Can Chris Peden beat Ron Paul?
by David Benzion · 02/29/2008 10:49 amAs early voting ends and Election Day nears, the proverbial rubber is about to meet the road, and we’re all going to learn if Chris Peden had what it took to beat Ron Paul.
An outfit called Public Policy Polling has come out with some numbers showing Paul up by +33 points, 63% to 30%, although a few caveats are in order:
- First, PPP is a Democratic leaning firm. That doesn’t mean they are intentionally distorting results (in fact, I’m confident they aren’t), but it is healthy to wonder how well they know how to survey a GOP primary.
- For instance, according to my quick look, PPP got the GOP Presidential primaries wrong in Florida (said Romney would beat McCain 35/28; in fact McCain beat Romney 36/31), in Georgia (said Huckabee would come in behind McCain and Romney with only 27%; in fact The Huckster came in first with 34%), and in Tennessee (had Huckabee losing to McCain by -6 points; in fact Huckleberry beat McCain 35/32).
- These are “robo-polls”, i.e. “If you are voting for Ron Paul, press one; if you are voting for Chris Peden, press two”; I don’t trust ‘em much, for a variety of reasons too esoteric and boring to go into here.
- All of the calls were made on a single night–February 27th. That’s just freaking crazy, and introduces all types of potential biases into the results. (I’d feel more confident if the calling had been done over three nights, with at least one being either a weekend or a week night, i.e., Sat/Sun/Mon or Sun/Mon/Tue; or even three weeknights Tue/Wed/Thu; but just one night? Nuts.)
- Not real clear what their methodology was for weighting results.
In other words, I’m highly skeptical of a +33 point Paul margin.
That said, it is in fact plausible that the results are dead-on accurate. At the very least, and even accounting for all types of problems and errors, it suggests Paul enjoys a fairly solid edge.
Incumbency–as every principled defended of limited-government well-knows–has its privileges, and Dr. Paul has been advocating across the 14th District his strong and deeply-held belief in the wisdom of a truly citizen-legislature since at least February 12th, 1997–which, just to help jog your memory (and according to the always accurate Wikipedia) was back before the release of the first Harry Potter (book), the appointment of Tony Blair as Prime Minister of England, the death of Princess Diana, and the political assassination by a joint CIA-Zionist hit squad of rapper Notorious B.I.G.
That’s an awfully long time for an incumbent to “brand” themselves into the minds of voters–and Ron Paul is nothing if not a brilliant political marketeer, able to tap into Americans’ (and particularly Texans’) authentic and deep-rooted love of Liberty, distrust of Federal power, and admiration for the plucky underdog who is an unswerving Fighter for Principle.
Look we get it; LST endorsed Dan Patrick for State Senate in no small part because even if doesn’t accomplish one damn thing, at least he’ll bug the Hell out of people and institutional forces we want to torment.
To Peden’s credit, he and his team have worked awfully hard. Conventional political wisdom has long been that Paul was well-ensconced in the 14th, so there was little point taking him on. Peden has attempted to ride a “perfect storm”–Paul distracted with a national stage and adulation; increased awareness (and embarrassment) back-home of Herr Doktor’s zanier beliefs and rhetoric; and a growing desire for “practical” representation in Congress, especially in newer, suburban Houston parts of the district–into an upset win. He was underfunded and frankly, made some significant strategic blunders–but where others’ feared to tread, he joined the fight and fought hard, and for that alone deserves credit.
Was it enough?
That’s a question only eligible voters of District 14 can decide.
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
164 Responses to “Can Chris Peden beat Ron Paul?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Well, of course it was a long shot. Congressional incumbents still win well over 90 percent of the time. Maybe Peden at least made Paul THINK about his district, rather than his ego (which is what his presidential run is all about).
On the other hand, I’m still not convinced that much of his District knows what a goofball he truly is. That may have been where Peden failed.
Has anyone paid attention to Congressman Ron Paul asking a question? His question turns into a lecture. I could not imagine voting for this man. He’s grossly out of touch.
I am off the topic, but in reference to Dan Patrick, if his message does not change, could be the next Governor of TX. The “Republican Obama” - now that would be a real refreshing change.
I hope Peden gets his butt handed to him on a silver platter.
We know DJ, we know.
And I hope that Ron Paul is shown the door.
But in the long run it is only what the voters of the district want that counts.
Stranger things have happened that Peden pulling an upset.The initial election and subsequent re-elections of the honorable Dr Paul, for instance. But then again, he’s delivered over 4,000 babies. That has to count for something….dosen’t it?
Seems odd that Mr. Peden was singing the Praises of Dr. Paul not too long ago. But, now, one would think that Peden caught The Plague from him!
Peden is an opportunistic, low-life, Democrat-wannabe and should-be!
ANYONE that, like him and Senator John McLame, believes that this nation should stay at war in the Middle East, or all across the globe, for the next hundred years (or longer) has no clue about the true origins of this nation!
Dr. Paul may not be this nation’s next president - even though he Should Be…. but Peden has NO BUSINESS in any elected office.
Go RON!
…or go home . ..
Alabamawildman:Your name says it all. Take your meds and chill out.
Go Ru-Paul!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuPaul
Congrats to the LST. This is the first piece that I personally have seen in a couple months that hasn’t been heavy duty anti-Paul. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I’m glad not all of those opinion’s have to be in someones face.
From what I’ve read on a couple of the other LST articles I will believe some of the locals in their opinion that Peden is a good enough guy, maybe if he keeps plugging he can get into office and represent Texans in a good way sometime in the future. I’m still pulling for Paul in this one though, he has a long track record of saying things that piss off those in the drivers seats of the “Party Firsters”.
#8
Ron Paul has not accomplished a damn thing in the congress, would have been a disaster as President.
If the choice was Go Ron or Go Home, Well I guess I would just Go Home.
As Dr Paul is my congressman, his complete lack of interest in my community as he’s chosen to run for President (again) I am ready for Mr Peden and welcome him. He got my vote - as for the poll, i didn’t recieve a call and have voted in last two republican primaries. However, what worries me is the line that formed on democratic counter and the fast- short line was republican.
To answer the question/title, “Can Chris Peden beat Ron Paul?” I’d have to say it’s doubtful at this point. Until today, the only polling data we’ve seen was from the campaigns. Both claimed to lead.
I’m skeptical about the size of 33 point gap for several reasons, but it’s still pretty bad news for the Peden. (I could never vote for him, but other than that, he seems like a decent dude.)
But… It ain’t over till it’s over. So I figure I’ll spend another Saturday morning meeting a few of my neighbors in CD14.
also, read the letters in galveston daily news, most of the Doc’s supporters are not in state.
They want him? The can have him. Maybe they can work out a “transfer” deal, offer him a home and reinbursement for moving expenses.
I’m tired of him putting stuff into bills and the voting against the bill’s. I want a straight shooter - not another pol blowin’ smoke….
10. FourAlarm
10. FourAlarm (sorry for the premature posting)
LOL. If Peden would have shown that around the District, he’d probably won!
#11 - I agree. Still, the “Herr Doktor” reference is a cheap shot.
“Herr Doktor” is letting him off easily.
Campaign 2008 conclusively exposed Paul as a morally bankrupt snake-oil salesman who spent years making money and building a donor contact list by pandering to racist freaks and conspiracy-minded nutjobs.
He may not lose on Tuesday… but he is certainly a loser.
The cause of limited-government and individual liberty deserves much, much better.
I really doubt that Ron Paul’s presidential run was about his ego. He knew it was a long shot from the beginning, and it took several years worth of persuasion from many of his supporters to talk him into it. I’m sure he didn’t want the newsletter business dredged up again for a national audience.
He’s a dedicated ideologue, and repeatedly says that his campaign is about the freedom message, not about Ron Paul speaking to adoring crowds. Frankly, he has been shocked at how many people have turned out to support him and how enthusiastically they have done it.
I understand that many hardcore conservatives couldn’t support Ron Paul for president due to his foreign policy views, but it’s ridiculous that they would try to unseat one of the most reliably consistent conservatives on Congress over an honest difference of opinion on whether invading and occupying Iraq was necessary or not.
Ron Paul is pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-free market, pro-smaller government, anti-tax, pro-Second Amendment, and anti-amnesty, yet many conservatives treated him like he was the one outside the Republican mainstream, while endorsing candidates who had much more fundamental diversions from the party line — McCain on immigration, Giuliani on abortion, Romney on health care, Huckabee on spending, etc.
20.
He takes money from known Nazis, feeds whackjob 9/11 conspiracy theorists, makes idiotic statements such as mall security guards are doing a better job than the troops in Iraq.
Plus, his spending amounts to more than one million dollars per delegate. That sounds like ego to me. He gets six percent of the vote, has to spend over a million dollars just to pick up one delegate, is now all but ignored, and keeps spending people’s money. You don’t see ego in that?
And, at the end of the day, he will have had exactly ZERO effect on the Presidential race.
Tell me, again, what was the point of him being in the race (other than great fun for bloggers)?
Mitt Romney’s message appealed to many millions more than Herr Doktor’s, but he could at least read the handwriting on the wall. Did it ever occur to the Paulbots that the vast majority of us may be right: He’s a kook?
David, you make it difficult to stay on the high road, but I’ll continue to try.
Get over it dude.
Perhaps since he wants to surrender in Iraq, we should call him Mssr. de Paul (no offense to Catholics or anybody else who attended de Paul).
Sorry Bob42; I don’t “get over” bigotry.
#24. David, you should have no problem getting over Peden’s likely defeat. Despite a substantial and coordinated efforts, your attempts to paint Ron Paul as a truther/racisct/NAZI/liar/nutjob/bigot have failed to reach a critical mass of would-be dupes.
Nice try though.
25. bob
RP did a pretty good job of painting himself. Notice how he caught on with the GOP Presidential voters, as evidenced by his vote totals.
However, it is comforting to see that over 90% of the GOP voters know a kook when they see one.
It makes me laugh that some people on this site believe all the neo-conservative propaganda they hear about Ron Paul.
Snake Oil salesman? hahahaha! That is hilarious! You neo-cons are all the same. “Do as I say, not as I do.” Conservatives used to want to save money. They USED to want a humble foreign policy because it all came down to free trade and the economy. Now because GWB has made you all afraid of the boogeyman (”terrorists”), you are willing to send more people to die for the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul has a zealous supporter base who has funded him to this point. His campaign is a perfect reflection of the TRUE free-market he promotes. “I will stay in the race as long as my supporters want me to”. In other words, as long as the “demand” is there he will “supply” the product his supporters are asking for.
So what if “he can’t win”. God forbid anyone voted with any integrity anymore. If you want to vote for McCain, or Peden, fine. Just have a legitimate reason, not because you read a blog claiming that Ron Paul supporters are all truthers. That is complete BS.
Then some of you complain that he adds things to bills and then votes against them. He is manipulating the system in your favor! He knows the bill will pass, so he puts in spending for your district. He is disagreeing with the federal government by his vote, but it still manipulating the system to give you people some of your money back. Obviously the logic has blown way over your small brains.
It is funny to go on these sites and read what you brainwashed people have to say.
Regardless… because of Bush’s stupid policies any republican running this year is being set up for the slaughter. Enjoy your high taxes and 7 hour ER waits. Due to the common conception that people can no longer take care of themselves, government feels they need to take away more liberty and give us a further tax burden.
I’m hoping that darwinism wipes some of the idiots out of the gene pool.
27. LC
Well, we’re getting there - we’ve narrowed the Paulbots down to 5% to 8%. So, we’re close.
It is amusing that the Dishonorable Dr. Paul was always hopping to debate the GOP Presidential candidates (including the serious ones, unlike himself), but would not submit to a debate in his Congressional race. Great courage, Dr. Earmarks.
What a phony.
I don’t know who’s more arrogant - Paul or his supporters.
I’ve never claimed or tried to “paint” Ron Paul as a “truther/racist/NAZI/nutjob/or bigot” (I’m still open to “liar”.)
All we did here was point at irrefutable facts.
Fact: Ron Paul has spent years building up a voter and donor contact list by publishing newsletters that pander to racist freaks and conspiracy-minded nutjobs.
Fact: When the extent of this activity was exposed, he refused to forthrightly take responsibility, ask for forgiveness, and distance himself from the close associates he empowered to write that crap.
Fact: So insistent was Paul on not alienating the bigoted and reactionary faction of his base, he was even–on a national stage, during a presidential campaign, while receiving significant new support–unwilling to reject campaign contributions from infamous neo-Nazis and to write White Supremacists out of his coalition.
At best, morally blind and politically stupid.
Like I said… Paul may not lose on Tuesday… but he is certainly a loser.
And the cause of limited-government and individual liberty deserves much, much better.
Let’s see. 95% of GOP voters rejected Ron Paul. 63% of Germans voted against Hitler.
Ron Paul has a zealous supporter base. Hitler had a zealous supporter base.
Ron Paul’s supporters think those who oppose Ron Paul were stupid. Hitler’s supporters the same.
Ron Paul supporters want to wipe idiots out of the gene pool. Hitler the same.
I think I have it now. Thanks.
So he manipulates the system to take my money and give it to shrimp farmers.
What’s the principle there, exactly?
I like RP as my congressman, I have had nothing but good experiences with he and his staff. I am not a registered Republican, so I am out of the primary debate. If Peden gets the nod, I will vote for him, but I like RP. Peden has actually lost a little respect in my book from the actions of his supporters in this congressional contest, but I will still pull the lever if he is the man.
31. Big45Iron
I’ll be retired having an umbrella drink with you on the beach by the time the Paulbots get your post.
LOL
Rick Mail.
The fact that Paul does not “accomplish” anything in Congress simply speaks to the nearly hopeless state of affairs within our political system. The fact that he has authored more than 300 bills and only a handful have made it out of committee and none of them have passed speaks to the utter disregard that Congress, in general, has for the Constitution and limited government.
I am elated that Congressman Paul has been involved in the presidential race. His involvement woke me and many others like me up from our sleeping apathy. I and others like me are now fighting at the grassroots level to “take over” the Republican Party and restore it to it’s more conservative form. I and others like me are running for office now, participating in the conventions, attending our local republican club meetings and generally being active in the party we nearly left out of sheer frustration.
I would say that Dr. Paul has “accomplished” a great deal as a 10 term congressman. It is his record of principled leadership and absolute dedication to the Constitution which had such an effect on me and others like me.
Chris Peden is a neo-con stooge who is only running at the behest of the GOP leadership who saw this as a great opportunity to distract Congressman Paul from the presidential race. Peden will be rolled over like gravel in the primary and we won’t even remember his name three weeks from now.
#23 Response. Let’s see…I think Dr. Paul says it best, “The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war. Our Founders understood that how we go to war is as important as when we go to war, which is why they vested the power to declare war in the Legislative Branch. The resolution passed in Congress authorizing the president to use force in Iraq said nothing about the U.S. Constitution, but it mentioned the United Nations a dozen times. The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!
Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that the U.S. presence in Iraq has had a “rejuvenating” effect on the terrorist group. Proponents of the surge say that we are achieving victory. However, even if the level of our troops being killed has declined, they are still being targeted and the Iraqi government is no closer to stability, meaning that the violence will continue.
While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.
Military experts, including Generals Barry McCaffrey and John Batiste, have sounded the warning that our military is stretched so thin because of Iraq and our other commitments that, as General Batiste put it recently, “our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it.” A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster. Meanwhile, Washington continues to talk about how many other countries it could send troops to.
As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases. To avoid raising taxes and the subsequent anger that would follow come election time, the federal government will continue to borrow money from countries like Saudi Arabia and China, making your children and grandchildren’s futures dependent on the actions of other nations and selling out our national security to the highest bidder.
Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase. Meanwhile, bin Laden proclaims that our falling dollar is a sign that al-Qaeda’s “bleed-until-bankruptcy plan” is working.
Those who caution that leaving Iraq would be a disaster are the same ones who promised the conflict would be a “cake-walk.” It is impossible to tell how long we will have to stay and how many lives we will have to lose if we wait for political factions that have been at war for centuries to come together.
As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.
It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.”
Hard for you to fight logic, right? That’s why you resort to name calling
Yeah, man, I don’t like Ron Paul too. Have you saw his advertisements? He is too much against Mexicans. He is a racist. I hope he lose but I guess there isn’t no hope. America is too racist against us.
Attention fellow Paul-Bots
Don’t waste your breath here. Join us in CD14 tomorrow and volunteer to help turn out the vote on March 4th.
There’s a meet-up group near you that will be happy to provide details.
RickG,
That’s funny man. No really, it is. Whatever your opinion of Ron Paul, you can’t deny the fact that he has a very simplistic stance. The Constitution.
Obviously you believe in high taxation. You believe in giving up your freedoms because of the imperialistic policies of elected leaders past.
I bet you are the type of guy who likes to argue with a liberal like a 1st grader in a sandbox. I challenge anyone on this thread to make an intelligent argument against Ron Paul’s policies, and not any conceived opinion you may have about the man.
And comparing Paul supporters to Nazis… Wow. Pathetic and lame. Bush has indirectly been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, yet many here seem to condone his behaviors as needed and justified.
Let me see if I can get this right. Ron Paul can defeat the all-powerful neocon cabal when they handpick their candidate. But he can’t beat them when he tries to pass any legislation?
I disagree with his stance on earmarks. He’s happy to insert them into fait accompli spending bills, thereby keeping his constituents and donors happy. Then he votes against the bills so he can keep his status as Dr. No.
That’s fundamentally dishonest.
LC, last I checked the Constitution said that war must be declared by Congress. Outside of a declared war, the President has leeway on troop actions. Congress decided to not declare war, but to approve the troop action. Seems that there is no Constitutional crisis there. RPs interpretation of the Constitution is good in many areas, however, he is loony as a bird on many others.
Come on man. Don’t be so dense. Paul never named himself Dr. No, his colleagues did.
Listen to his interview on Meet the Press. He described the mindset. He said that he knows the bill will pass, so he throws in an earmark for his district, but then he will vote against it because fundamentally he disagrees with federal government spending. It is the best of all worlds. He can’t change the way that 434 other people will vote in the house, so why not throw some back to his district?
Just look at his vote for the Rosa Parks medal. He voted against it because he doesn’t believe in spending federal government money on such frivolous items. He offered $100 of his own money to help fund the project and encouraged others to do so. No one did.
Herr Doktor implies historic National Socialism or the modern socialism that contaminates Germany.
Ron Paul epitomizes the absolute opposite thereof. “Zany” individual freedom, economic freedom, political freedom, etc.
The implication would far better fit Herr J. vonKain or his aspirant Herr Peden.
Chuck George
Fairhope, Alabama
#30 I agree.
So how is it that the best offering the republican establishment has is John McCain?
One thing that Mr. Peden and like minded folks really need to understand is that the very concept of limited-government and individual liberty are fundamentally at odds with our current approach to the threat of terrorism. (Not to mention the War On Drugs that Chris Peden, for some inexplicable reason still thinks we can win.)
You can have a limited government that spends responsibly and respects the constitution, or you can perpetuate the Bush Doctrine, sacrifice liberty, and tax your grandchildren to pay for your false sense of security.
If you think you can have your cake and eat it too, you may be a latent democrat.
duhmoose,
Congress voted to give the power to go to war to one person, Bush. The congress did not declare war, as is stated in the constitution That is where the breech of the constitution took place. That is Ron Paul’s stance. He voted against giving the president this power.
See “Authorized Use of force”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
Ambiguous interpretations of the constitution is what gets this country in trouble in a lot of cases.
In other words, he’s trying to have the best of both worlds — he wants credit for being a small-government libertarian, and he wants credit for bringing pork back to his district.
LOL LC #41. Pres. Bush is indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq? That’s like saying FDR is responsible for the murder of millions by Nazis.
And comparing Ron Paul to the Founding Fathers is a joke. The Founding Fathers did not have to deal with jet aircrat, short, medium, and long range missiles, thermonuclear weapons, anthrax, ricin, mustard gas, nerve gases, and a host of other chemical and biological weapons. The possibility of the Barbary Pirates attacking and invading Boston was pretty remote. So please, don’t make that comparison. It’s totally without merit since 1945. Seems to me I recalled we declared our freedom from England, but we never declared war. In the history of the United States, we’ve made 5 declarations of war: 1812, 1845, 1898, 1916, and 1941. Now if I read the base of the Marine Corps Memorial in Arlington correctly, we have been involved in dozens of military actions over the last 221 years since the Constitution was made. Jefferson was a founding father. He never declared war on the Barbary Pirates in 1805. But the USA paid them off from 1784 to 1801. Then it took 4 years of conflict and attacking and invading several N. African countries over the next 4 years to bring about a peace. That was during Jefferson.
Our Presidents have the authority by statue to protect the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution the prevents them from using this authority without declaring war.
Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War;” however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a “Declaration of War” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President. And contrary to the popular opinion that the framers of the Constitution intended that the President cannot engage in war without an act of Congress, in fact the framers chose the final wording with the intent of “leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks” without the explicit approval of Congress. 9/11 was a sudden attack by terrorists. We are attacking and repelling terrorists. Saddam was a terrorist, and he supported terrorists. It’s not a war on Saddam. It’s not a war on bin Ladin. It’s a war on terror. It’s worldwide. It’s not limited to a country or a group. They don’t wear uniforms. There is not a recognized chain of command.
So please, don’t even go there. Ron Paul has as much relationship to the founding fathers as Hitler has to Martin Luther.
Matt,
What would you rather he do then? His constituents like a return of their tax investment, but they like his strong voice of integrity in the House. He is doing both those things. The situation is flawed. He KNOWS the bill will pass, so why not get some back for his voters?
He doesn’t think it is the governments money in the first place. Remember he wants to abolish the income tax. Why is it so hard for people to understand this?
I like fresh seafood as much as anyone else, but I’m beginning to think that Matt has developed some kind of weird shrimp fixation.
Ron Paul is a fool and you know what they say about a fool …………… a fool and his political office will soon be parted
40. LC
I had multiple comments. You’ll have to tell me which one you are referring to. Unlike the omniscient Dr. Paul, I don’t read minds. Especially the minds of Paulbots. Those tin foil hats and all.
50. Big
Outstanding, Big. That’s what some would call a “smackdown.”
45,
You are arguing the point of limited government and personal responsibility. Why are all of the things you mentioned such a threat? Because the US can’t keep its nose out of everyone else’s business. We have too many interests.
Ron Paul never said we should have a weak national defense, he is all for having a well stacked and funded army. He doesn’t want to fight all these battles in everyone else’s backyard. That is his point. Why should people’s liberties be taken away from them because of the meglomanic policies of our federal government?
Just saying, “Well, times have changed.” is completely failing to take any blame for our foreign policy whatsoever. It is reactionary and immoral. It is BS. Saddam was a terrorist, sure, but there was no proof at all of WMDs, which was the reason congress voted to give Bush authority.
I suppose from that paragraph you are going to assume that I hate America and I am “invested in defeat” a typical neo-con argument.
Do you understand economics at all? Wars and our military are bankrupting this country. The terrorists are winning, why? Because this country is going broke. Do I want them to win? Of course not. I would fight for this country if I was called, but ignoring our policies for 50+ years is a pretty silly approach to our current situation. We need to think proactively and not reactively.
I meant Big45…
Tell me again what Saddam had to do with 911….nothing. Or is the current policy to label everyone who doesn’t agree with the US foreign policy a terrorist?
Maybe you could read the 911 Commission report.
Also, don’t forget who gave Saddam those weapons to gas his own people. ‘On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline, “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into” the power it became, and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.” Wikipedia - U.S. support for Iraq
37. dekker
I have my pocket Constitution right here. Please point out where it said the President cannot direct military action of any sort without a declaration of war. I’ve looked through and through and can’t find it.
Reagan bombed Quadafi without a declaration of war. Bush I saved Kuwait without a declaration of war. Clinton did his own bombing without a declaration of war.
Now Ron Paul may say all that was unconstitutional, but, guess what? Nobody says so except Ron Paul. And he has nothing to back it up. “Congress has the power to declare war” does not equate to “the military can take no action without a declaration of war.” So his argument is as empty as his views on Osama bin Laden.
Under your goofy theory, if we were invaded by armed forces of another country, our military could not strike back until Congress was convened and formally declared war. Doesn’t that sound silly?
I guess a “smackdown” is an argument based on
loose interpretations of the “facts”.
It is also a professional wrestling show if I am not mistaken, which would fit the mold in this case as well…
The USSR lost the cold war because their flawed economic policies could not keep up with the massive fiscal demands their flawed foreign policies.
If your a rah-rah fan of our foreign policy, would you kindly explain to me how you plan to pay for it?
46.
Yet Herr Doktor seems to be very fond of their money. Hmmm.
60.
Yes, when the Paulbots visit, this often turns into a circus.
Hmmm…that eerily echos our government policy in Pakistan….
Rick,
Paul voted to go to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. He believed him to be a very bad person responsible for 9-11. I think his argument is in line with th eopinions of many.
You are once again missing the point though…
I like your “Nobody says so except Ron Paul”. Do you always do what everyone else is doing? If so I am not surprised by your arguments here.
So LC, let me ask you. What is Ron Paul’s plan for stopping international terrorism? How will he stop them from using the airlines, ocean vessels, etc? I gather Ron Paul would not interfere with Iran producing nuclear weapons, missiles, and putting these into the hands of international terrorists. And what if Ron Paul were to find out Iran had a nuclear equiped missile on a ship 1000 miles from our shore? Would he attack first, or would he seek a declaration of war first?
A strong national defense won’t do you a bit of good if you fail to use it to eliminate the threat of a missile and a nuclear warhead from detonating on our country when launched half a world away. We are not dealing with sane and rational people in Iran. Neville Chamberlain’s dealings with a tyrant nearly destroyed liberty around the world. In a nuclear age, this kind of foolishness can be the death of millions in a matter of hours from a country that never shot at our planes, invaded our soil, sunk our ships. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ignition is all it takes. THAT is what you have deal with.
Couple more things about Saddam. It was not up to us to prove Saddam had WMDs. It was up to Saddam to prove he DID NOT have WMDs. He failed to prove it. He also violated the first cease fire several times by firing on our planes. Last time I checked, if you violate a cease fire, the war is back on. Couple that with the corruption of the UN’s oil for food program, Saddam was rebuilding his military and palaces will millions were being starved, denied any medical care, and hundreds of thousands were being executed. Saddam himself was a WMD. He supported, funded, and trained international terrorists. Ron Paul is more than willing to ignore this type of behavior. In the 21st century, that will get you killed. And one helluva lot more of us too.
RickG - try out the 10th amendment.
The powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, the federal government ONLY has the powers granted to it in the constitution; it does not have every power that is not expressly forbidden.
Deck 58, we sold Saddam a fertilizer factory. He used it to make chemical weapons. If I sell you a car and you use it to rob a bank, am I responsible for that? Again you continue time after time to miss the point. It’s a WAR ON TERROR. Not a war on bin Ladin, not a war on Saddam. WAR ON TERROR. Terrorists. Around the world. Everywhere.
Don’t forget too because of our invasion of Iraq, Khadafy gave up his nuclear program. We didn’t even know he was less than a year from completing his capability to produces nukes. Now wouldn’t you just have enjoyed Khadafy having nukes to give to terrorists? That would have been fun, wouldn’t it. And if he had, what would you have done after a nuke detonated in an American city without being able to point a finger at who put it there?
No, he’s only doing the first. Every earmark increases the size of government. He’s taking a spending bill that he doesn’t like, and increasing the size of it in order to curry favor with certain interests in his district.
Congressional districts don’t pay taxes; people do. You seem to think that it’s fair if he takes his constituents’ tax payments and redirects part of them to interests in his district.
Right 66 - so if you hear a rumor that your neighbor is going to rob your house, you believe you have the right to go kill him first. Sounds illogical to me.
How did Ron Paul vote to go into Afghanistan without a declaration of war? Shouldn’t Ron Paul have said we must leave the Taliban alone, and just go after al Queda and bin Ladin?
Not to mention that US foreign policy encourages third world countries to get nuclear technology. If they don’t have it, we blow them up. If they do, we subsidize them with billions of those little green dollars.
We need to look at the root causes of these things and change them or they will continue to occur.
Iron,
Doesn’t anyone believe in diplomacy anymore? You believe all the propaganda from the radical right, there is no doubt about that.
We are responsible for the hatred we are feeling from Iran. Example, 1953 when we put the shah in power. In the 80’s when we funded Iraq in their war against Iran. We have been kicking the beehive for a long time. There is no doubt about the presence of phychos in the world, but how many of those psychos are a result of this country’s actions? Not you, or me, but the policy. Our policy perpetuates the problem.
It wasn’t as big a deal when less countries had nukes, but now at least 7 countries do. They are a deterrant for more wars. Look at the cold war. The more nukes the USSR and US had, the less likely we were to wipe eachother off the map. Russia is selling nuclear material to Iran. How does that make you feel? The US is running out of allies. I think the saber rattling and prick waving has gotten us into enough trouble so far.
You have to look at the bigger picture. I don’t constantly live in fear that a small sect of terrorists are going to blow me up. I’m more worried they are going to defeat us by making us go bankrupt.
65.
So it’s okay to invade Afghanastan without a declaration of war. But it is not okay to invade Iraq wihtout a declaration of war.
At least we agree that no declaration of war is necessary to engage the military in foreign conflict.
No, I don’t always do what everyone else is doing. But when 99% are doing something different, I will ask myself why.
Deck, no HE SAW his neighbor’s house being burglarized. It wasn’t a rumor. It was a fact. He had no idea if they had killed his neighbor. He had no idea if they had killed other people. He was them in the commission of a felony. BANG. Justice delivered, and great savings to the tax payer.
72.
Ah, the old blOWBACK principle. Very good. Thanks.
Recap…
We invaded Afghanistan cuz the Taliban wouldn’t cough up Bin Laden. He’s gone, but we’re still there. Why?
We toss thousands of drug users in jail every year, but despite our occupation, Afghanistan still supplies about 90% of the world’s demand for opium.
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is probably in Pakistan and we send them millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars in hopes that doing so might keep them from nuking another country, while at the same time we send more millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to Israel, in hopes that they won’t nuke their neighbors.
BTW, Our invasion of Iraq in no way fits any reasonable definition of “repelling an attack” but I don’t blame the Bush doctrine for that. I blame CONGRESS for willingly disregarding their sworn responsibilities and cheerfully handing over powers of war to the executive branch, just so they could claim no responsibility for the outcome. They are (with limited exception) cowards in the worst sense of the term.
What on earth are you blathering about?
Diplomacy when dealing with a tyrant makes as much sense as pi$$ing into a fan when it’s blowing your way. Appears you did not learn anything from Neville Chamberlain after all.
Iron,
K-A-D-A-F-I
B-I-N L-A D-E-N…
I can’t take your arguments seriously if you don’t spell their names right.
Nice debating with the neo-cons today. Take care.
Matt, and the Paulette’s wonder why we question their sanity, LOL.
After reading some of these posts I’m thinking about siging up for the service so I can go kill me some A-rabs.
I have been looking at things incorrectly all along!
In fairness to Ron Paul, he WAS named one of the “50 Most Effective Members of Congress” by Congressional Quarterly.
67/
First of all, nice antiquated theory there. Even Scalia says we’ll never go back to those days. We knew RP was living in the 1800s, but I didn’t know all his followers were.
Let’s see. Congress regulates interstate trucking, radio licenses/airwaves, TV licenses/airwaves, mail, telephone service, beef production, corn prodcution (etc.), prescription drug sales, weapons sales, stock sales, pension funds, insurance, automobile design, toy design, ad nauseum.
Maybe my pocket consitution is the Reader’s Digest version. Can you point me out where these are mentioned? Thanks.
According to the liberal Boston Globe who would support your position, it’s Khadafy.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/09/04/us_khadafy_form_an_unlikely_alliance/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+–+World+News
I don’t care if you have an e or an i in bin Ladin, bin Laden. Only thing important is that he gets a bullet in him someday. Oh, and Clinton couldn’t even find the Atlanta Olympics bomber right here in the USA for 4 years.
77. bob
Now you’re talking (mostly) policy and I can agree with some of what you say. But that’s different than some here (not you) saying this is unconsitutional, that is unconstituional, etc. Things may certainly be bad policy, as you point out, but that’s a different matter.
LC, you mean to tell me you never served? That explains alot.
Rick, Congress does not regulate those things directly. They take the money from the lobbyists and surrender regulatory power to the administration to avoid being blamed for the results.
This pretty much explains why average folks are so often screwed by out of control government regulation.
80 LC
Oops. Better go lecture the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_lectures/mazrui_lect.shtml
Does this make YOU wrong?
88. bob
Oh, really? Would you like me to cite you some statutes passed by . . . Congress??
Agencies may pass regulations and may enforce the law, but Congress regulates plenty directly.
88. bob
However, I will agree with you that average folks - and that includes me! - are often screwed by governement, whether in the form of Congress or an agency like IRS.
excuse me matt, you’re right. WE ‘threaten’ to blow them up. Or maybe we drop bombs, overthrow democratically elected leaders…(Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and on and on)
92.
You forgot Cuba in your list of great democratic leadership we tried to overthrow.
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
By: John King, March 2003
Arming Iraq and the Path to War
A crisis always has a history, and the current crisis with Iraq is no exception. Below are some relevant dates.
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war. [8]
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries. [1]
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do “whatever was necessary and legal” to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. [1] & [15]
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq’s missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. [14]
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act. [16]
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. [1]
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons. [10]
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire. [8]
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. [8]
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. [7]
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” [15]
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. [1]
July 25, 1990. US Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush “wanted better and deeper relations”. Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the US would not respond. [12]
August, 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. The precursor to the Gulf War. [8]
July, 1991 The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80’s using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. [11]
August, 1991. Christopher Droguol of Atlanta’s branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is arrested for his role in supplying loans to Iraq for the purchase of military supplies. He is charged with 347 counts of felony. Droguol is found guilty, but US officials plead innocent of any knowledge of his crime. [14]
June, 1992. Ted Kopple of ABC Nightline reports: “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980’s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power].” [5]
July, 1992. “The Bush administration deliberately, not inadvertently, helped to arm Iraq by allowing U.S. technology to be shipped to Iraqi military and to Iraqi defense factories… Throughout the course of the Bush administration, U.S. and foreign firms were granted export licenses to ship U.S. technology directly to Iraqi weapons facilities despite ample evidence showing that these factories were producing weapons.” Representative Henry Gonzalez, Texas, testimony before the House. [18]
February, 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large US shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against US troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [7]
August, 2002. “The use of gas [during the Iran-Iraq war] on the battle field by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern… We were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose”. Colonel Walter Lang, former senior US Defense Intelligence officer tells the New York Times. [4]
This chronology of the United States’ sordid involvement in the arming of Iraq can be summarized in this way: The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam’s army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.
References:
1. Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2. Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3. Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4. Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5. ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6. Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7. Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8. Timeline: A walk Through Iraq’s History. U.S. Department of State
9. Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10. Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11. Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12. Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13. Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14. Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15. Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16. Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17. Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18. Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19. Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Persian Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20. Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. http://www.gendercide.com
I think we should just stay the course. The course of not connecting dots. The course of bad intel and go to war. Stay the course with a wot and open borders. How about supporting radical Islam in the Kosovo?
The real snake oils salesmen/nut jobs are exposed.
Can I have another sip of monkey peee um er koolaid?
Oh boy…there goes Bigs again.
LC, you mean to tell me you never served? That explains alot.
That comment explains it all.
94.
Why do you tell us things we already know? Most of your news is 15 years and older. Do you just like cutting and pasting?
95. DJ
You sound like Harry Reid.
I agree with #66 Big45Iron, you can’t negotiate with terrorists. Their point is TERROR. What are we going to do (they would like us to be less democratic, less religious, less entrepreneurial–who gets to pick what we give up)?
As Peden says, you can be civilized and not hate your opponent. I’m sure Ron Paul is a nice person, but let’s separate his personal values from his voting record. Paul has NOT supported, by his votes, traditional marriage and the family, limits on abortion, our troops (by voting against the funding for body armor), or drug law enforcement. Paul has had to go back to the 80’s for an “endorsement” from my favorite former President. He is still using the Congressional Quarterly article, which he misquoted (and the publication has asked him to cease and desist).
#47 we ARE winning the war on terror!
The litmus test will be, will the loser’s followers continue to support other conservatives? Actually, that can be a measurement of the winner too.
hunnerdth … this is getting to be a habit without trying too hard…
Ricky
I am busy connecting dots. Dont bother me.
101..
Okay, that was a good one.
Ron Paul and triple digits - money in the bank.
In this uncertain world, it is nice to have a few constants.
RickG has reminded me of the futility of this blog.
(excuse the final cut and paste), “Never argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.”
Adios
LoneStarTimes.com–
“Where public service and futility exist in peaceful harmony”
I always like this one:
16. Bush’s Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
I can just see Pres. Bush 41 tucked into that SR71 on the way to….oh, where did he land? What was the flight #? Got any logs? Name the pilot? What radars picked them up enroute? The day? Who he spoke to? Who guarded the SR71 when it got there? Those little nit picky details. Maybe DJ has the dots and it hiding them.
I went in to access gendercidedotcom, and my computer at work wouldn’t bring it up. But I’m sure they’re as reliable as the WSJ or the National Review. Interesting to note how LC leaves out Iran’s attack on sovereign US soil in taking our embassy. Also FDR’s support of Stalin to beat Hitler.
Why don’t you find the dots that show the mass graves of hundreds of thousands of Iraq civilians that Saddam executed that had nothing to do with the war with Iran? The mothers shot in the head and their babies buried alive with them.
Find those effing dots. Maybe you think the world would be better off with Saddam. After all, the Ba’ath’s first flag had a Nazi swastika on it.
If somebody has the time, please tell us who publishes gendercide, and what their backgrounds are.
I know for certain that I don’t have the time.
#99 KRogers…
Assuming you’re correct, we’re doing so by occupying only two countries today.
Again, questions remain: Does this strategy work if we need to “scale it up” and invade more countries?
And of course, How do we pay for the enormous costs necessary to maintain (not to mention expand) the current strategy?
You can choose smaller government and lower taxes or you can choose our current unsustainable and short sighted foreign policy, to the detriment of the former two options.
Choose wisely…
DB, don’t have the time. I’ve invested $50 in LST over the last 4 years. What have you been doing with all that money?
110.
He’s turned it in to $500.
What have I done with the money?
Four words.
Automatic.
Inflatable
Rhino.
Pump.
Paulunteers who’ve earned a well-deserved reputation for militancy in devotion to their 72-year-old candidate, both in terms of campaigning and wasting their hard-earned money by fueling the former OB/GYN’s hopeless presidential run in state after state.
To most American political fanatics, Ron Paul is just a goofy hobbit whose hilariously doomed online presidential campaign provided standout entertainment in a year that offered a wealth of hilariously doomed campaigns.
“But to many of his constituents in Texas Congressional District 14, Ron Paul is just a blame-America-first attention whore who completely ignores the people who put him in office.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/ronpaul.html
Darn David. I apologize. I thought you WERE the Rhino pump.
How to win the “war on terror.”
-Keep Terrorists out of our Country. Dont you see this can be solved almost exclusively through immigration policy?
How can anyone think the current administration is serious about this “war” with an open borders policy? The first front in this “war on terror” is not Iraq-its our borders. You can launch all the missles, and drop all the bombs and invade all the coutries you want-but that wont stop terrorists from hitting us at home. Infact, the argument can be made that we are LESS safe now with our invasion of the mideast in conjuction with open borders-not a good way to win an asymetrical war.
Its also strkes me as odd, that so many people that claim to be diehard Texans support an administration and its policies that are for lack of a better word very “yankee” or Hamiltonian. Bottom line-open borders=not serious about war on terror.
DB, Considering all of the blog-ad revenue received from the Peden for Congress campaign I would logically conclude that LST has more than enough cash-on-hand to reward its highly professional moderators with a nice steak dinner!
Oh yeah, we’re rolling in it
Krogers-
Why do you equate Dr. Paul’s assertion that marriage isn’t a Federal responsiblilty with not supporting “traditional marriage.” He has already made the statement that we dont the the Fed to tell us what marriage is, we need a dictionary. What happened when abortion was Federalized? It became intantly legal in every state. Marriage is NOT delegated to the Federal Govt. I would rather have Texans in charge of what Texans think marriage is, rather than the Fed…which is Mass, NY, California etc.
#99 Krogers
“We are winning the war on terror.”
Sir, i concede that we are not. The enemy is waging an ASYMETRIC war upon us. Your thinking is clearly a SYMETRIC mindset with victory in the tradational sense-winning battles etc. That is not the way the enemy is fighting us. They are trying to bankrupt us and kill us by a thousand cuts. Sir, we have OPEN borders. How can we be winning the war when we have open boders? How many terrorists have come accross the borders since 9/11? “We have to fight them over there or we will fight them over here.” NO….we will fight them over here unless we get our borders locked down, regardless of what we do thousands of miles away. Dr. Paul does support shutting down the borders and ending birthright citizenship. This neocon ideaology is going to get us blown up. But thats ok, we’re kicking ass thousands of miles away.
I am a property owner in RON PAUL’S district and a war veteran. I am proud to be an American and am proud to have a courageous, principled, leader like RON PAUL as my congressman. The only thing that might be better is if all congressmen were PATRIOTS and we had a president like RON PAUL.
This article has motivated me to donate more time and money to Dr. Paul’s congressional bid.
#116, DB That’s good news. I suggest the evening of March 4th for LST’s first annual Moderator appreciation night.
They’ve earned it
119.
That’s good - LST encourages everyone to get involved with the candidate of their choice.
I, too, own property in Paul’s district. But I reside full time and vote in a different one. Neeless to say, if I voted in the 14th, it would not be for Paul.
Sorry,
Curiosity got the best of me. I had to come back and read some follow-ups.
What does having never served have to do with anything? I think having someone who hasn’t faced battle would be an asset. A different perspective. I am deaf in one ear, so the service would not have me.
I do like to hear the truth though in my one ear that works, and when I hear people like Peden, McCain, and Bush talk I don’t feel like I am hearing the truth.
Petpetual war is no way to exist.
Am I too late for the John Sidney “I don’t care what most Americans want” McCain power hour?
Simple question for the brain trust at LST:
What is your definition of a terrorist?
124
Wait . . . we’re searching for the brain trust . . .
They’re all at the steak dinner.
So, OBL and Hussein were allies in the 1980’s so we gave them weapons.
Now, they are terrorists?
interesting.
Hitler gained his support in Germany from the masses by convincing them of the threat of terrorism.
“One of the most searing events in German history occurred soon after Hitler took office. On February 27, 1933, in what easily could be termed the 9/11 terrorist attack of that time, German terrorists fire-bombed the German parliament building. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Adolf Hitler, one of the strongest political leaders in history, would declare war on terrorism and ask the German parliament (the Reichstag) to give him temporary emergency powers to fight the terrorists. Passionately claiming that such powers were necessary to protect the freedom and well-being of the German people, Hitler persuaded the German legislators to give him the emergency powers he needed to confront the terrorist crisis. What became known as the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to suspend civil liberties “temporarily,” that is, until the crisis had passed. Not surprisingly, however, the threat of terrorism never subsided and Hitler’s “temporary” emergency powers, which were periodically renewed by the Reichstag, were still in effect when he took his own life some 12 years later.
Is it so surprising that ordinary German citizens were willing to support their government’s suspension of civil liberties in response to the threat of terrorism, especially after the terrorist strike on the Reichstag?”
- This article is from the Future Or Freedom Foundation
Sound somewhat familiar?
Yes ajt, it does sound familiar. I learned this in history. And if you think it has any comparison at all to the United States after 9/11, you are simply daft….maybe simple too.
Post 9/11, we’ve not lost our right to protest. We’ve not lost our right of free speech -except via McCain/Feingold, and we found legal ways around that. Our courts are still in tact. We don’t have Gestapo visiting our homes if we speak out against President Bush. We are free to run for public office and oppose his or any other government policy.
Please make one thing clear to us though ajt. In the 1933 bombing in Germany, you do recognize those were Germans, and you do not believe it was Americans who crashed the planes into those buildings and field on 9/11. I just want to be sure you recognize the difference and the meaning of those differences. I also want to ensure you understand the difference between a Gestapo like mentality and Americans in uniform and our intelligence services trying to keep more Americans from being blown up by Islamic terrorists that you don’t want to fight unless they are here or you can clearly identify them as al Queda (which usually happens AFTER the bombs go off).
Do you realize how trying to compare the United States more than six years after 9/11 to Nazi Germany makes you look like a complete fool?
#118 if we don’t define marriage nationally, then we have to accept whatever any other liberal state throws at us (Hawaii, Vermont, for example). If employers have to support groups of spouses, farm animals as spice, etc., then I’m sure they’ll limit insurance benefits to “employee only” no more spouse/kid benefits. If that’s not cause for breakdown of the family, I’m not sure what is.
If we don’t have a federal “life” law, then we starve more Teri Schiavos in Florida and women go across state lines to get abortions (so that those with access to transportation get to choose their laws).
Yes #119, we NEED TO CLOSE THE BORDERS! With an actual fence and not the Guv’s “virtual fence”.
We are not fighting the war HERE, which is a big benefit (at least to me). You liberals are SO impatient, have you noticed we’re STILL in Korea and Germany and countless other places. We’re the ONLY country that ever WINS and REBUILDS!
When/where is moderator appreciation night? Does it HAVE to be March 4?
And I still wonder what the followers of each CD-14 candidate will do, in the face of victory or defeat. I think only one group will hang around for the November elections (win or lose).
129,
So there are no comparisons?
hmmm, and I’m simple.
The founding fathers warned of us losing our liberties in the guise of security.
9/11 was a tragedy pulled off by 15 Saudi’s.
Please now that you have called me a bunch of names, please tie 9/11 to the war in Iraq.
Why would Saudi nationals want to attack us?
President Bush, “If you are not with me, you are against me.”
The Patriot Act.
Please, only a fool would not see a government using terrorism threat as a way to garnish liberties.
Keep believing they hate us for our freedom and prosperity…that is the most simpleton viewpoint ever. You will believe anything.
“I’m glad we are not fighting the war here.”
What the hell is that?? How would they get here??
Why are we not attacking Pakistan? They harbor terrorists (ie. OBL) and have Nukes. No, instead we give them another $10 billion.
I was all for going after Al Queda in Afghanistan in a direct response for 9/11. That makes sense.
Iraq makes no sense…and neither do you.
One more thing.
I am not afraid of fighting them here. Bring it on.
But wait, uh how would they get here. Their impressive navy…no. Their unmatchable air force…nah. Their ground forces marching across the Pacific…probably not. Isolated terrorists attacks…maybe…but they could happen whether we are invading sovereign nations like Iraq or not.
Maybe we should figure out how to stop a commercial jet from crashing into the pentagon when we know for 45 minutes it is aiming right at it and we have 7 millitary bases surrounding Washington DC.
Amazing, that there are those who state that Dr. Paul is out of touch, or that he has run for the presidency out of some egotistical urge. I would dare say that such detractors have either never read or understood any of Dr. Paul’s books, his speeches, articles or the legislation he has proposed in Washington. If they had then they would recognize that not only does he have one of the most firm grasps of the reality of the world, but that his common-sense logic defies the idiocy found in D.C. and the bumbling mess our politicians have created.
Dr. Paul positions, yes even on interventionism, are backed up by many of the experts on terrorism; his positions on economics are beginning to take root even in circles that ignored the dangers of Fiat Money now that both the government and the Federal Reserve have few options left to keep this old boat afloat. Dr. Paul’s words are rapidly being vindicated as the economy tanks and our Fiat Money rapidly approaches collapse. I can guarantee you this, as hyper-inflation grips this country the detractors will be crying out for the type of common-sense knowledge that Dr. Paul has offered us for decades.
Since it appears that the mass majority of the voters in this country will once again settle for the status quo, for empty promises that cannot possibly be fulfilled by one of the other candidates and since Dr. Paul will not be elected to the once-honorable office of the presidency in 2008 then by 2012 we will all wish he had been!
Dr. Paul has been warning us for years about our Fiat Monetary System, but few have heard, few listen. As a student of financial history, Dr. Paul has stated that we will face a similar fate as all other societies in history who have allowed themselves to be shackled with Fiat Money.
Our present Fiat Monetary System, like all that came before it, has a finite life-span due to the fact that it is completely dependent upon the creation of debt for its existence. Since each and every single Federal Reserve Note and every other currency in the world must be borrowed into existence each of them basically represent a legal notification of a debt obligation, or an IOU.
Due to the fact that each “dollar”, whether physical or digital, is created by the formation of debt, the debt is proportional to the circulation of the currency. However, since the currency is borrowed it also carries with the primary debt an added interest obligation. Since all economic growth in this country and around the world now depends on the expansion of credit and conversely debt, there will come a time when the debt demands far more than the economy can service because the debt multiplies exponentially due to the addition of the interest obligation.
In a fiat monetary system the debt can never really be paid down without contracting economic growth, it simply continues to multiply. In very simplistic terms, when the government does “pay” against the periodic principle and periodic interest obligations of the debt it must immediately re-borrow that amount to maintain the expansion of the economy. Since the debt multiplies exponentially it is irreversible and will continue to expand due to the weight of the interest obligations of the original debt.
The Federal Reserve economy, and for that matter all Central Banking Systems which rely upon a total fiat monetary system is can be likened to a balloon with the skin of the balloon representing the economy and the air representing the circulation of fiat currency, therefore the debt. The action of inflating the balloon is the expansion of the money supply/debt. The Federal Reserve blows air into the balloon, and although it should allow for a little deflation between breaths now it simply takes the deflated amount from the balloon and blows it back into the balloon. Eventually the outer skin of the balloon can no longer contain the amount of expansion from the internal pressure of the debt and collapses due to the demands of the internal debt.
Every fiat system in history has been shown to have a finite life-span, ours is no different. Eventually, and I think we are already seeing it, the skin of the economy can no longer maintain viability due to the internal pressure of the massive debt that siphons off the structural integrity of the economy.
The entire system terminates itself due to insoluble debt. Now, the question is what do you think happens to all those government programs, government bonds, investments, pensions, insurances, 401ks, savings, corporations, jobs and even the basic services that depend on our fiat monetary system?
What happens to you and your family when the fiat monetary system collapse under the weight of the debt that solely forms its entire foundation?
It might surprise people to know that this country has been intervening in the affairs, one way or another, in Iraq for the last 87 years. In fact, our government has intervened in over 200 countries for the last 110 years! You would think that if the policy of interventionism was a good and effective policy that we would see better results by now, we would be safe if it worked, but it has proven to be nothing more than a shield for other policies that have more to do with the interests of Big Money, Big Oil and Big Military then actual National Security. We have been duped for decades and we are still buying the tripe we are being fed by these political charlatans posing as our leaders.
Dr. Paul has been one of the few political leaders who has questioned the logic behind such policies. He has clearly shown that we have armed, financed, trained and supported both sides of several conflicts in the world in a way that is so irrational and so idiotic that it should boggle the mind of any reasonable person. That was one of the first things I noticed in the first book of his I read called A Foreign Policy of Freedom. I was amazed, actually stunned at the utter chaos that passes as good policy in our government.
We currently arm most of the conflicts in the world, we are doing the same thing in Pakistan as we did in Iran by essentially backing another “Shah”, the results will be similar. Our government is now in the process of training, arming and financing the FATAH movement in Palestine, but we rarely hear that within that movement are members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. So, one again we are in bed with terrorists.
It might surprise people to know that the University of Nebraska actually published Extreme Radical Islamic text books that were sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan back in the 80s. Sure it was intended to stir up the Islamic fervor against the Soviets, but in back-fired and those books are still being used in the region to recruit Terrorists and guess who they now see as the target…the very ones that supplied them the books in the first place…US!
Would it surprise anyone to know that our own government allowed the establishment of over 30 offices of the MAK to operate in this country back in the 80s. The MAK name was later changed and that name is al Qaeda. Would it surprise anyone to know that over 100,000 Mujahadeen were trained by our military, many of them were trained right here in the good ole U.S. of A.
I call it TREASON! I think Dr. Paul would agree!
There is a culture of lunacy within Washington, short-sighted politicians and special interests that offer up ideas that don’t put the potential for unintended consequences in the equation.
Suppose a person is a hard worker, making $15.00 per hour, putting in 40 hours or more at work. Now, while that should sound like a decent wage, it is, in fact, poor when compared to its actual purchase power say of 1970. In fact, while it appears that a person working 40 hours per week with a gross pay of $600.00 is making it, the reality is that persons gross income is equal to the purchasing power in 1970 dollars of $110.80 per week. The reality behind that annual income of $31,200.00 is that it only buys $5,759.72 worth of goods because while it appears, by government estimates, that the costs of goods and services and the value of the dollar have kept pace, the truth is that it is not the case.
A major problem in this country is that more people make less than $15.00 per hour and those who make minimum wage can enjoy the purchasing power of $0.95 per hour.
Should we not have cause for alarm at the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and our government?
Dr. Paul has been warning us for decades and no one wants to listen because they think the system is secure, that nothing can happen to their wealth, well something has happened, our wealth has been systematically stolen from us through the hidden tax of inflation and inflation is a direct result of the printing of Fiat Money.
I realize that the following sounds like Ron Paul, but in fact it is the preamble to the 1952 Republican Party Platform:
“We maintain that man was not born to be ruled, but that he consented to be governed; and that the reasons that moved him thereto are few and simple. He has voluntarily submitted to government because, only by the establishment of just laws, and the power to enforce those laws, can an orderly life be maintained, full and equal opportunity for all be established, and the blessings of liberty be perpetuated.
We hold that government, and those entrusted with government, should set a high example of honesty, of justice, and unselfish devotion to the public good; that they should labor to maintain tranquility at home and peace and friendship with all the nations of the earth.”
Amazing isn’t it, just how far we have strayed!
130-
Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s gonna get divorced because their employer decides not to extend the company health insurance plan to little Johnny the next time he gets an ear infection.
I’ll even go so far as to suggest that the existence of all these “benefits” programs are the PROBLEM in their own right - not what they entail about whether one state extends them to gays etc. All “benefits” really do is allow your employer to detract from your salary while making you think he’s doing something good for you. It’s usually cheaper for a company to set up some goofy insurance plan for its employees and their families because (1) the company can get scale benefits by enrolling its entire workforce, and (2) insurance plans actually bet AGAINST you ever needing to use them (and resist it when you do need to use them). So what better way to manipulate the payroll than to offer an insurance plan that’s really drawn out of straight-up salary, capture the scale benefits of that plan by making it mandatory, capture the money that goes into it by betting against it ever being used, and then leading the employee himself think it’s a “good” thing and that you are doing him and his family a “favor.”
I’m sure that’s why he’s been endorsed by Texas Right to Life, Norma McCorvey, and is probably the largest recipient of military donations in the presidential race.
As of yesterday my dollar bought me almost exactly half of what it bought me last year at the grocery store. I am stoked!
You want pain? Your gettin it.
Go Ron Paul!
Bush says everything is fine. OK
Sir, 2 points about your idea of defining marriage nationally. First, where does the Federal Govt derive the authority to do so? Second, what happened when we defined life “nationally?” You honestly believe that you are going to get the Liberal states such as Cali, Vermont, Ny, etc, to pass a constitutional ammendment defining marriage in the traditoinal sense? This is not the nature of the Fed govt. When has the federal government ever been a friend of those espousing traditional conservative values? This is what will happen-if this is taken to the national level, its only a matter of time before the Federal Govt makes it ILLEGAL under civil rights laws for ANY state to deny marriage to gays. And since you are basically denying the concept of states rights in the first place, there will be no state opposition to it.
If we looked to the constitution, we would realize that is some states recognize gay marriage…..which wont happen on a large scale anyway, Texas has a right to not accept these marriages as valid. By looking to the federal government to solve these problems (which it has no authority to do) you are leaving the concept of states rights impotent-if we keep following this course, conservatives are going to get the exact opposite of what we want.
“If we don’t have a federal “life” law, then we starve more Teri Schiavos in Florida and women go across state lines to get abortions (so that those with access to transportation get to choose their laws).”
No, people with access to transportation dont get to “Choose their laws.” The people of the states do. Do you realize how many lives would be saved since Roe V Wade if this was still a states rights issue. Im sure abortion would be illegal in most of the South. So, keep on seeking an impossible goal of making the Northeast and the west coast pursue a conservative, pro-life agenda, all the while babies are being aborted in states where it would be illegal if we followed the true conservative path-the constitution and states rights. Pursuing this “National” agenda is just a way for the republican party to keep pro-lifers (such as my self) on board forver-since a “natinal” life ammendment will never happen.
#138 Phil, I’m not being ridiculous. I’m NOT saying that people will divorce. If employers don’t support these “groups” of “spouses” then the concept of the stay-at-home mom goes by the wayside, because the families that are barely holding on with one salary, will not be able to afford health care.
Note that gay groups always ally themselves with transgender and bisexuals-which implies a lack of monogamy, hence the “group” concept, and let’s face it, there have always be polygamists, so I see lack of a national definition of marriage as more than just the slippery slope.
I’m all for states rights but life is life, no matter what state you live in. Since I don’t see that supposedly ubiquitous “right to privacy” in the Constitution, I don’t see the basis for Roe v. Wade. I’d be happy with the States deciding, the decision wouldn’t be any WORSE than it is now…
By the way, Peden is staunchly pro-life and pro-family and was not even contacted by those who may have endorsed his opponent at some time in the (possibly distant) past. After all, we know RR hasn’t been endorsing for many years and THAT 20 some year old photo still shows up on RP flyers….
#42 No, Texas can’t pick and choose which marriages from other states it will accept, our part of being in this Union (and any company that does business in any of those states–darn that pesky Internet–will have to support the widest definition of spouse wherever it does business).
You are correct there is no explicitly mentioned right to privacy in the constitution-thats the argumument of a strict constructionist. But, then you offer an argument that is derived from conservatism, the right to life, then you apply it by a liberal method-asserting the Federal Govt has the authority to do what isnt granted to it in the constitution-this is the same argument you used to refute the right to privacy (Its not in the consititution). This is why the modern Republican and Democrat parties are so similar-they both essentially believe in big government-as long as its working for them.
The thing rank and file republicans are failing to understand is that once you open the door to big govt-which is getting the Federal government involved where it has no authority-the only thing you can do when it creeps into your life in ways you dont want it to, all you can basically do is based upon opinion. We dont have a god given right to violenty defend opinions, but we do have the God given right to violently defend our RIGHTS. The primary right being the right to live your life without unconstitutional government intervention.
The idea of keeping the Federal govt out of this will start saving lives immediatly-in all of the states who outlaw abortion. Then it is our duty as Chistians and constitutionalists to work to change the minds of those in other states, in those states where it remains legal, through the Church and persuasion so these states will eventually vote our way.
States rights still leaves room for the pursuasion of other states to our point of view. The Nationalizatoin of abortion coerces thoses states who are prolife to allowing abortion.
A federal marriage ammendment is IMPOSSIBLE-why would the northeast and the west coast ever vote for that?
If “life is life” then why are conservatives pursuing a policy that has prevented the states from saving lives for decades? The Federalization of the abortion issue has given the Federal government the authrity to STOP Texas from saving lives. Just as it will eventually STOP Texas from defining marriage in the traditional way if the issue of marriage is nationalized.
So i ask you, who is more pro-life, the candidate who wants to make it ILLEGAL for the Fed govt to be involved (Ron Paul) or his opponent who wants to pursue an IMPOSSIBLE strategy of passing an amendment, which means the Federal gov’t will prevent pro life states from saving lives forever.
KRogers
“No, Texas can’t pick and choose which marriages from other states it will accept, our part of being in this Union”
Sir, the point is that if we are strict constructionists, we believe in definitions. Marriage is between a man and a women, therfore if 2 men or women are married, its something other than marriage by definition-thefore its NOT marriage and Texas doesnt recognize it as such. Its not that we would not recognize “some marriages” Its that gay marriage is NOT marriage in the first place.
#146 I think we agree that “marriage” HAS a definition. Unfortunately, some want to change or “interpret” it and I think a national standard may be the only way….
And stop calling me “Sir”
McCorvey endorsed Paul last month. If she didn’t know Peden, then that’s Peden’s fault for running a lousy campaign and failing to make himself available to potential backers. Sitting around and waiting for them to come to him never works.
McCorvey also used to be a drug addict, a lesbian, a heathen then an evangelical, and is forever tied to the law of the land that allows for 4000 babies a day to be butchered in the US. She says she’s clean, no longer a lesbian, is now a Catholic, and has worked tirelessly to overturn the ruling she is largely responsible for. All welcome conversions but I don’t see her endorsement as a political windfall for Herr Doktor.
Well ladies and gentlemen we have a crashing dollar and a Republican party that is in shambles.
The Republican party got whipped in the midterm elections. The Republican party will be whipped in the presidential elections and probably again in the congressional elections. This is going to leave us with a liberal executive, and congress.
The rupublican party will shatter into pieces, we are going to be murged into a North American Union. I beg all of you who are obvoiusly prejudice against Dr Paul to see what is happeneing, perhaps most of you do.
The current republican establishment (which has its roots in the North East, where bush is REALLY from) is leading Southern conservates around by their noses. They keep us forver on board with fake issues such as a “federal marriage ammendment” i say fake because its something that will never happen and they know it.
Be honest with your selves, how will this amendment pass? How many “blue states” will vote for it? Thats why its impossible. Conservatives have to stop reaptedly running into a brick wall and be honest with our selves. One question, how is the current republican establishment going to rememdy this? They are getting us into this.
History will look back at this moment, the moment before the republican party died, which is what is slowly happening, and what will be greatly increased in the coming elections. Ron paul is showing us the ansewers (They arent his answers he is just showing us what the foudning fathers already knew, its all in the constitution) and the answers are being ingnored by catch phrases and fake ideas about what conservatism is.
Doesnt it make sense that someone with real answers is going to be by defintion “different?” This isn’t going to be solved with more government. Your dependence on the federal govt is inversely proportionate to the lack of faith in your selves and your state. When the republican party crumbles, remember there was a man who tried to show us the way.
While we’re “being honest” let’s look at the states that have already voted on similar state amendments. 44 states have either constitutional amendments or statutes or both. 26 states have had constitutional amendments that passed, most overwhelmingly, including many “blue” states. Arizona is the only state to have a referendum fail. CT, MA, NJ, NM, NY, and RI are the only states that do not have statutory or constitutional language preserving the traditional definition of marriage. To say that an amendment has no chance of passing is blatantly ignoring the facts right in front of your face.
Personally, I don’t think an amendment to the US Constitution is necessary at this point, but the amendment process IS IN the Constitution therefore any amendment that passes IS constitutional.
Ron Paul is nothing more than an opportunistic charlatan with a god complex and a bunch of smart, spoiled, rich, white boys following him around like he’s the second coming of Jesus. He couldn’t “show us the way” if we gave him a map and a GPS. In a couple of days all you Rabid Rombies can go home, crank up your Rage Against the Machine MP3s (that you probably downloaded illegally) and leave the real world to the grown-ups. And not a moment too soon.
I never said an amendment is unconstitutional
And i agree, most states already define marriage as between a man and a woman. Which leads us to the next point-why the rabid concern over an amendment which is not necessary? Answer-because it keeps traditional conservatives chomping at the bit and voting for republicans. The exact way the democrats keep the black vote on board.
Just because certain states voted for their own law regarding gay marriage doesnt mean they would vote for a Constitutional amendment. Besides, it would have to pass the house and senate first, which wont happen, and is less likely to happen in the future because the Republicans are going to lose more seats.
Im not ignoring “the facts in front of my face.” I do believe, however, that you are misinterpreting the facts in front of yours.
Who do you think is going to show us the way, if not Ron Paul. The current republican establishment? If thats the case wouldnt we already know the way, and be on the way, since they are the establishment?
“Leave the real world to the ‘grown ups.’”
you mean the world you have chosen to define as real? The real world where ‘grown ups’ dont debate, they only call names and insult those with another opinion and rely on the same leaders and policies that got us into this mess in the first place to get us out? Thats some world. And thats not very “grown up.”
I dont listen to Rage against the Machine. Right now im listening to Hank Williams and i have a Texas and Confederate Flag on the wall behind me. I support Ron Paul because he represents the principles of the Constitution, the priciples that drove Texas and men like Robert E Lee and George Washington to fight for independence.
Why dont you stop name calling, why dont you support your assertions with examples. Why dont you man up and learn to argue and not issue ad hominem attacks and deal with reality before it swallows you and the rest of the Republican party with it. Chris Peden is “the way?” Why exactly?
No name-calling (other than “rabid rombies”). You’re new around these here parts, but I’ve tried debating you guys and get condescending crap like…
…so now I just respond to aggravate the tar out of y’all. There was a time when the Confederate Battle Flag (let’s call it what it really is) was a symbol of which I was proud. That was until White Supremacists and Nazis like the ones fellatially following Ron Paul around co-opted it and turned it into a message of hate. What a shame.
Well sir, you called names and accused me of stealing, what do you expect.
How could a Nazi or a white supremacist follow Ron Paul and understand the issues? The constitution is one of limited government (which is anti-nazi) and promotes individual liberty, which is not compatable to white supremacy.
Im still proud of my flag, others dont define it for me. And i know what the battle flag is, but the flag on my wall is the confederate national flag.
It seems like you are at odds with who you percieve as Ron Paul’s followers rather than the message. Yes, there are some wierdos in the Ron Paul camp.
I just dont see how you can’t see the corellation between Dr Pauls Constitutional platform and the principles of 1776 and 1861. They are the same principles-and i mean this independent of race, or slavery. I guess reconstrucion really worked? Here we have a candidate who represents the tradtional Jeffersonian (Southern) view of the constitution, and a South that adheres to a Repbulican establishment that stands for a very Hamiltonian (Yankee) form of government, no states rights, fiat money, and Corporate-government collusion. A Federal government that has prevented the state of Texas from saving lives in the case of abortion-yet you seek to give it more power and authority.
IT is this disconnect with reality that is killing the party, and make no mistake it is dying.
You’ll have to ask the thousands of white supremacist and Nazi scumbags that are supporting him on that one. Maybe it’s because he welcomes their money and doesn’t publicly disavow their support that they get the idea he’s on their side.
You guys stroll around the internet and blather on and on with righteous indignation when someone dares to criticize your savior, acting like he’s just re-discovered what America is supposed to be like and think he’s the ONLY answer. Not a single piece of his introduced legislation has ever made it into law and yet you want us to believe he is our only hope.
No need to come in here lecturing me on the history of the Republic like you know all the answers. All you know are the Ron Paul talking points. I’ve read all those too and know the drill. Fiat money, blowback, military-industrial complex, guns and butter, blah, blah, blah.
Ron Paul is politically dead. If he manages to hold onto his congressional seat he’ll be just as ineffectual as he’s been for the last 20 years. He’ll end his career accomplishing nothing. Oh, except delivering 4000 babies.
Where did I say that I wanted to give the feds more power?
Hey, but at least you like Hank
I don’t think Ron Paul is our only hope. I think the Constitution is our only hope. He just happens to be the only one fighting for a strict constructionsist philosophy in the congress. If i am in error, please inform me of who else is fighting for the government of the founding fathers?
And you are correct, he has had a difficult time in the congress with his legislation. But what would you expect, look at what hes up against-2 political parties that both favor big government, as long as its working for them.
Do you not believe our Fiat money is a problem? The dollar is fourth in value presently, behind 3 other currency. I hope im wrong, but i dont hear anyone else in the congress question the entire notion of fiat money-and our dollar is collapsing, the evidence is here.
The concept of the Federal Reserve Bank is just what southerners meant when they described “money grubbing yankees” and the country being “taken over by bankers.” This is the collusion of government, coporationns, and banks that Jefferson and his later southern heirs feared. Now we are swimming in it.
The dollar will get so low they will try to merge us into the North American Union on the pretense that we arent strong enough economically on our own, we have to merge with canada, to compete with the EU.
Whats wrong with the concept of blowback? Do you think it has no validity?
And no you didnt say you wanted to increase federal power, but the current republican and democrat parties do, just in their own way. I believe the constitution creates the Federal Govt as an agent of the states-not that the states are subservient to the federal gov. The republican party certainly doesnt believe that. I just dont see anyone else in congress trying to devolve the powers the federal govt has usurped from the states besides Ron Paul.
If this was all about ego for Ron Paul, all he would have had to do is change his stance on the “war” and he would have been heralded as the new Regan, but it seems like thats where modern conservatism begins and ends-with whatever undelcared war the Fed Gov is undertaking.
These wars expand federal power. They are not necessary. 9/11 proved one thing-we have a crazy immigration policy-all we have to do is keep out those from terrorist nations, and we arent even doing that.
We are fighting 3000 miles away, and have a wide open border. Ron Paul has a very strict immigration policy-and the only one with the stones to suggest we ammend the constitution to end birthright citizenship. That sounds pretty conservative to me, and it sounds like it will save Texas from becoming Mexico.
#155 hammous,
Completely resorting to lying, now.
What is this,
“You’ll have to ask the thousands of white supremacist and Nazi scumbags that are supporting him on that one. Maybe it’s because he welcomes their money and doesn’t publicly disavow their support that they get the idea he’s on their side.”
1. Name 10. Just because a couple like his ideas on government keeping its nose out of our property and privacy does not mean he is catering to them.
2. He has disavowed their support, on what, 20 occasions.
3. He takes their money, yes, but he calls it taking money from the bad to do good.
4. I’m sure your candidate takes money from lobbyists in exchange for promises…that is truly dirty money that should be disavowed.
5. I have heard of maybe 3 white supremacists supporting Dr. Paul with $50.00 donations. If you know of THOUSANDS it must be because you are very close to those circles.
Yo hamous,
Which of the Ron Paul authored bills that have never been passed, do you disagree with and why?
Is it his fault?
Please since all I know is Ron Paul talking points please explain life to me?
Talk about “righteous indignation”.
Here’s why I’ve given up trying to maintain a civil discussion of ANYTHING having to do with Ron Paul on this blog.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b223/sylvanmaid/angrytypist.gif
154.
That’s part of his problem. He’s still living in the 1800s (at best).
157.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever posted here, even by a Paulbot.
Herr Doktor couldn’t even be a pimple on Reagan’s (please note the correct spelling) arse.
For starters, Reagan didn’t have a big yellow streak running down his back. Nor did Reagan accept the support of racists and Nazis (see below).
158.
Kind of like Robin Hood, eh?
I thought he was a man of principle. Wouldn’t a man of principle reject filthy lucre?
His explanation makes sense to you, right?
Enough said about the Paul camp.
160. SB
Yikes!
#161,
Uh Rick,
you know who supported and didn’t support Reagan?
Wow.
I bet Don Black did support Reagan.
What yellow streak are you talking about?
It is quite brave to obliterate countries that have no way of defending themselves. Who is next Trinidad & Tobago? How about Lichenstein? Vatican City? Cuba?
# 161,
you say, “Kind of like Robin Hood, eh?
I thought he was a man of principle. Wouldn’t a man of principle reject filthy lucre?
His explanation makes sense to you, right?”
Actually Robin Hood would be a better analogy for Democrats. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor.
That his explanation doesn’t make sense to you is laughable.
He is clean, you know it. He won’t let lobbyist even meet with him. You at LST take this little nothing of a story and make it your mantra for Dr. Paul.
I supported Ronald Reagan. My favorite President to date. If he were running against Ron Paul in this election, I would vote for Ron Paul hands down.
Ron Paul’s platform mirrors Ronald Reagans ideology.
Ron Paul voted to go after Al Queda in Afghanistan.
Where was his “yellow streak”?
Ron Paul served in the Air Force for 5 years.
Where was his “yellow streak”?
Iraq was a mistake, it will always be a mistake. We took marching orders from the UN. We created the quagmire Cheney predicted in 1994. We lost the lives Cheney predicted in 1994.
For what? What positive has come from Iraq?
The price of oil has increased 4 times from pre-Iraq war time ($25.50 a barrel to $103.00)
That Ron Paul was against Iraq from the beginning using the same intelligence that everyone else saw is very credible.
When everyone was saying Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and we need to bomb them…Ron Paul said no and the NIE report backed him completely. Now noone is on the bomb Iraq bandwagon.