Ron Loses It Again (Supermegabarfhurl Alert)

Politics and Eggs Breakfast, Bedford, NH | 19 December 2007 | C-Span

[OCCASparky]

A quote from Ron Paul's speech at Politics and Eggs breakfast airing on C-Span now (actual comments aired appx 9:25 pm EST):

"A president has a responsibility to, uh, you know, retaliate against an attack. I don't think there's been a good example of a need to do that throughout our whole history."

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Seriously suggest you look at some of the videotapes of recent Paul statements.

I have seen dozens of Paul video clips and my opinion isn't changing. I haven't seen this latest one though.

You need to understand that Paul is not a 30-second soundbite person. He is articulate and he needs time to explain his positions. If Faux and Friends would have given Paul time to fully explain his remark about Huckabee rather than going to a commercial (riiiiight) and providing their bosses with another "soundbite," he would have given the same answer he gave to during his speech on Executive Power at a policy forum in NH, where he clarified his remarks about Huckster.

Paul says he didn't mean to accuse Huckabee of fascism

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

they're worried about him going Ind. with his big pile of cash and siphoning enough votes away from the GOP nominee in battleground states to tilt the election to the Donkey nominee

The GOP never had those votes (that Paul is attracting) to begin with. If there was no Paul, these voters would have voted 3rd party or stayed home as they always do.

It is not Paul's fault that the GOP's base has shrunk to pro-war and religious right conservatives. If they want to win the election, they have better start thinking outside the box and start reaching out to the folks who are now supporting Paul, because even if Paul doesn't go 3rd party, some of these people will still write-in his name.

[carenot]

I guess you've never heard Paul's rant against the Civil War.

I wish you had a link for his rant.
I would love to hear it.

[Bastiat_Fan]

Honestly, my generation, if they choose, has a much better opportunity to become informed. We can find out about the Cold War on the internet, the History Channel, and a variety of other sources. And I think because of that, many of us will always look at Communist counties as a joke.

Today it is completely apparent the Soviet Union was nothing more than a paper tiger. It was scary at the time, yes, but once we gain some perspective, it was nothing more than a thuggish police state, churning out crappy cars, tanks, and planes.

When the Iron Curtain fell, it wasn’t like we got some huge influx of Soviet technology (did the Soviets ever invent ANYTHING???). They on the other hand, got to enjoy toaster ovens, microwaves, and refrigerators, not to mention computers, cell phones, and the internet. They were nothing more than a dog that was all bark and no bite.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

” No one’s worried about RP winning the GOP nomination; they’re worried about him going Ind. with his big pile of cash and siphoning enough votes away from the GOP nominee in battleground states to tilt the election to the Donkey nominee. ...a justifiable concern, given our evenly divided country (electorally).”

This is a bankrupt line of reasoning.

I’m not voting for Romney. Or Giuliani. Or McCain. Or Huckabee. None of them are acceptable candidates to me. If this is the best the party can pick, then I am not going to support their candidate.

Why?

Because if I do, I’ll be told by the same people who chastise about not supporting the nominee, no matter whom it is, that “I knew what he stood for when I voted for him.” This is what I have been told on various threads about Bush when I mentioned a pile of his forgotten campaign promises that he never delivered on, or did the opposite about.

And I won’t be the only one.

If Paul gets significant 3rd party support from Republicans, it’s because the party is not meeting the needs of it’s base.

I don’t support Paul’s foreign policy, but I do support his message of liberty through limited government. The big government nanny state pork loving globalist Republican establishment fears that.

“RP’s no concern at all as long as he keeps his word and doesn’t make an Ind. run.”

I hope our party doesn’t nominate benedict mccain, flip mitt, the huckster, or julie annie.

[MindBender26]

Here is the vid of Paul, in his own words. As you can see, there is no out of context, etc.

http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-insane.html

[George W. Bush]

It’s no different with China today. if they are ever able to really compete with us, it means they are no longer Communist.

China bears watching. Their octogenarian communist leadership is unchanged. Their intent is still evil. They merely exploit capitalism to extend their rule and enhance their power.

They are totalitarians with massive military forces and spending and therefore always to be regarded as a potential threat to us. Their bragging about targeting Los Angeles and other American cities cannot be disregarded.

We can and should have hopes for the Chinese people to have liberty and a government with a real judiciary and genuine human rights that serves the Chinese people, not its aged Maoist ruling elite.

However, our deep trade relationship with the well-armed Chinese does illustrate Ron Paul's policy of trade with all and peace and advocacy of liberty and democracy. Our engagement and trade with China are the greatest prospects for improvement there and the resulting final liberation of a quarter of humanity from the chains of communist ideology.

But make no mistake. The old Maoist hardliners have the blood of tens of millions on their hands. They are a danger to the West even if we do trade with them. They must never be allowed to believe it is in their interest to challenge us militarily or that aggression will be rewarded.

[tacticalogic]

I hope our party doesn’t nominate benedict mccain, flip mitt, the huckster, or julie annie.

I'll go out on a limb here, and predict that they will not nominate Ron Paul, and that the federal government will continue to expand under the next adminsitration.

[Bastiat_Fan]

Yes they are evil. But the fact remains, we will remain ahead of them in the economy department, and there for the military department, simply because they do not run their country the right way. If they do not continue to liberalize their economy, it will collapse, just as the Soviet economy collapsed.

We must be always vigilant, and keep a big friggin army, but we remain, 66 years after Pearl Harbor, the sleeping giant. Simply because no one has a better form of government, no one can compete in the long run.

[George W. Bush]

I don’t support Paul’s foreign policy, but I do support his message of liberty through limited government.

It is remarkable how much hatred for Ron Paul is generated because of this fundamental stance against the Second Coming of Lyndon Johnson in the person of another Texan, George W. Bush.

Had he campaigned for this outrageous spending and debt he's piled up, he could never have been elected. The GOP leadership in the party would have treated him as a radioactive leper.

Military spending aside, the only record we can compare his discretionary spending to is that of LBJ, another guns-and-butter war president. And at the end of Bush's term, we face the threat of inflation and recession and a major banking crisis over global loss of confidence in our currency and our complete lack of fiscal discipline. And under a Republican president!

I prefer Ron Paul's approach: declare the war (to prevent the other party from defecting before it's won as the Dims have done), wage it to win without any quarter for the enemy, win it on terms of unconditional surrender, then bring the troops home (not garrison it as part of a neocolonial system for the next fifty years or more at taxpayer expense).

And Ron Paul won't run the dollar into the ground by using printing presses to favor the central banks and their irresponsible lending practices.

[Mr. Mojo]

I don’t support Paul’s foreign policy, but I do support his message of liberty through limited government.

I also support his limited-gov't positions. But his appeasement-first, intellecutally bankrupt foreign policy stances immediately disqualify him from consideration in my book.

As far as your contention that RP supporters won't be voting GOP anyway, that may be true from some but it's certainly not true for all. So yes, his going third party could very well affect the general election. If RP goes back on his word and decides to go Ind. hopefully he'll be offset by third party liberals (like Bloomberg) who'll siphon votes away from the Dem nominee.

Point is, the concern in GOP circles about Paul centers not around the primaries but around the general.

[George W. Bush]

Simply because no one has a better form of government, no one can compete in the long run.

They cannot win against us. But we can lose it if we are fiscally irresponsible. Only we can destroy our superpower status and economy. And we've gone some distance already toward doing that.

I hope we can avoid a severe recession or even a full depression. The signs are pretty bad. Even the S&L meltdown and bailout in the first Bush administration didn't compare to the current situation. In many economic measures and in our currency, we are back at the levels of the Jimmuh Carter administration. And Bernanke is running the presses at the Fed at full speed.

Notice those price rises, not just for oil but for the Chinese goods at Walmart? It's all a direct result of these irresponsible policies. Normally, Republicans would expect that only a Democrat administration could perform so badly. But we've let this happen on our watch, perhaps a more irresponsible performance by a president than even Harding's prior to the Great Depression.

And nothing about invading Iraq, however you regard the merits of it, can ever justify what has been done to the domestic economy and the dangers posed to the retirement of the Boomers and the economic prospects of the younger generation.

[gusopol3]

you asked “what the hell” we were afraid of in the cold war. The post shows what we were afraid of , per another Paul supporter, that “half the world would be laid waste.” There were a lot of people at the time who, like you, didn’t believe that the soviets were a threat at all.In fact, much like the implication of Paul supporters, or as it seems to me, it was the U.S. that was the main threat to world peace. Paul, at least according to this post, wasn’t one of them.

[George W. Bush]

As far as your contention that RP supporters won't be voting GOP...

This RP supporter plans to if the nominee isn't named Giuliani.

Admittedly, my teeth would be grinding to have to vote for McCain or the Huckster.

I'm not going to write about those two twerps because I might break my personal rule of only allowing myself one primary candidate per election that I would refuse to vote for in the general.

Of course, I did swear in 2000 I'd never vote for Bush but I finally did anyway. LOL. I'm such a hack. I guess I'm not principled enough. Still, Gore was unthinkable and Buchanan's campaign was incompetent to put it mildly. Anyway, that's my excuse.

[Bastiat_Fan]

I was hoping to have a real discussion. However, I can see that is impossible with you. You would rather bash Paul than do anything else. How sad.

Were history a settled subject, there would be no historians, sir. In a civilized society, there is always room for debate. Apparently debate isn’t for you though. Is it?

[Bastiat_Fan]

I do think we are heading for a bit of a rough patch soon, but underneath everything, our fundamentals are sound. We’ll pull out, we haven’t done anything REALLY stupid like pass a huge tarriff bill like Smoot-Hawley (at least not yet). But in the long run, no one can compete with capitalists. Its just a fact of life.

[Grunthor]

Just watched it. I’d like to know how in THE hell ANY RP nut can justify this garbage.

[Bastiat_Fan]

BTW, you’re about 8 posts behind. Try and keep up.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But his appeasement-first, intellecutally bankrupt foreign policy stances immediately disqualify him from consideration in my book.

Uh, there's no "appeasement" there buddy. With no foreign aid & no meddling, other countries will have to take care of themselves instead of relying on us to prop up their socialist corrupt governments. Ron Paul still believes in border security and a strong national defense. Any nation that attacks us will be obliterated. There won't be any of this going to the UN or "international community" under Paul.

As far as your contention that RP supporters won't be voting GOP anyway, that may be true from some but it's certainly not true for all. So yes, his going third party could very well affect the general election. If RP goes back on his word and decides to go Ind. hopefully he'll be offset by third party liberals (like Bloomberg) who'll siphon votes away from the Dem nominee.

Paul has said he won't go 3rd party or Independent because he played that game already and it didn't work. But if the GOP loses in the general election, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Paul's supporters are very well-educated on the issues and they are not going to hold their nose for another Republican after watching their candidate get laughed at during the debates and get crapped on by the party elites.

Point is, the concern in GOP circles about Paul centers not around the primaries but around the general.

As long as the GOP reaches out to Paul on some of the issues and let him speak at the convention & get his endorsement, then the GOP will be fine as long as Fred is nominated and he chooses someone with libertarian leanings like Mark Sanford.

[Mr. Mojo]

This RP supporter plans to if the nominee isn't named Giuliani.

Thankfully that's one thing about which we won't have to concern ourselves; Rudy's campaign is disintegrating quickly.

I hear ya -- I too bit my lip voting for GWB. ...both times. And for the same reason -- the alternative was unthinkable. And in '08 the likely Dem nominee will be even more unthinkable.