift in the common language they use to refer to a certain situation. It’s like when Rush Limbaugh compiles montages of several media types from different organizations all using the exact same (and often obscure) term or description for an event. You know there was a memo sent out somewhere.
Well the same thing has happened among members of the Paul Collective.
Prior to Mr. Paul’s propensity for unconstitutional spending becoming widely known, the talking points were that Mr. Paul was the only “true Constitutionalist” running for President and that anyone who supported the Constitution had to support Mr. Paul based on that. Now that his status as a “true” believer in the Constitution has been utterly shattered, the new line in almost every email sent to me by a rabid, foaming at the mouth Paulbot is that Mr. Paul is still the man because he is the “most” Constitutional of all the candidates.
For the Paulbots, trying to defend his use of the Constitution as toilet paper simply has not flown as well as they would have liked. So now they are now trying to convince conservatives and libertarians that the liberaltarian ways of Ron Paul are still best because they are “more” Constitutional than other candidates. Call me skeptical of that.
I don’t see how anyone can say that Mr. Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates when he has violated the Constitution the same as others have. Sure he might have done it for different pet programs that spend federal money on shrimp and trolleys rather than Social Security and Medicare, but it is still a violation of Constitution. This defense is like saying that a man who robs a 7-11 for $50 and gives it to his mother to pay for her hospital bills is less guilty of theft than a man who holds up the bank, takes $1,000,000 and flees to the Bahamas.
A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks. And I reiterate that no true libertarian would defend Ron Paul’s actions and those that are simply are showing their own fatal flaws and blind loyalty. However to the credit of some within the Ron Paul camp they are admitting that this is a problem their candidate will need to overcome and correct.
Saying that Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates however puts me in mind of the old George Carlin bit about preheating the oven:
“[P]re this, pre that….. place the turkey in a preheated oven…. it’s ridiculous… there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated…. preheated is a meaningless ****ing term!”
Maybe Ron Paul is a “pre-Constitutionalist”? Does he exist in a state of believing in the Constitution while not believing in it just like the “preheated” oven exists in a mysterious state between being heated and unheated?
Much like the oven, there are only two states in which you can exist with regards to the Constitution; for it or against it. There is no “mostly”. Yes, you can certainly disagree with parts of it, but you still have to abide by it. It’s the law of the land so deal with it.
On a side note, this is about the time in my articles when the Paulbots are rushing to their keyboards to pound out inane emails full of slurs like “neo-con” and “fascist” simply because this is too much truth for them to handle. So for all you members of the Paul Collective that haven’t done so yet, get to typing!
Of course I predicted they would stand by him and defend his indefensible acts in my article The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters) even though he was not what he or they claimed he was. See, it doesn’t matter … Ron Paul is “the one”. He could go on live television and shoot a cute little puppy in the head and the Paulbots would still worship at his feet.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues. However that does not mean I think he is the most qualified candidate to be Commander in Chief of our military and Chief Executive of the United States. I don’t think he is strong enough on taking the fight to any enemy that threatens America and I’ve known about his unconstitutional funding requests for some time as well as his dubious (at best) libertarianism which has more asterisks than Barry Bond’s home run record.
If you want to spend money on studying shrimp then use the amendment process to make such idiotic spending constitutional. Otherwise you are just a hack like any other politician would be who espoused certain beliefs while acting contradictory to them.
Paul supporters like to claim that his requests for spending for a variety of illegitimate reasons were ok, and I am not saying that every single request he made does not or could not pass Constitutional muster. Although most, if not all, are of dubious merit at best I am afraid.
But there is a true libertarian solution Ron Paul could have embraced and hopefully will consider next time he ponders violating the Constitution. That is, if he is serious about being a true Constitutionalist. See, I’m also about ideas and solutions, not just complaining which is something Paulbots have also accused me of in order to remove the spotlight from their candidate.
Instead of taking taxpayer dollars and redistributing them to others in the form of unconstitutional spending, what Ron Paul should have done was use an actual power granted to Congress in the Constitution to “serve his constituents” which is a typical canard Paulbots use to defend his actions. That power? The power of taxation of course.
Congress is unquestionably granted this power. It takes no reading between the lines or mental gymnastics to discover.
So, since Congress has the power to levy taxes and set the rates of such taxes here is what Ron Paul should have done.
First he should have compiled a list of every earmark and the amount of each earmark requested by each of the members of Congress for pet projects in their districts. Then he should have divided each by the number of constituents each member of Congress serves to find out who was getting the most dollars per person. Then he should have taken the maximum amount per person and multiplied it by the number of constituents in his district.
He then should have appended language to the yearly budget requesting this amount of money be set aside in the form of a tax rebate for members of Texas’s 14th congressional district and to be refunded to those who paid income taxes based on how much they paid. In other words, someone that paid $500 in federal income tax would obviously receive less of a rebate than someone that paid $15,000. To do otherwise would of course violate libertarian principles against wealth redistribution.
After all, if the members of Joe Blow’s district are entitled to a certain number of tax dollars per person, then so should Mr. Paul’s. His office would then issue a check to every resident of the district that qualified, by paying taxes, for this rebate of monies he prevented the federal government from spending on unconstitutional programs and which was over collected. And it does not have to just be limited to income taxes either. He could refund the money to anyone that paid any sort of federal tax such as federal gas taxes, etc. although income taxes would certainly be the easiest to go back and verify and track year to year.
Now, of course no one would be able to get back more money than they paid to the federal government. That would amount to some sort of Welfare program which also be very un-libertarian and we just cannot have that either. So we would have to cap the refund at the maximum dollars in taxes paid by each constituent.
But then again, this solution would actually be constitutional and amount to actually serving one’s constituents by upholding the Constitution, returning over collected tax dollars back to them and not lining the pockets of local governments and private industry. And it would be truly libertarian.
What do you say Ron Paul? How about all you Paulbots? Want to be true libertarians in the future?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will freely admit that I did a bad, bad thing last week. Well, it wasn’t a really “bad” thing unless you were one of those that fell for it I guess. What did I do that was so bad? I set up the Paulbots. Yes, evil rotten me, I know.
When I wrote “Earmarking Our Way to Oblivion” I purposefully left out any mention of Ron Paul even though I knew he was just as dirty as all the rest. See, Mr. Paul’s own earmark fetish was certainly no real secret to anyone paying attention and with enough desire to dig a little. But the Paulbots were quick to comment about how because of the corruption that earmarks bring and how that they many times violate the Constitutional powers of Congress that this is exactly the reason why we needed Ron Paul.
Not a day goes by that supporters of Ron Paul aren’t out in droves proclaiming any conservative that does not support their candidate is an evil neo-con, trumpeting how Mr. Paul is a true “constitutionalist” and is the only man qualified to be President. Well, I guess we now see how accurate their description of their own golden boy really is considering news that has really taken off in the last couple days about his own requests for earmarks.
It is no secret to those of us that are out there everyday taking fire from the Paulbots that when Ron Paul commands them to jump they not only ask how high, but also at what angle, what flavor of Kool Aid Mr. Paul would desire they bring him after they land, how many ice cubes he would like in said drink, what color he would like his house painted, how many gallons of gas he needs them to put in his car, what time he would like his wakeup call for the following morning, how he desires his eggs cooked and whether or not he wants them to polish his fine silver clockwise or counterclockwise. The answer to that last one is that Ron Paul demands they first polish it six times clockwise followed by a single counterclockwise finishing polish. Their loyalty to the illusion of their candidate as a savior of us all and as someone that actually holds the Constitution dear is admirable if not highly misguided and naive.
Now the Wall Street Journal and other sources have what Paulbots are robotically and predictably calling a “hit pieces” on their candidate. Of course I still question whether or not Ron Paul really can be considered a “candidate” when he barely cracks one percent in the polls. But that is another topic for another day. Anyway these “hit pieces” detail how Mr. Paul, supposedly a libertarian, has requested millions of taxpayer dollars for roles not delegated to the federal government by we the people. Hardly a “libertarian” stance. Hardly “hit pieces”. Simply the truth.
Oh … well … uh … Ron Paul 2008! He’s still the man! Right Paulbots?
Last week the Paulbots were flooding me with comments about how we needed Ron Paul and about how I was right about the earmark problem. But this week I have particularly loved the responses by these same hacks to these new revelations and that have again flooded into my mailbox on cue since I blogged about Paul’s own earmarks on Tuesday. They say things like, “Well the money was going to be spent anyway!” and, “It’s ok because he is just serving his constituents like he is supposed to,” or boldly proclaim, “there is nothing unconstitutional about Paul’s earmarks!” or my personal favorite, “Well, yeah he requested the earmarks but he voted against them!”
That last one makes me chuckle. It’s a pathetic having your cake and eating it too argument that no true libertarian would embrace. Anyone with half a brain sees through this tactic as nothing but style over substance worthy of the staunchest liberals. Mr. Paul certainly understands that in the current corrupt Washington culture his earmark requests would pass even as he votes against them. He knows all he has to do is attach them to the spending bill in order to reap the benefits. A true libertarian would not even request them in the first place.
But rather than calling for his impeachment for violating the constitution, something I have done time and again for all politicians, regardless of party, that violate the Constitution, the Paulbots rush out to defend the man they have deemed as “the one.” Truth be damned! He really is a TRUE libertarian! Full ludicrous speed ahead!
It doesn’t matter that they were out there in mass decrying earmarks just a week before. It doesn’t matter that the Constitution is clear in Article I, Section 8 when it limits the powers of Congress to tax and spend on a concise list of things defined as the “general Welfare.” It doesn’t mater if Ron Paul has requested federal money to deal with issues found nowhere in these federal powers from funding for shrimp to building hospitals to maintaining trolleys. None of that matters because … well … Ron Paul is da man! Praise the Savior of our Republic! Hallelujah! And how dare I and others take his name in vain!
Blind loyalty is never attractive. And it is often deadly.
The Constitution is simple. It allows for laws and spending on the only a short list of topics which are clearly stated and any libertarian worth their salt knows of James Madison’s discussion of this in Federalist 41. The list that is there is the list. That’s it Mr. Paul. That’s it Paulbots. Nothing about shrimp. Nothing about trolleys. Nothing about most of what Paul’s earmarks are spending money on. No amount of whining about Ron Paul getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar will change the facts. No amount of hurling slurs like “neo-con” or “fascist” or “globalist” at those that exposed Mr. Paul will make a difference in the truth. Such tactics don’t work for liberals and they will not work for you.
I’m sorry I entrapped you last week. But it is something you are going to learn from as you progress on in life. Principles are only principles if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and always watch your own glass house before you cast the first stone.
It’s so simple even a Paulbot can understand it. And I call on Ron Paul to be a true libertarian and draw up articles of impeachment against himself, convince his fellow Congressmen to approve the action and finally vote in favor of the action when the time comes to pay the piper.
But he won’t. He won’t because the fact is there are few true libertarians out here in the real world. We are a lonely bunch for sure. Even though lots of people envision themselves as such, when push comes to show they are at best nothing more than a bastard cousin; the liberaltarian. And that is why we are in trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison once remarked, “with respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” In writing that letter to James Robertson, he reiterated the sentiments he shared with the nation in Federalist 41 where he denounced objections by the anti-Federalists to the term “general Welfare” being included in the Constitution because of it’s presumption of an unlimited and open ended scope as without “color”.
The fear of federally elected politicians being able to curry favor with their constituents by bringing home the bacon in the sense of tax dollars was why under the Constitution our government was given only limited powers to tax and spend. The founders knew that what have become known as “earmarks” would not serve this nation well and would corrupt the intent of limited government.
Why did Madison and the vast majority of Federalists say that the “general Welfare” clause was limited to the set conditions that followed? So that leaders of our government couldn’t buy votes!
Over the years since however we have basically amended the Constitution through court orders and legislation (neither of which are means by which such action can be achieved mind you) to say to heck with all that nonsense! And we see where it is now getting us. “General Welfare” has come to mean anything and everything some politico in Washington can dream up.
What do we have today? We have Republican Congressmen from Alaska like Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young that are kings of pork barrel spending and who year after year take money home to their state for pet projects such as the affectionately called “bridge to nowhere” among many, many others.
We have people like Rep. Sam Farr, Democrat, CA who pushed for $25 million to benefit spinach growers to be added to an “emergency” supplemental spending bill. Must be some spinach “emergency” we are not aware of!
Then there is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota who continues to send taxpayer dollars each year to mega-farms and giving 50% of the money for unconstitutional subsidies to just 4% of America’s farmers.
Perhaps we should ask Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota under what authority of Article I, Section 8 he sought fit to secure over two million dollars in federal loans for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad because they weren’t making enough money on their own to pay for improvements and expansions?
Oh, but let’s not forget Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who, if the truth be known, has more than his share of buildings in the state of West Virginia named after him because of all the money he has brought back to help build them. Not to mention that he has secured money for such unconstitutional projects like the “the Wood Education and Resource Center”. $2.7 million of our tax dollars went to that to teach you and I about wood.
Thank God for government! I do not know how I would have learned anything about wood without this great organization! Honestly, the average American probably knows more about wood than anyone at that ridiculous place though. And those that have taken this money are no doubt busy studying the contents of Mr. Byrd’s head apparently; a perfect specimen of wood.
And while we’re in West Virginia, let’s not forget about Byrd’s partner in crime, Representative Allan Mollohan, who funneled $250 million dollars to non-profits which he himself set up. Conflict of interest?
Or what about John Murtha? Ah yes, good old John … the man has more money going to his district, which includes Johnstown, PA for “defense” projects that it is amazing there aren’t aircraft carriers sitting in Laurel Ridge State Park!
And all the while, the people who these Congressmen represent as well as those of countless others with their hands in the proverbial “cookie jar” cheer. “What great things they are doing for our region!” they cry as they fawn over the money. And they empower our elected officials to continue to push for these monies year after year. And year after year we spend more and more on these earmarks at huge cost to the tax payers.
But that’s ok right? Because the evil “rich” pay those taxes. And we know they are not paying their “fair share” right? And then we wonder why we are paying so much more for the goods and services we buy as these costs are passed on to us.
Meanwhile? These politicians are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they know you will keep voting for them as long as they bring home the pork and train you to salivate on cue. Yes, they’ve got us right where they want us.
I didn’t say that all we had to do was come home and I don’t believe Paul did either. He said our actions caused this. One would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe otherwise.
You seem to be trying to avoid saying that you agree with me that even in doing the right thing, there can be repercussions.
Because there can be, we have to be judicious in our interventions and be prepared for the consequences. There are a lot of people in and out of government who are surprised that someone took offense and did something about it.
I seem to recall our Founders warning us about entangling alliances that require such intervention.
I think that Paul is right, constitutionally speaking but I do believe that he is ignoring that we do face a threat from an irrational (to say the least) enemy and that is why I am not supporting him. Otherwise, I do agree with him more than I do the others.
Dude, did Ron Paul sleep with your wife or something? So much hate from such a n00b.
Extremely Extreme Extremist 76-So...where in this statement that Paul supports complete legalization of drugs or would give dealers amnesty? Paul would likely end the paramilitary, no-knock raids on law-abiding citizens perpetrated by the DEA and out of control local cops and let states handle drug policy.
You don’t address the point.
An indicted drug dealer in Canada attempts to organize support groups for Ron Paul. When the campaign is queried, they reply (longer quotes in post 47)
Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, says the fledgling campaign welcomes all support. But Emery shouldn't necessarily expect amnesty from a Paul administration. "You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."
The issue isn’t whether he’s grant amnesty, his right as President, or oppose current drug laws, I think he would and that’s his job as President.
The issue is where he looks for support.
For me, I’d expect a campaign to turn down the support of an indicted drug dealer, as I would a racist, neonazi, or terrorist funder.
Others, like the Paul campaign, are happy to accept support from wherever they can get it.
We simply disagree on this.
------------------------------
NCSteve 90You need to find a different hobby. Your Paul-hating borders on clinical neurosis.
Always’s nice to hear from FR’s MD’s.
------------------------------
Gondring 103 The problem is, Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican
We disagree that he’s Reagan incarnate
112 SJackson, if you are related to Jeff Jackson or have some direct line to him, would you please pass along these comments, since I'm too dumb to figure out how to send him the comments that he claims to receive. Thanks! :-)
Someone upthread thinks he’s related to JJ Walker, might be a screenname, I don’t know. You can probably reach them both at their blogs.
------------------------------
dcwusmc 136 Let's see here... Your list: My list: See how easy that was? Nothing left that doesn't fit the Constitution and now we can pare taxes down to nearly zilch
Yes, simple, thank you for proving my point that Paul’s solutions are laughably simplistic. You trim the budget to $852 billion, yet neglect to answer the question I asked, How do you provide for $852 billion in spending on the $200 billion or so in revenue remaining after repealing social security and the income tax? BTW, though you’re willing to cease benefits to those collecting them, most Paul supporters say he won’t. I tend to believe them. If they’re right, you’ve got another $550 billion to finance, nearly $1.4 trillion on $200 billion in revenue. Sorry, the numbers just don’t work.
------------------------------
52-nother blatantly dishonest article from you. Hardly surprising.The article doesn't mention how many of Ron Paul's earmarks ever get funded. That's because they don't get funded.
Produce proof that any of Ron Paul's earmarks have passed the relevant budget committees and made it past reconciliation.
But then, that would spoil your entire little ongoing trollfest, wouldn't it? Because there are no Ron Paul earmarks that have been funded. We can find plenty of others for House leaders and committee chairmen and the senior minority leaders on the committees. But none for Ron Paul.
Produce these earmarks.
58 -You know they don't. That's why the CoC types that want fed money to renovate their stupid theater say, when congratulated by the local paper, that it's all fine for Ron Paul to submit their earmark to the appropriate committee but that they'd like him a lot more if only he would vote for porky earmarks.
The problem is that to get your own porky earmarks, you have to collude with the other porksters in Congress. And Ron Paul won't do it. Therefore, he gets no earmarks that he submits.
An interesting use of time then.
How ignorant and malicious can you be? Really.
He has an earmark list that was less than 70 items, each a single page made from a word processor template. These earmark requests are submitted to the relevant committee.
My estimate is that it probably takes about one afternoon for a single staffer to type them up and deliver them to the appropriate committee.
If he believes they’re unconstitutional, I don’t, he shouldn’t submit them. All the rest is posturing. If you’re suggesting none of his earmarks get funded, as I noted before that’s the height of absurdity. Let his staff do something productive.
A President who will advocate “unconstitutional” legislation to pacify supporters, then veto it would be a joke.
----------------------------------
tpaine Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.
I didn’t remember that so I did a quick title search for Paul and Paul’s back to mid July and found these two in addition to this thread.
Aug 6Ed Thompson considers becoming Pro-9/11 Truth U.S. Presidential Candidate [If Paul doesn't]
July 24 White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official (Paul Craig Roberts Nutjob alert!)
It would appear the objection isn’t to the number of articles I post, rather the fact that I post on Ron Paul threads, and as the author suggests his supporters are completely intolerant of opposing views, attacking critics personally, as you’ll see up and down this and other Paul threads.
tpaine 63-No, I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Un american?; - unconstitutional?
Comical comes to mind, but it’s important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party.
----------------------------------
George W. Bush 69 Freeping polls is how we got our name as Freepers here at FR. The DUmmies and the Kos bunch have finally caught on and are doing the same thing. These polls don't mean that much unless you're looking at one that follows a major political event and even then they're too easy to spam.Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes which you can then attribute as truth. You rely upon the laziness of FReepers to believe your little lies so you can spread your FUD.
74-For a candidate you claim to be so marginal, you certainly jump through hoops to try to lie about him by quoting "others". You're pathetic and post disinformation routinely.Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.
I thought it was worth pointing out how SJackson and the other Paul-haters routinely use misleading quotes from obscure websites to trash Ron Paul. It shows how desperate and dishonest they really are. Well, if the malicious keyword spamming they engage in isn't enough to tip readers off to begin with.
As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through. Of course, when someone like SJackson has done this exact same trick dozens of times on countless threads with her little crew of Paul-haters, the denials become pretty hard to believe. Any ordinary person who examines such a post would conclude that SJackson is a deliberate smearer who has no interest in the truth.
It doesn't get much more dishonest than this. But I'm sure the Paul-haters are just waiting for another chance to smear Ron Paul as they have done so many times before. This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.
Ahh, yes, the reasoned attacks of George W. Bush, of great interest to the Paul supporters, thus his ping.
Right, a Paul supporter suggests I’d be more comfortable with Kuchinich as my candidate, I post a internet poll showing Dennis has more support than Ron, and you’re in a hissy fit.
Guess what, internet polls are irrelevant, even when Paul wins. So are straw polls. Get over it.
As to the rest of your rant, proving the Ron Paul derangement, grow a set and take your complaints to management. You attacks on my dishonesty have gotten very, very old. And feel free to have your cohorts do the same.
BTW, your allegations of a conspiracy being conducted by the anti-Paul FR crew are laughable.
FR appears to have a serious problem.
Not only crystal clear history of dishonest posting, but an apparent underground conspiracy to control the content of the site.
I happen to think George W. Bush is a liar, but this may be something for you to look into.
If he's right, clearly you should ban me as well as other members of the conspiracy.
blatantly dishonest article from you.your entire little ongoing trollfest
How ignorant and malicious can you be?
Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes
Your own news threads are all suspect when you have established such a history of deliberate dishonesty.
As usual, when her trick is exposed (as she has been so many times before), SJackson will feign indignant righteousness, pretending that she didn't know and click through
her little crew of Paul-haters
It doesn't get much more dishonest than this
This is part and parcel of the tactics of the Paul-haters, hence my flag to the rest of you.
They attempt to get someone to say someone about 9/11 Trutherism or something antisemitic so they all hit Abuse.
This is an organized disinformation effort by the Paul-haters, likely coordinated via FRmail if you notice the pattern of how they appear on these threads.
I thought that due to the repeated dishonest posting and baiting tactics the Paul-haters use, we need to start pointing it out.
see exactly how the Paul-haters operate, who they are, who some of them truly support, the anti-FReeper forums some of them belong to, etc.
Many of the Paul-haters are not what they appear to be. They are FUDsters and rely on people's laziness to believe their lies and distortions. I think everyone needs to know about it before they waste their time responding to such obvious trollish and baiting posts.
There's a lot of malicious keywords out there.
Simple solution, ping the admin moderator, I just showed you how, he can not only remove them, he can tell you who added them if he wishes to and/or ban them or ask them to cease.
An interesting characterization of the people on this fake conservative forum.
He supports an immediate withdrawl, and does not recognize the enemy as irrational, imo rational, but with a vastly different value system than our own. My bold as to the relevant points.
Dennis Miller: Alright, let's get to the war Ron; because here is where you and I go down to the same fork in the road and take the Virgin Pass. Gimmie your stance on it; I guess you just want us out of there tomorrow, right?Ron Paul: Right, because I never wanted us to go in the first place. So, it's pretty easy to want to quit something that's not going well, when you didn't want it to happen in the first place.
Dennis Miller: What did you think was rotten in Denmark or in Iraq as they say? Why didn't you want to go? Didn't you think it was time to get it on with radical Islam?
Ron Paul: Well, no, not really. We had already been associated with radical Islam, because of the intervention that we had pursued before. We, at one time, were an ally of Osama Bin Laden; one time an ally of Suddam Hussein.
Dennis Miller: Yeah, but things can change in a millisecond, much less a decade.
Ron Paul: This on again, off again thing is what bothers me. It's a Constitutional issue as much as anything. The authority to go to war was transferred to the President; but only Congress should declare when we go to wars, so that bothered me a whole lot. And then the two reasons they gave, I thought, were not valid. One reason was Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, and I never believed that, and proved that he wasn't a threat; he didn't have an army or navy, and they were living in poverty. They couldn't even shoot down one of our airplanes.
Dennis Miller: What about bad intentions? I agree with you; like, we're not talking about looking down the way and seeing Roman Centurions coming at us, but I do think that to have, after 9/11, a sort of Damocles, a bad intention man, a possible expediter of terror. You know how Magic Johnson used to run the break and he was so great a dispersing the ball? I always thought this guy could help in that way. What about that we just had to take somebody who was not playing ball and smack him around to remind the world not to trifle with us. What about that? Isn't it important to look formidable again Ron?
Ron Paul: I think if he felt strongly about that you should go after the people who might have had something to do with 9/11.
Dennis Miller: Bush knows he had nothing. Play that clip, really quick, just to remind everybody. Bush knew there was no connection.
Bush Clip:
Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September 11th, uhhhh, were ordered by Iraq.
Dennis Miller: That's just the short of it. It had nothing to do with weapons; it just had, uh; America establishing that at some point there was a line that could not be crossed. That's the way I see it.
Ron Paul: Yes, and I understand the emotions, but the logic isn't there because I did support the authority to go in and go after Osama Bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan at that time, and yet we didn't pursue that, and we still aren't pursuing it, and he's in a so-called friendly country that we subsidize, who has nuclear weapons, and they're a military dictatorship, and that's in Pakistan. So, we ignore Pakistan, and we're over fighting a war that is going so poorly, and at the time there was no connection. Also, 15 out of the 19 (hijackers) came from Saudi Arabia; that government there is a protectorate of ours; we protect that government no matter what! So we went after the wrong people, and we've gotten ourselves really dug into a hole, which is about to spread into Iran. So those are the concerns I have. But the other reason, other than going after the weapons, the other reason given for this authority being given to the President, was the fact that we had to enforce UN resolutions. I don't think we should go to war for UN resolutions, and I don't think we should go to war unless it's declared. It turns out, that if you just look at history since World War 2, that when we go into wars carelessly, and we don't declare them, we do a very poor job in winning them. Here now we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War 2, and I think it's because of our carelessness in how we go to war.
Dennis Miller: Ron, what if I told you that I believe we're going to be going to war for the next 50, 75, 100 years against radical Islam, and Iraq is the first tentative baby steps just inserting ourselves into the equation? I don't know what you think happens if we just come back here. Now paint the ideal scenario for me. The Mullah’s are mollified? Everything just goes away? Tell me what happens...
Ron Paul: If you understand what motivates suicide terrorism, you'll realize it's not radical Islam. The most motivating factor is that fact they are being occupied by a foreign force. They cannot mobilize, they cannot recruit. So we are serving the interests of Osama Bin Laden by him getting more recruits than ever before. Yes, there would be problems in the Middle East when we leave. Everybody knows we're gonna leave because we're gonna go broke; we won't be able to afford it! All empires end because they eventually go broke. But who knows, there may be a tremendous incentive for them to settle their disputes. Already there's a large number, it's not the majority of them, of the members serving in the Parliament, Sunni's and Shiites, that are talking to each other! And they're getting ready to vote to ask us to leave. The Arab League could fill the vacuum; and they offered some peace treaties with Israel that are very attractive; by recognizing Israel. All kinds of good things can happen.
Dennis Miller: I think it turns into a slaughterhouse.
Ron Paul: After Vietnam that did not happen, which what was predicted; we're trading partners and they're capitalistic now, more so than ever before! So, there's reason to be pessimistic.
Dennis Miller: What if I said that I think it turns into a slaughterhouse that's going to make the killing fields look like a glade in the forest? Let me ask you this; we pull out and within a month we notice that people are starting to be cleaved like a sie through wheat. How do you feel? Does it make you feel guilty, or...
Ron Paul: I would blame it on the people who wanted to go to war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally. They helped create the mess. AND (emphasis added) the people who predict that are the ones who predicted that he had weapons, that it was an easy target, that we'd get the oil, we'd pay all our bills and it'd be over in a couple months! And now, they were completely wrong on everything and now we're listening to them say "well, it's going to turn into a killing field!".
Dennis Miller: Alright, I've got 5 seconds here, I've gotta split. I appreciate your time and I wish you luck in your run.
I'm not nitpicking him.
Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.
I didn't remember that so I did a quick title search for Paul and Paul's back to mid July and found these two in addition to this thread.
Comical 'answer'. Search further back and not so 'quick'.
I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
Comical comes to mind, but it's important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party.
Again, are you claiming that Paul's "nutty" platform is -- unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
Talk about nutty ---.
I suppose I could, but it would be a waste of time since I've probably posted hundreds of articles since early July and found only this on on Paul, one on Tommy Thompson's brother who may support Paul, and one on Paul Craig Roberts. If I count all three, that's only 1% or so, which doesn't sustain your charge of
I regognize Paul's supporters consider 1% correct definitive proof of anything.
I do post on the threads, and I understand Paul supporters don't like that, they're intolerant of criticism.
Comical comes to mind, but it's important this nuttiness not be associated with the Republican Party....Again, are you claiming that Paul's "nutty" platform is -- unamerican?; - unconstitutional?
That seems clear to me. I don't think he's un-American or un-Constitutional, I think he's comical.
He runs a campaign of sound bites with little or nothing in the way of real world, concrete legislative solutions to any of the issues he raises. Solutions as in practical solutions, ones that could actually implemented in the real world. And his supporters run around as though he’s about to be King.
And yes, I think his nuttiness needs to be separated from the Republican Party. He gets support from a number of distasteful groups, and that’s not something the Republican Party needs to be associated with.
What’s your point?
I already said that I disagreed with Paul on the war.
Misunderstood, I thought you were suggesting he doesn’t favor an immediate pullout.
If that is an apology, I accept. I really didn’t expect one.
“I didn’t say that all we had to do was come home and I don’t believe Paul did either. He said our actions caused this. One would have to be living in a fantasy world to believe otherwise.”
I believe he did say that. I think SJackson provided the quotes in his recent post to both of us.
“You seem to be trying to avoid saying that you agree with me that even in doing the right thing, there can be repercussions.”
A rather meaningless statements since there can be repercussions regardless of whether an action is right or wrong. And, I disagree that ‘we caused this’. Radical islaam is irrational so you cannot say that ‘we caused this’.
Thanks for the post. Nothing like the man’s own words.
Sorry, but you are talking in circles.
Paul said that we should come home immediately (with which I disagree) but he doesn’t believe that the anger or hatred would abate at the same time. He believes that our forces should be defensive in nature and protect us here.
We all know that Islam is irrational. Why didn’t we know and prepare for such attacks? Why haven’t we closed our borders to hinder further entry into the country?
Paul would do those things. Bush hasn’t and won’t. Who is more dangerous? IMO, Bush. Your mileage may vary.
It's really odd. For someone with 1% of the vote, people certainly spend a lot of time and energy denouncing him. I wouldn't entertain any thought of voting for him, but he brings some good ideas to the table domestically. Small minded people always resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing a person's ideas on their merits. It's amazing.
So the nutiness that needs to be separated from the Republican party is the candidate who favors closing our borders, repealing Roe v. Wade, and reducing our federal government to its constitutionally permitted functions? But the candidate who favors opening the borders, killing the unborn, putting firearms manufacturers out of business is okay? And the president who oversaw the largest expansion in the federal government in a generation and tried to legalize 30 million illegals is not nutty either?
“He believes that our forces should be defensive in nature and protect us here.”
If you were coaching a football team would you forbid your players from crossing the fifty yard line?
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.