With the GOP nomination all but official, I'm hesitant to weigh in on one issue surrounding Ron Paul: his Republican bona fides.
Yet, some of his supporters earnestly insist that he really does agree with his fellow Republicans on most issues, foreign policy and the Iraq War being the big exception. Any serious follower of national politics in recent decades has long-known Ron Paul to be in his own idealogical world compared to other Members of Congress, far out in his own libertarian left-field.
His voting record speaks for itself on that score, though it would seem some current Ron Paul backers have missed or are ignoring his penchant for embracing bizarre conspiracies and other eccentric political ideas. Indeed, his own political career has many examples of this lunacy, including his fascination with the NAFTA Superhighway as well as his 1988 statement: "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration."
Yet, one can simply work from his December 2007 performance on Meet the Press to establish the wackiness that is Ron Paul:
-He wants to bring every US soldier serving abroad back home. Europe, Asia, Middle East, you name it. They all come home...meaning no bases anywhere abroad.
-He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel.
-He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda.
-He can't bring himself to say the FBI and CIA should stay in business.
-He supports his constituents receiving earmarks but votes against bills containing earmarks whenever he can (which might be an extra credit question in a college-level logic class).
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults."
-He did not dispute he had previously called the Reagan administration a "dramatic failure."
-He has a very unique take on the Civil War and his apparent belief in President Lincoln's culpability for the conflict: "Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, [Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic."
If those doesn't constitute "fighting words" in Republican circles then nothing does. To be fair though, Paul already came very close to such conflict by inciting the Republicans he supposedly agrees so much with during his famous debate exchange with Rudy Giuliani regarding 9/11.
It all speaks to the fact that while libertarian-leaning Republicans most definitely have a place in the GOP tent, the Ronulans who embrace the Paul movement in full do not. And in all intellectual honesty, Ron Paul's supporters have no business promoting their man as an authentic Republican.
One question from Tim Russert during that Meet the Press appearance sums things up:
MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "`Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?
Good question. It sure isn't because he's the Republican his supporters claim him to be.
UPDATE: behold, the Ronulans have come out to play in the comments. Kool-Aid and applesauce not included.
UPDATE II: Comment #14 is one of my all-time favorites...a classic of the genre.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 17, 2008 05:46 PM | Email ThisI am as much of a Reagan fan as anybody, but it's fair to say that Reagan was a 'dramatic failure' in terms of stopping long term gov't growth.
I don't like some of Paul's foreign policy views, but I find Bush's domestic policy views equally bad, if not worse.
Posted by: russell garrard on May 17, 2008 06:39 PMAll the ideas you have listed above are not something being promoted by Ron Paul out of the blue, at random, without any factual or logical grounding. Read the work put out by the Cato Institute, the Mises Institute, the Independent Institute (among others) and you can explore for yourself in detail the conservative roots of these ideas.
The 'old right' within the Republican Party comprised of people like Senator Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater, and they agreed with most of what Ron Paul stands for. Even Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of the Department of Education - not double its size like George Bush did. What's amusing is you claim to know what being a conservative is about and you didn't mention this in your article.
Instead of addressing Paul's substantial arguments and showing why they are wrong, you decided to smear someone like Dr Paul - who has served in the military and then in service of his country in Congress for most of his life. I need say no more.
Posted by: Pablo Escobar on May 17, 2008 07:03 PMThe neo-con statists have hijacked the Grand Old Party with their Israel first / America second foreign policy and discredited (pun intended) inflationary economic notions that deficit spending and expanding government can go on ad infinitum.
It is a sad time in the history of the Republican party. The patrician, stoic and uncharismatic Dr. Paul is not the galvanizing leader with "cult of personality" appeal to awaken the sleeping or talk the Kool-Aide drinking neo cons back from their fascist leaning ledge. That notwithstanding, Paul did begin the process of opening eyes to the forgotten tenets of Republican platform that inspired the likes of Taft, Goldwater and a younger Reagan; those very same tenets that have been rebuked by the empty suits that pollute a GOP roster replete with vacuous loudmouths who possess but a sparse fund of knowledge of history, reason and economics.
It is my great hope for the GOP that someone younger and more charismatic than Paul, (albeit with the same impeccable character, devotion to principle and unassailable voting record) takes the torch in 2012. The future of the GOP and our once great nation may likely depend upon it.
Posted by: Mike O on May 17, 2008 07:19 PM
Bringing all the troops home (130 countries): Sensible, it seems to me, to save 1 trillion/per year and rescue Social Security. Perfectly in line with the founding principle, "no foreign entanglements" (peace and friendship with all nations).
Using Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA), is an underhanded way to run an empire without openly declaring it, un-American in spirit, and not Conservative, imo. I feel the same way about CIA, which operates in the dark, way beyond its legal mandate. Military intelligence should be with the Pentagon, answerable to Congress.
When we talk of a representative republic, why don't we mean it? The law doesn't apply when it's inconvenient? i.e. black budgets (the Pentagon is unable to pass audits), gag orders with national security letters(!?). If Democrats did these things, Republicans would scream. Why is it ok that Republicans do these things? So, someone who questions the wisdom of ignoring the law, is not welcome in the Republican Party? Do you know how crazy it sounds when people say that?
Everything on your list of "wacky" ideas is completely sound. You have to think it all the way through, with deep respect for the Framers. The Republican tent will get larger again after they have been used to clean floor in November.
Your title could just as easily be: John McCain: Republican? or George Bush: Republican?
Posted by: Steven Russell on May 17, 2008 07:19 PMI think the one whose sense of what it means to be a Republican needs to be challenged is you.
Republicans are about small government and conservative growth of that government. True Conservatives are NOT about Empire-building; occupying 140 nations across the world, forcing other countries to adopt democracy; a War on Terror; a War on Drugs; a Civil War; the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security; taxing Income; allowing a private corporation to print our own currency and charge us interest for it. Those are the hallmarks of the Neo-Conservatives ("neocons").
Whether you want to accept it or not, the Neocons are much closer to the Democratic Party ideals than they are to the ideals of the Republican Party. In contrast, Libertarians are much closer to true Republican values than the Neocons are.
Let me also enlighten you regarding some other fallacies which you appear to subscribe to, based on your bullets above:
1) The Department of Homeland Security is pure government pork. It was supposed to facilitate communication between justice departments, such as Immigration, the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, etc. Well, guess what? That was already done shortly after World War II. Do you know what that Department was called? It was called the CIA! If it didn't work the first time, what makes us think our government can get it right a second time?
2) The Constitution actually prohibits a standing army abroad. In fact, it clearly states that taxes may not be apportioned for an army for a period of more than 2 years. This was specifically intended to PREVENT the very occupations which are occurring today, which you referenced above. The Constitution does allow for a a standing Navy and for a militia, but those are to protect our borders and our interior. They are intended to preserve our country, not expand it.
3) As far as Reagan goes, he himself said that people needed to be wary of our government, and that it needed to be less intrusive in our lives. And let's not forget that he and George Bush were bitter rivals on opposite ends of the spectrum until right before Reagan got elected.
I will be more than happy to address these issues further, and expand upon any of them, if you are interested.
Posted by: George Dewey on May 17, 2008 07:29 PMYou show a severe lack of the fundamentals... but maybe that is all it takes these days to generate traffic to your site.
Weak.
Posted by: Todd M on May 17, 2008 08:08 PMIs the yard stick to judge Ron Paul's republicanism a vote cast for "W" or the endorsement of open borders, gun grabber McCain?
Having studied the civil war over the last 15 years I have also read letters from Lincoln to his generals in the field including writings from over 45 who witnessed the effects of Lincoln and I must admit his character was lacking: he was in fact guilty of suspending the law of the land. He also opposed alternative views of his and sent troops to guard the printing press from printing opposing views.
Eric, I suppose you have not taken the time to review the history of the Republican Party? By, your own post at least you have proved this much.
In regard to Reagan he did in fact support and help bring Reagan to the for front but Reagan pledged his cabinet would differ from former presidents then once elected Reagan packed his cabinet positions with CFR members which he promised to oppose. Reagan also promised to cut taxes yet he raised taxes 6 times he also promised to end several Gov. Departments but this was also lost to no action once elected. Reagan like "W" also lied before the people in regard to Military action.
On other issues you are simply tristing the facts.... Ron never stated that the US provoked an Al Qaeda attack instead he stated it was our foreign policy which ignited the actions.
He doesn't just support the cutting of foreign aid to Israel but to all nations. If you are a Christian you are aware that God supports the actions of teaching someone a craft or job to earn there own funds vs. social welfare. We need to end aid to other nations and focus on our own nation.
Hmmmmm...... Does Israel, Germany, Russia have a base here in our nation? Having visited many nations and lived in a few nations it's easy to understand why other nations desire we leave there land. How, would the people in our nation feel if a German base was located next to Disney?
No, Eric the GOP has lost it's way... We have GOP leadership which leads our nation into UN Treaties, spying on American's, endless wars and what really tickes me off the most is the fact that the GOP controlled congress just handed "W" new powers without any oversight at all.
The fact is the GOP is scared of the change we are making across the nation. I have been a GOP member for nearly 20 years and I'm very excited about a move back to our founders plans. In addition the GOP has moved towards many big Gov. plans of it's own and with such misdirection it's time for change.
In closing it's always nice to notice those who still oppose Paul and of course the name calling only ads to your cause.
I wonder which big Gov. Republican you voted for? Was it Rudy, Mitt or the other fake conservative Fred Thompson?
Eric, I should not be to hard on you at all.... Because I did vote for "W" both terms and I now regret my vote. In fact "W" deserves to be impeached for his many lies. Once I turned off Fox News, Hannity and Rush and took the path of self study of all the topics which effect our nation I began to realize the total package that Paul offers our nation. I voted for Paul in my states primary and I will vote for him in Nov.
As I see it within 2 years I can see 150-200 Ron Paul Republicans running for office for both Congress and the Senate not to mention state and local offices. IF given the chance to really effect change you will pay less taxes, abortion will end and our founders path will be secure for a while. I for one am funding, supporting and taking action to effect such change as will millions of others will.
Eric, we hope you will drop your insults and rethink your positions and join the future of the Republican Party.
Posted by: Darel on May 17, 2008 08:13 PM
Bringing all the troops home (130 countries): Sensible, it seems to me, to save 1 trillion/per year and rescue Social Security.
Excuse me? Can you explain how that would save $1 trillion per year? The entire DOD budget is not even half that, being $440 billion.
So how, by closing all overseas bases, can we trim over twice the entire DOD budget?
Given the three points above, your "arguments" pale in comparison, because most of your arguments are symbolic in nature: Israel, good; drugs, bad; Reagan, a god; al Qaeda, the evil force overtaking the world; Lincoln, the Great Saviour of the Nation. To move off these points, one would have to do some analysis and investigation--my second point--which doesn't occur. In other words, to trash or re-interpret the "symbol," one has to lower the intellectual "shields" and go around Stalin Media (oh, another symbol, best media in the world).
Really, it is time we stopped getting drunk off the "gods" and misinterpreted fairy tales of the past. That is your homework assignment.
He resigned his Republican membership in 1987 so he can run for POTUS for the Libertarian party not because he wanted to leave Republican principle behind, duh!!!
">-He wants to bring every US soldier serving abroad back home. Europe, Asia, Middle East, you name it. They all come home...meaning no bases anywhere abroad." // Yeah, let's expand our army and colonize the world. What the hell is the matter with you? Ship all our production jobs, oursource all our smart jobs, use our poor illegals to do our hard jobs - so we can police the world full time. Makes a lot of sense.
">-He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel." Right all foreign aid, that will cut three times more aid the Arabs get."
">-He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda." Go read the 9/11 report - it's not his belief, it's a fact.
">-He can't bring himself to say the FBI and CIA should stay in business." - yeah kudos to them for a job well done on 9/11 - if CIA stayed out of peoples business this world will be much safer.
">-He supports his constituents receiving earmarks but votes against bills containing earmarks whenever he can (which might be an extra credit question in a college-level logic class)."
">-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults." No, let us spend more money for the war on drugs and put more people in jail for non-violent drug crimes because that has been working for us.
">-He did not dispute he had previously called the Reagan administration a "dramatic failure." Again, men of Principle don't kiss a$$, they stick to their principles.
">-He has a very unique take on the Civil War and his apparent belief in President Lincoln's culpability for the conflict: "Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, [Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic." Someon needs to read some history.
How funny!!! It makes one wonder why people like you never try to disect into the facts of why Ron Paul's interview with Larry King Live the night before Iowa Caucus went unaired? Why he was kept out of Fox News debate in NH, weekend before the primaries there? Why his interview with John Stossl for 20/20 was never aired?
Posted by: Baba Padmanabhan on May 17, 2008 08:33 PMERIC IS JUST A NEO-CON BLOG PUPPET.
Posted by: Carlo on May 17, 2008 08:59 PMI prefer the black drag queen....
Posted by: Ron Paul or RuPaul on May 17, 2008 09:20 PMIt's great to see the refreshing comments at #12 and #13.
When the Republican Party has been busy increasing the size, scope, indebtedness and adventurousness of government for nearly 8 years, and is wildly unpopular and going to get s--tcanned in the next election as a result, well, that's an especially bad time to police for orthodoxy.
I don't have anything for the Republican Party, I'm more interested in conservatism. The question there isn't whether Ron Paul is a conservative, it's whether George Bush (and all who enabled him) is a conservative, and the answer only needs two letters.
This session just reminds me what a great American and a great conservative Ron Paul is---Thanks all, New Left Conservative #1
I don't have a dog in the religion hunt, but everybody seems to have it out for the Jews. Rev Wright and most of the black extremists don't like 'em. The far lefties want to give Israel back to the Palestinians. The only people who seem to like them are the fundamentalist christian literalists. They want the Jews in the Holy Land hoping that it will bring Christ back for a repeat performance.
None of it makes any sense, but all of the yahoos seem to have a real hard-on about the Jews.
So we have a bunch of unique visitors here. Any of you care to tell me what you folks have against the Chosen People?
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on May 17, 2008 10:22 PMRead Pat Buchanan's latest book, "Day of Reckoning." The GOP that I joined as lost its way, and while I may not agree with Ron Paul 100%, he sure is the closest to the Republican party of Reagan and Goldwater than any of the others, including McCain.
Brad
Baghdad, Iraq
Well let's see.
He wrote:-He wants to bring every US soldier serving abroad back home. Europe, Asia, Middle East, you name it. They all come home...meaning no bases anywhere abroad.------Mr Earling believes that all of those troops should NOT be protecting the USA or it's citizen during the largest national security crisis in modern history. He believes that we should leave the troops where they instead of letting them protect our borders against terrorist and illegal immigrant. Mr Earling appears to be a traitor when you look at it from a truly conservative perspective.
-He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel.---This a half truth. The fact are the USA cannot afford to give foreign aid to any country. Our country has been bankrupt for a while. Yet liberals like Mr Earling vehement insist on saddling our children with the debt of other countries instead of using that money to help people here in the USA. If Mr Earling were a conservative he would support any plan to drastically reduce the deficit and balance the budget. But instead he supports other countries in frontof the needs of Americans. Once again Mr Earling appears to a traitor to the citizens of the USA.
-He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda.---This one is easy...It's a lie and a fabrication...Ron Paul has never said this. Instead Ron Paul listened to the subject matter experts and reiterated their summation. Mr Earling would have you believe that the military and intelligence experts that have been protecting out country are wrong. And that the Al Qaeda attacked us for no reason whatsoever or maybe for some idiotic and unbelievable reason like they hate womens rights and our prosperity as a nation...
-He can't bring himself to say the FBI and CIA should stay in business...... the interesting thing about this statement is that Ron Paul has called for audits and massive cuts in both agencies budgets. That's what conservatives do. They look for ways to save the taxpayers money. Mr Earling doesn't care how much waste occurs or what civil liberties are at risk. He prefers spending like a drunken sailor until we all live in a virtual police state. Once again Mr Earling illustrated that he indeed a traitor to the USA.
-He supports his constituents receiving earmarks but votes against bills containing earmarks whenever he can (which might be an extra credit question in a college-level logic class)... Mr Earling does not believe that Congressmen/women should do their jobs. Part of which is is relaying the wishes of his constituents to the Congress. Mr Earling believes that American citizens should not be represented. Once it appears that Mr Earling is a traitor.
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.".....Once again a fabrication and misrepresentation of reality. Mr Earling believes that drugs distribution is not something that the people are capable of managing on a state level. Which is the true position, the Constitutional position. Instead Mr Earling believes that Americans are too stupid to be responsible for what they put in their own bodies. He thinks big government agencies and unelected international bodies should decide and regulate what medicines or drugs (illicit and others) we should be allowed in ingest. He want to willfully and gleefully hand over our freedom and sovereignty to NON-AMERICAN citizens. Once again it appears that is a traitor.
And about that Civil War thing. Ron Paul stated the fact there were many countries that had abolished slavery without ever going to war. So what was the reasoning for that war when the Union could have just bought all of the slaves out of slavery for a fraction of the price of prosecuting a war just every other country on earth. But we are talking about Mr Earling who enjoys massive liberal spending and sacrificing American lives for big government initiatives. Once again it appears that Mr Earling is traitor to his country.
This leads me to ask the question "IS MR ERIC EARLING AN AMERICAN AT ALL?"
My guess is that he a communist living in the Socialist United Kingdom or Canada. Perhaps he's an Israeli. He seems more fond of them than he does American citizens.
What the deal Mr Earling?
-He did not dispute he had previously called the Reagan administration a "dramatic failure."
Posted by: rubes on May 18, 2008 12:01 AMEric, your IQ test came back negative, so why don't you give up and go back to whatever tar pit you rose out of?
But I don't really care who carries the mantle of conservatism. Those few areas where I disagree with Ron Paul (abortion and immigration) he is a conservative and I am not.
And I agree with the entire list of Ron Paul positions you mention in the article above.
The funny thing to me is that the GOP would like to become a small tent by alienating the fiscal conservatives, thus ensuring their own defeat.
Hairy Buddah @ 18, I am really quite a fan of the Jews and of Israel. It is just that I do not support using the US government to help them. I think reducing taxes in the US will help US Jews and other friends of Israel to get richer and send more voluntary contributions to Israel, and that in the long run this would amount to more aid than we now send them though official channels. I am not worried that Israel will lose any major battles against the inept Muslim socialistic dictatorships that surround her. The Jews have a great record for kicking a** and I know they can take care of themselves without forcing US taxpayers to give them defense welfare.
I think that by eliminating all taxpayer-funded foreign military and non-military aid, we will hurt the Muslim nations far more than we will hurt Israel, because even though Isreal gets a lot more aid, they depend on it a lot less because they have other sources for military funding, eg a robust domestic economy.
Speaking of the definition of conservatism, I think that a non-interventionist foreign policy is conservative. It was Wilson, and idealistic Democrat, who advocated exporting Democracy. How did the big-government liberals take over the GOP?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 18, 2008 02:28 AMWhat's wrong with wanting less government? Less taxes? Less violence? And god forbid - More Freedom?
When did the norm become the opposite of these?
Posted by: Just Some Guy.. on May 18, 2008 05:45 AMPosted by: Saltherring on May 18, 2008 06:34 AM
Straw Man.
The whole concept of Ron Paul supporters claiming that Ron Paul is just like the rest of the Republicans is totally off base. Ron Paul supporters say that Ron Paul is how they WISH all the other Republicans were. Ron Paul's clear message is that the Republican party has lost it's way and that they are now Big Government spenders just like the Democrat party.
Small Government. Individual Liberty.
FREEDOM IS POPULAR
Posted by: Jeremy D. Young on May 18, 2008 06:34 AMWilliam from VA
RP 08
Posted by: William on May 18, 2008 01:25 PMYou had better learn English yourself before criticizing someone else's writing and proofreading. A critique:
Litteraly- Should not be capitalized, and is misspelled
You-should be 'your'
Lack-should not be capitalized
totaly-misspelled, should be 'totally'
some one-should be one word, not two
whom-should be 'who'
english-should be capitalized
unimformed-misspelled
thank-should be capitalized
But you are obviously just a stupid Rontard, so I guess we shouldn't have expected any better.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 18, 2008 02:26 PMRon Paul = Constitution/Bill of Rights/Dec. of Ind.
So are you saying, Eric, that you hate the top documents? I would back away from saying such a thing for your own credibility as a "Republican"
Well, I guess if you can't see the lunacy in Ron Paul's stances on issues, as noted in Eric's posting, there's no sense in trying to explain to you "WHY he's so wrong and out in left-field". Oh, and make sure you carry an umbrella, as you could get "beaned" by a fly ball out there.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 18, 2008 02:35 PMRon Paul = Constitution/Bill of Rights/Dec. of Ind.
So are you saying, Eric, that you hate the top documents? I would back away from saying such a thing for your own credibility as a "Republican"
Ron Paul = Constitution/Bill of Rights/Dec. of Ind.
So are you saying, Eric, that you hate the top documents?
Ron Paul = Constitution/Bill of Rights/Dec. of Ind.
So are you saying, Eric, that you hate the top documents?
If you think Republican means they support corporatism while enforcing moral values on people, then Ron Paul isn't a Republican. If you think Republican means limited government, capitalism and freedom of religion(aka morals) and so forth, then Ron Paul is the ONLY republican candidate.
You know, Bob Barr getting the LP nom pretty much throws this entire "Libertarians aren't Republicans" nonsense out of the water. If you had enough of a clue to actually fulfill the title of this blog, then you would already know that Libertarians generally are Republicans and vice versa.
Because on a Federal level, they are basically the same in philosophy. Where they differ only comes into play on state and lower elections. Where some prefer very limited state power and others like more state power.
As a Libertarian, I do not vote for Republicans in local elections. As we do not agree on the issues. However, on a Federal level I would vote for a Republican, because Republicans are supposed to be against big federal government, and the democrats are in favor of it.
But I sure won't be voting for the liberal republican, aka neo-con McCain. So looks like it's gonna be a write in for Paul, or more likely a vote for Barr or possibly the constitution party.
And thats how the GOP lost at least 1 vote for presidency. And the McCain people might want to think about trying to convince me to vote for him, before they start sending me junk mail asking for donations. Quit wasting paper.
Posted by: badmedia on May 18, 2008 04:01 PMSo how does it feel to be a sychophant, troll? To put it in terms your slow-wit can understand, "Do you enjoy getting your rocks off by making people suffer?" You must be the type of guy who get's his jollies killing homeless people in Florida? I bet you are... you sick bastage. Tell me, are you the kind of guy who has 10 kids just so you can get a fat welfare check? Thought so, you basement dwelling satanist. No wonder you want people to go to their basement, misery loves company right? Dolt?
It's okay, I know your mom failed to raise you into a decent upstanding citizen, must be hard to come from a crack infested home life, eh? (I'd make fun of your dad, but apparantly you have two moms) Don't worry, there is more haterade for you to drink, I put some big brother kool-aid in there for you, cause we all know you're too inept to take care of yourself. Isn't that right, Mr. Welfare?
I like how you can't find a logical argument to the more intelligent people here, yet you're great at finding the weaker statements to pray upon. You must be proud that you can pick on the weak, but when it comes to playing with the big boys, you dress up in your chicken outfit and bend over for your buddy Eric to feed you your daily dose of BS.
Here's my impression of Saltherring (aka Slobtheknob), "Yuk yuk, tard, tard, tard, tard." *Starts spanking it* "Huh huh, tard, tard, tard, tard. *Wipes his chin*
You make Corky look like a genius, tool.
Posted by: Troll Stomper on May 18, 2008 06:45 PMThis rebuttal, which complete ignores the people who would obviously wipe the floor with your pea-sized nut you call a brain, is a typical troll remark written by a mental defeatist. Congrats... you're a moron! :)
Posted by: Troll Stomper on May 18, 2008 07:13 PMBetter reach for the meds, you've reached the end of your road, Rontard. There you go, better take another couple. Yep, down the hatch. Back to your Rontard delusion.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 18, 2008 07:53 PMGood riddance to the filthy stench left by neocon scum.
Good riddance to the filthy stench left by neocon scum.
The issue of slavery was marketing spin that Lincoln USED in order to gain support for his war. The Civil War was all about his legacy and his power and needlessly killed about 600,000 Americans. Most other nations eliminated slavery without civil war. We could have as well.
Or, we should have let the South go. Big deal. They would have remained huge trading partners with us, much as Canada always has been.
Lincoln violated habeas corpus, jailed peaceful newspaper editors who disagreed, and waged a scorched-earth policy against Americans.
He was a Republican, but I don't think you should be so proud of that.
He was a tyrant.
He violated the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; our revolution. His concentration of power in the hands of the President lead directly to other dictators such as Wilson, FDR, Nixon and GW Bush.
Lincoln USED the socially conservative abolitionists for his own personal power agenda and to do evil against America in the process.
REAL conservatives are supposed to support the concept of States' Rights. Well, forcing states to be in a Union they did not want to be in was the ultimate violation of States' Rights. You can not be a conservative and support Lincoln's actions.
And here is the REASON you, and so many others are unaware of this central fact that the Civil War was not about slavery: you attended government schools, or were taught by liberal social studies teachers in private schools. History is written by the victors, and the liberals and socialists who run the government schools want to promote the idea that the federal government needs more power.
Neocons are right-wing socialists. They ALSO want big government, and so they do not oppose the federalization of education. No, just the opposite: the Neocons gave us No Child Left Behind, just to increase the power of the federal government in the area of education.
You have been propagandized by your own government.
Wake up. Free your mind. You can't both be a conservative and admire Lincoln. These two are incompatible.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 18, 2008 11:23 PMThe DOD budget may be $440 billion...but you're not taking into account related costs such as the interest on that $440 billion, long term care for veterans, opportunity costs if that $440 had been better spent, etc....so yes, it's possible that the real costs exceed $1 trillion.
Posted by: Edward on May 19, 2008 07:56 AMBut I agree with you that the war was not fought over slavery, and that this issue was used to garner public support in the North for the expenditures required to prosecute the war. One has to look at this time with the understanding that slavery had been an accepted part of human life since the dawn of civilization, and in the preceding generation, that acceptance had been coming to an end. Public opinion was still split as to whether slavery was morally acceptable or not. I believe it was not, but I did not live in those times. The majority of people living in the north who did not benefit from slavery were opposed to it, and hence it was helpful for Lincoln to focus on the possibility of ending slavery as another reason to fight to invalidate the Confederate succession and bring the states back into the Union.
Posted by: srogers on May 19, 2008 07:59 AMYOURS,
James Thomas Hines III
YOURS,
James Thomas Hines III
YOURS,
James Thomas Hines III
Thanks for the laughs Troll Stomper, I needed that.
Posted by: Joe on May 19, 2008 02:09 PM-"He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel." And Israel needs our aid for...what? I didn't vote yes on that either.
-"He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda." once again...he NEVER said that. he said it's the FOREIGN POLICY that is provoking. HUGE difference moron.
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults." I like how you put that in quotes as if that's something he actually said. He said...to stop incarcerating drug USERS in that they are not SELLING the drugs and that it is a waste of tax dollars to pay for incarceration when the USER needs rehab...NOT JAIL.
Is this all so difficult to understand?
Ron Pauls bottom line is...
WE CANT AFFORD TO DO THIS STUFF ANYMORE! Helllllooooooooo?
-"He supports cutting all foreign aid to Israel." And Israel needs our aid for...what? I didn't vote yes on that either.
-"He believes the United States provoked Al Qaeda." once again...he NEVER said that. he said it's the FOREIGN POLICY that is provoking. HUGE difference moron.
-His position on illegal drugs is: "All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults." I like how you put that in quotes as if that's something he actually said. He said...to stop incarcerating drug USERS in that they are not SELLING the drugs and that it is a waste of tax dollars to pay for incarceration when the USER needs rehab...NOT JAIL.
Is this all so difficult to understand?
Ron Pauls bottom line is...
WE CANT AFFORD TO DO THIS STUFF ANYMORE! Helllllooooooooo?
And in many ways, gullible Republicans allow him to do it without any objections, for fear that they'll lose his fanatical base.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
I dont know where you got this. I read just about everything Ron Paul and have never heard him or anybody else say they hate Jews or Israel. He wants to stop the aid yes. Also the aid that we give to their enemies which is far more than we give Israel. Yes we hate the Fed. For good reason. They steal our money. Read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustus Mullens and you might comprehend why for yourself. Google it and read it for free online.
Posted by: Mike Moore on May 20, 2008 01:54 PMBut, this is what I am "honing in" on. You mention Paul's "leftwing" agenda. Is supporting Constitutional principles leftwing? Is NOT supporting a war leftwing? Actually, the leftwingers have been the biggest warmongers in history. (Should I note, FDR, Truman, Wilson, and others of the "left" wing?) In reality, left and right mean nothing--these are poor terms for an electorate which has graduated well beyond such black and white, dichotomous labeling.
It is my opinion, Mr. Dondero, based on your writings and interviews on Stalin Media TV News, that you don't like Paul. That's fine. I don't care. But, when you attack the message, then I care. And I think the readers care. So pony up--what is the "leftwing" agenda from Ron Paul? I am ready for a debate.