The American Spectator : No Winners… Yet

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 6:21AM

Ron Paul got by far the most applause. He is the only Republican that polls well among Independents. Absolutly no one cares about Tim Pawlenty. Ron Paul is the intellectual giant standing on the stage with 7 intellectual midgets. He is the elephant in the room noone wants to talk about. 59% of the voters by polling want out of these wars. The neocons have got to do better if they want this country to continue in endless wars .

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:22AM

Like Obama’s acolytes the Ron Paul cultists just can’t stand the light of truth being shown on their liberalterian version of the “messiah.” Like Obama Paul is a big spender who mouths words about limited spending and government, but his actual record puts the lie to his pontifications.

Ron Paul’s apologists like to claim he’s a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is correct as far as it goes, but it is very deceptive. What Paul does is make sure that earmarks he wants are put into a spending bill that will pass, and then he votes against the bill. It’s the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis. It is this blatantly crass political sleight of hand hypocrisy that disgusts the majority of conservatives and Tea Party voters.

“Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul like Forrest Gump’s Bubba has an unsettling affection for shrimp. Shrimp he is willing to spend your money on. In 2007 he got millions of American’s tax dollars for his favorite crustacean -- $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research. Richard Viguerie noted in 2007, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function." Ron Paul’s fanatical insatiability for your tax dollars ($400 million in 2007) is disturbing in light of his words about fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is a prime example of why America’s fiscal house is in disorder.

In 2009 fraud Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives ($73 million was specifically for him). For 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork despite the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks. Paul was one of only 4 House Republicans in 2011 to break ranks with the Republican Conference’s earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

The Paulist cult will go apoplectic and they’ll use convoluted “logic” to explain his insatiable appetite for government pork, but the truth is RINO Ron “Wild Shrimp Cowboy” Paul is your typical big spending politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth while he slops up your tax dollars for his pet projects.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:11AM

Do Your Homework Little RINO-CINO Ruling Elite Fop Apologist Micky Boy

Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark , as a Principled Stand. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.
" Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.

Stand & Fight.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:19AM

The FACTS speak for themselves cultist. RINO Paul is a sham pork loving appeaser of Muslim terrorists. Go back to Gaza and spend your time raping little boys Jihadist.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:36AM

Uh Oh!
The Little RINO-CINO AgendaGirl Micky Is All Upset & Atwitter.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Micky's RINO-CINO Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

WJ| 8.12.11 @ 12:19PM

I am no Paul fan. The big problem is that he is not electable. However, what I find appalling about Republican hatred for him is that it is based on his rational disgust of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

You neocon nut jobs need to get this - our days of trillion dollar wars are over. That is not a choice we will make, it is being made for us. Squandering precious resources to make the world safe for democracy will put Obama back in the White House for 4 more years.

massmile | 8.12.11 @ 1:13PM

Ron Paul is a beautiful man. With what other man could you go from Austrian economics to the bedroom with a complete stranger. No, he is not crazy just lonely.
I am a 26 years old nurse, young and beautiful. Now I am seeking an older gentle man who can give me real love , so i got a username Annababe2011 on---a'ge'l'ov'e'r. C óM---it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and older men, or older women and younger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck it out or tell your friends.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:45PM

WJ,

You, like many on the Left equate hatred with speaking the truth.
And besides, it isn't wrong to HATE the ideas and principles of a RINO like Ron Paul and his ilk.
If you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't equate the disdain for what he believes with hatred for hatred's sake.
I don't like what the man stands for~ I hate it. But as to the man himself~ I actually pity him.
I hope he comes to his right mind.

As to your "you neo-cons" needing to get this comment~

No, you anti-war, Blame America Firsters really, REALLY need to get that the 1960's type worn out old hippie leftovers really aren't going to ever rule our country.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:13PM

Margie: Ron Paul is the most conservative and dedicated conservative in congress. He has always used the Constitution as his guide. He has never voted for a tax increase ever. His stand against undecalered and illegal war has been heroic. I have been in the prolife movement for decades. Ron Paul is the best prolife politician i have seen. If he would have been listened too Roe vs Wade would have been gotten rid of decades ago.

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:37PM

"our days of trillion dollar wars are over. That is not a choice we will make, it is being made for us."

They wont listen, WJ, they will elect yet ANOTHER Bush-type. Hard to believe isn't? but either next year, or in 2016, they will. Rightists outnumber everyone else 2-1.

Bushism is a bad coin, it keeps coming back.

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 6:08PM

"Rightists outnumber everyone else 2-1."

Whatever feinting is being done today, the outcome is still what it has been in the last 2 decades.
It is all sound and fury.

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 6:15PM

"You, like many on the Left equate hatred with speaking the truth."

Then stop hating Catholics, Marge-- they do as much as any church has ever done. And morally they are no better or worse than any church.

Please take the mote out of your own eye, Marge: if you can hate/dislike Catholics, why is it wrong for Clint to hate/dislike Israel/Jews?

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 9:22PM

Margie,
as Clint is unfair to Israel, you are unfair to Rome- to Catholics.
I will write that over 'n' over- until you repent.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 1:03AM

I don't hate Catholics, but I do hate false Religion.
You cannot see the difference, and you are a prime example of playing the game of which I just spoke of.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:40AM

The only "religion" to which Margie Dear assents is her own.... She fits right in with the Muslim Mullahs....

Mullah Margie. Where's Dr. Das Reich?

Sincerely,

Vlady the Jew

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 4:29PM

Sincerely? Very funny. And very disingenuous besides.

Oh, and I don't have a Religion, God says I don't need one. Read Isaiah chapter one. All He requires is my heart. He gave me Jesus Christ, He is Whom I truly need, as do we all.

Including YOU.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 11:10AM

Uh Oh !

ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks Attempts To Play The Anti-Jew Card On Tea Party Clint.

You Don't Get To Define Me ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks.

My Jewish Buddies Steve, Ron, Enosh, Other Steve...etc. Don't Hold Me To Your Phoney Israel First Litmus Test.

They're American Firsters.

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:36PM

Alan
Marge has a direct line to God, she knows for certain that all religions except whatever she does are false. Don't wait for a rational answer,but expect to be told you do not understand.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:12PM

You should read your Bible, TROLL.

There's only one way to God:

AS IT IS WRITTEN:

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:38AM

strawman.

not about wars. you may have a liking for simpleton arguments.

you clearly have a favorable disposition for events like 9/11....cuz that's what happens following the Ron Pauls of the world.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:37PM

RINO Paul is correct.

I've always found it "interesting" how Clint/Tim* accuses everyone of being RINO-CINO'S when in fact, there is nothing Republican about Ron Paul. as you've pointed out, the truth is, he's a fraud.

Many may not know it either, but Ron Paul is actually a Libertarian who had to switch to Republican in order to get elected.

His views and beliefs are that of his Libertarian party, which I've been saying here for a couple of years now~ are anti-war (like the Left), anti-American (as in blame America for terrorism because we've "invaded" other countries), and anti-Israel (as in their clan is a great hide-out for anti-semites).

And Clint/Tim* is. like Ron Paul, a true RINO~ as he refuses to vote Republican, and voted for his brother in law rather than for McCain/Palin.

The true definition of Republican in Name Only!

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:18PM

Margie with all due respect: Dimmwits like you over the cliff Republicans are the reason this party and the conservative movement is almost destroyed. No prowar Republican can win. Ron Paul polls the best among independents and is usually in the top 2 against Obama. People like you are why Obama is in power today. People like you will keep Obama in power if we get another Bush Republican running for president.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 4:53PM

Jack,

with no due respect, those of us who do NOT support the candidacy of Ron Paul - with good reason - could say the same thing about you.

Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative; he is a Libertarian.

Quite frankly, any one of the folks onstage last night in Iowa would be a 1000% improvement over Obama on every single political issue of importance to Conservative voters.

But it's the nit-wit little Paulies who want to pick up their toys and go home if their idiot hero fails to get the nomination, and THAT will guarantee Obama's re-election more than any other factor.

Would I prefer Perry or Bachman or Rick Santorum over Romney? ABSOLUTELY! But I would vote for an orange juice can if it meant getting Obama out of the White House.

And when you Paulies talk about George W. Bush like he was Satan, you sound like complete idiots.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:15PM

"Margie with all due respect: Dimmwits like you.."

LOL. Funny. Ironic, too.
Especially because the opposite is true.
With all due respect, Jack~ it's people like you who won't actually vote for Republicans, and spend all of your time criticizing them instead, that gave us Obama, and is possibly going to give us Obama again.

People like me simply want to see conservatives running in the Republican party win elections.
Duh, it's why I vote Republican.

I'm not the RINO here~ I actually vote Republican. If you have a better idea, let me know.

W| 8.12.11 @ 8:47PM

Not only the people onstage would be better than Obama, but the people off stage would be better. I am not sure about the media questioners.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:25PM

Israel Firster Margie needs to do her Homework.

Dr.Ron Paul Has Served 24 Years As The Republican Congressman From Texas' 14th District.

Paul was the first Republican representative from that area; he also headed the Texas Reagan delegation at the national Republican convention.

Ron Paul was one of only four Republicans to endorse Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford.

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Ron Paul.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

TrueBlue| 8.12.11 @ 7:25PM

You keep pulling Reagan out, and keep ignoring the fact that Paul disavowed Reagan several years after he was elected President. The quote you keep using was made BEFORE Ron Paul did that, so it is no longer relevant.

Also, every time Paul's people are called on providing proof of the statement being made more recently in ANY manner, they never respond. EVER. Just like you continuilly ignore people that bring these facts up.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:32AM

Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:09PM

Let's see now.
Everything I said is still true, Clintypoo/Tim*.
Your cult leader was a Libertarian and couldn't get anywhere so he registered Republican.
It's a fact.
I suggest you do your own homework, okeedokee?

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:40AM

Yawn.

only if people like you HATE AMerica so much sou are willing to hammer the whole Enterprise by electing WORSE. that's the hole in your argument. you prefer radical cancer to a broken leg.

the proverbial internal threat = you.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:36AM

You're An Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Slandering Liar.

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:43AM

Oh my G-od... I can't believe I am about to defend... Margie Dear.... There is nothing really conservative about Ron Paul.

Jack, no one is "pro-war." People are either pro-defence or pro-Chamberlain appeasement types (think almost every Democrat in office now)....

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:40PM

This is a tough call, who is crazier, Clint or Marge

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:07PM

Ask your pal, Ol Texican.
I'm sure he'd agree with scum like you.

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 9:23PM

Margie,
as Clint is unfair to Israel, you are unfair to Rome- to Catholics.
REPENT.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 12:57AM

No I am not Alan. I speak the truth about the cult, and always will.

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:39PM

Reading Marge makes me want to vote for Obama.Are you sure you are not a plant by the Democrats.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:06PM

Go ahead and vote for Obama, TROLL.
You probably did anyway in 2012, no?

Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 8:13PM

"Go ahead and vote for Obama, TROLL.
You probably did anyway in 2012, no?"

You mean '08? or maybe you think Joseph used Michael J. Fox's De Lorean to travel to 2012 to vote? Talk about early voting!

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 8:26PM

LOL. Oops.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 8:17AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

You and our fellow citizens can watch Congressman Paul's explanation for yourselves via this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

From what I understand, all earmarks add up to approximately two percent of the Federal budget. Two percent. Congressman Paul and other Representatives have been working to save us billions or even trillions of taxpayer dollars through legislation and various policy changes.

Why are you focusing on an arguably statistically insignificant allocation of taxpayer money?

All of our Representatives return some of their constituents' money back to the districts they represent by way of earmarks. Your problem seems to only be with a single Congressman.
Am I wrong?

Regards,

Charles

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:24AM

Charles :
Republicans, aside from Paul, are off the government pork diet. Ron Paul is a typical two-faced DC politician and based on his proclivity for twisting the truth is more liberal than conservative.

We have to start somewhere in reforming DC and wasteful earmarks are a first step. Paul proved he's still a part of the big spending problem despite his words (i.e., lies).

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:40AM

Asked & Answered RINO-CINO Micky.

The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.

It's ALL ABOUT The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:49AM

Clint I feel your pain trying to defend Ron Paul is like Democrats trying to defend Obama.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:08AM

You Feel RINO-CINO Pain, RINO-CINO Apologist Bootlicker Little Micky.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Rise Up.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:15AM

Poor Clinton it is so sad to see you melting down when someone challenges your delusions. Has fasting for Ramadan made you light headed? You might want to lie down.

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 9:00AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

You wrote in part "We have to start somewhere in reforming DC and wasteful earmarks are a first step."

We disagree, as I consider this a "baby step" when we can gather a significant number of our fellow citizens together to positively influence Congress to make "giant steps."

I disagree with Congressman Paul (and in fact most Congresspersons) on a variety of issues, but there is one thing of which I am sure, and that is this particular Representative has motivated perhaps millionsof our fellow citizens to start researching and learning about the many problems facing our nation and citizenry and to start thinking for themselves instead of going through life ignorant and apathetic.

His use of earmarks dwindles to insignificance in my view when his other (more acceptable, if you will) efforts will yeild savings in the trillions. If his constituents are given back thousands of their tax dollars via earmarks by his efforts while the whole of the taxpaying citizenry likewise retains thousands of their earned and future dollars by his policies, we all benefit. After this we can work on improving the way our money is allocated by Congress.

Regards,

Charles

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:05AM

Charles it may be a baby step, but it is in the right direction. The problem is that Congress treats our money as their personal slush fund. That is the problem with earmarks, but I agree we need to go for the big ticket items too.

I'd like to end funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, legal aid, the United Nations, NATO, foreign aid to countries like China and Muslim nations, etc..

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:14AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:23AM

Clint you may want to watch the fluctuation of your blood sugar level while fasting for Ramadan.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 1:07PM

I'm A Catholic RINO-CINO BOY

Wanna Make Somethin' Of It Little Micky ?

Hmmmmmm ?

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:32PM

You're a Catholic RINO-CINO BOY???

Is that like being in Opus Dei???

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:29PM

You're A Fixated Lapsed Catholic/Anti-Catholic Bigot Dr.Reich.

That's Like The Nazi Coward You Are Dr.Reich.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:45AM

Hey, it's Dr. Das Reich.... What the heck is Opus Dei? And is it true you are a Catholick? The way you act I thought you'd fit more in with the SS.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 9:39AM

Ron Paul
shot himself in the ...er "foot" last night, Johnson.
Telling the whole world he didn't mind Iran with the bomb was simply a continuation of johnson shots that will keep him on the fringe with the other cranks.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:44AM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Don't tell Clint, Ken. He may have a breakdown if he realizes how bad Paul did last night.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:44AM

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Don't tell Clint, Ken. He may have a breakdown if he realizes how bad Paul did last night.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 10:19AM

Not going to make a difference Dr. If you read any of Clint's juvenile name calling tirades when someone disagrees with his messiah you will see he as already suffered a breakdown. Clint has the "Paul Jones" worse than a school girls crush for the high school quarterback. In fact, I would not be surprised to find a note book in his possession with doodles of Paul's name and little hearts around it.

Elron H.| 8.12.11 @ 10:47AM

Dr.Ron Paul,

“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the 7th dimension!.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Beta Omicron 8 and the rebellion led by the forces of the High Sorceress Aza-Rama-Tutu-Cootchie-Koo, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped the intra-dimesnional Star Lord to retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to the Micronaut Empire from Talos IV and $12 billion to her enemies in the 11th dimension! And when the Kree Empire was overthrown by the Skrulls, that was AMERICA'S fault!!! We should NEVER protect our strategic allies in this dimension or any other, and most Americans know that!

We need to come to our senses, trade baseball cards with our friends in the Crab Nebula (both Talosian and those funny little green guys that look like Praying Mantis...Aaaaggh!!!! There's one on my leg!!!), and clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to kill us...”

The Tu-Tu Party is at Clint's House.

Carpe Dance-the-Night-Away!!!

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:45PM

Love it, Elron. Keep 'em coming.

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:42PM

Marge, Clint, Elron, Dr. Right
PLEASE LEAVE

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:04PM

After you.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 9:23AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

I cannot think of a country we should be redistributing our citizenry's earnings to. I certainly don't think we should be paying for the defense of Japan, Germany, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, et cetera, et cetera. We agree on defunding and exiting the United Nations, NATO, et cetera.

The government of the United States should be concerned with the defense and protection of our citizens, their property, and their liberties.

Additionally, there is strong empirical evidence that our government's interventions in other nations, be they monetary or military, creates more problems for our country and generates more antagonism. Until we change the counterproductive habits of our government we taxpayers will be paying for our government to create future problems and then pay for the unintended consequences created by the continuation of a failed foreign policy.

Regards,

Charles

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:33AM

Charles our foreign aid has often assured us peace and provided for our national defense. NATO served a purpose during the Cold War, but is it still relevant? We need to examine that in light of its unwillingness to aid us in the GWOT and giving Obama an excuse to drag us into his personal war.

As for Israel is a steady ally in a dangerous part of the world. If there were no Israel the Muslim jihadists would still be after our throats. They want world domination and our submission to Allah.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 10:32AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

We'll have to disagree on the extent to which our foreign aid to other countries has either undermined or advanced our nation's security and citizens' and military servicepersons' safety.

The Israeli government has proven over and again that it can and will take any measures to destroy whomever and whatever it wants whenever and however it wants. Our fellow citizens are being "looted" by our own government only to have their earnings redistributed to foreign governments, even ones opposed to Israel, which has and can take care of its own.

Only an insignificant number of individuals want "world domination" and submission to their particular form of religion. The research clearly shows strong evidence that most of our enemies who use religion as their excuse to attack our people and infrastructure do so in reaction to our government's occupations and heavy interference in their own countries: "The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack."

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/.....ticle.html

We should be cognizant of the fact that the Tamil Tigers were a secular group who used suicide terrorism to achieve their ends. The use of terrorism is not often motivated by religion, but is primarily a murderous tactic used by weaker/smaller groups to bring about the political change they desire.

Regards,

Charles

WJ| 8.12.11 @ 12:23PM

Israel has been a detriment to our security. They have pulled us into conflicts and have made us a target for the Muslims. They provide no net value to the USA's security.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 1:00PM

WJ,

Even if I have the time to research your claims, it is you who should provide evidence for what you want us to consider.

Please be cognizant that there are numerous individuals who harbor ill will for adherents of a particular religion - in this case Judaism - and attempt to hide their irrational bigotry behind rational seeming claims and arguments.

I do not suspect this of you, WJ, but you must provide supportive evidence and establish trust if you want me or your fellow citizens to take your claims seriously.

Regards,

Charles

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:34PM

"I do not suspect this of you, WJ"

Why not?

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:22PM

Israell is no ally but a massive liability to our country. Aid to Israel is a totally Unconstitutional subsidy to the Jewish religion. Let Isreal and the rest of the world pay for it's own defense we are broke thanks to people like you.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 4:57PM

We get it Jack; you don't like Jews.

To even imply that the aid and defense support we provide to Israel is anything more than a meager pittance in our overall national debt is beyond idiotic.

A "massive liability"?? You're a fool.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 6:27PM

In 2003 an economist who tracks what Israel has cost the USA in money estimated that our support of Israel has cost us one and a one half trillion dollars. He figured the cost direct grants and loans which are never repaid and intrest on that. He also figured n our expense of keeping troops worldwide to be ready to fight israel's enemies at the drop of a hat. Ten there was accumulated bad will which costs us maany hunderds of billions in higher oil prices as the araabs screw us for our support of israel. There was also included all the foreign aid we have to pay to the arabs to keep quiet about israe. there were other things as well. Add in all the trillions that these recent wars have cost and there is nothing to say about our relatioship with Israel except it has been a huge financial and strategic liability. it was printed in the Christian Science Monitor. I put the link up at the london Independent. It got over 12000 comments, not many of them favorable to israel.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 6:36PM

Isn't the Christian Science Monitor a pro-Palestinian paper?

W| 8.12.11 @ 8:54PM

Jack, you are wrong. The troops we kept in Germany and Italy, the Fifth Fleet in the Meditarrenean, and the Air Force in Europe were to deter the Commies, same in South Korea. We kept troops in Japan to pacify it, and then to deter the Commies.
We have never posted troops in a country because of Israel.
Tell us which countries you believe we have troops in because of Israel.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:54AM

What was Lord Ismay's old quote about NATO being created to keep to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.... Didn't seem to mention much about Israel....

Course, economists are like Rabbis (and I suspect Christian ministers, too) in that you can usually find one to give the a-ok on just about anything....

For example, you can always find some looney Reform rabbi to say gay "marriage" is just lovely. You will never find an Orthodox Rabbi who would under any circumstances say such a thing.

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 9:21PM

"Jack in Wi.",

You made various claims, and in your conclusion you added "Add in all the trillions that these recent wars have cost and there is nothing to say about our relatioship with Israel except it has been a huge financial and strategic liability. it was printed in the Christian Science Monitor. I put the link up at the london Independent."

You did not provide your fellow readers with any evidence to substantiate your claims. A link or two would suffice, I think.

The fact that other individuals have posted their unsubstantiated claims as truths is immaterial. The "burden of proof," if you will, rests with each of us as we make our points. As is readily apparent by reading some of the comments here, prejudice in general and anti-Semitism in particular (in the true meaning of that definition) is sadly very common.

Regards,

Charles

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 9:27PM

"Israell is no ally but a massive liability to our country. Aid to Israel is a totally Unconstitutional subsidy to the Jewish religion. Let Isreal and the rest of the world pay for it's own defense we are broke thanks to people like you."

The Germans should subsidize Israel- they directly caused the situation.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 2:18AM

The Jews may have had a claim to Pommerania or East Prussia. They had abolutly no claim to Palistine. Israel has received many hundreds of billions in aid from us and hundreds more in reparations from Germany. After 63 years on the teat is is time to stand on their own feet. They are big boys now. I don't like financing socialism in Israel or the USA

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 1:41PM

I just watched part of the annoucement of Rick Perry for President. What a boring, boring speaker. He makes GWBush sound Churchillian. He is trying to sound Tea party but comes off as just anther countryclub elitist. If this is the great white hope, get ready for Obama for another 4 years. In all the years I have followed politics I never much liked listening to Presidential speeches. I don't think I watch more thana couple of speeches each by LBJ, Nixon, Ford,Carter, the Bushs, Clinton and Obama. In fact I can't stand watching Obama for more than a minute. Please, please. not another boring windbag.

Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 8:07PM

"ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks Attempts To Play The Anti-Jew Card On Tea Party Clint."

You are not an anti-semite (as far as anyone knows), though you are anti-Israel. I don't care what you think, anyway; what matters, IMO, is that Margie is otherwise fair but when it comes to Catholics she has a blind spot. How is Catholicism worse than other faiths? isn't it an oversight to pick on Catholics while ignoring the flaws in Protestantism?

What of Martin Luther's anti-semitism, making Clint appear in comparison like Oskar Schindler?

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:20PM

Alan.
For the last time, it's the doctrines~ not the people.
And by the way~ exactly what is it that you believe, anyhow??

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 7:51AM

You must have been watching a different Ron Paul than most other people, excluding the "Paulies" who packed the hall.

Paul came across as the "blame America" crank that he truly is. He reached all the way back to the Eisenhower administration and the removal of the Communist Mossadegh to blame America for the downfall of the Shah and the rise of Islamic militancy.

But the BEST part of Paul's lunacy was when he said there's no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb, but even if they are that's ok because they just want "respect", and besides, they don't have the Air Force to reach us (?!?!), so it's nothing to worry about, anyway!!!

Sorry, but after hearing that kind of idiocy, only the absolute True Believers in Paul (like Clint) can support this fool with a straight face. The "Paulies", in that sense, aren't much different than the Obama-Zombies. They love their guy no matter what.

Well, America doesn't need another crank with a cult-of-Personality following.

Ron Paul made a fool if himself last night. Maybe we should thank him?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:56AM

Doctor so RIGHT on the foolishness of Ron Paul. Hearing him in the debate I thought he'd make a great Secretary of State for Obama -- the same obtuse apologetics for Muslim extremism.

Ryan| 8.12.11 @ 8:06AM

His points about Iran have well and truly turned me off to Ron Paul. I can live with a certain amount of disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he all but denies the reality that Iran is seeking to increase its power base and obtain control of its neighbors - and it is no good for democracy, which means its no good for America.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:25AM

CIA's Michael Scheuer,
"And then there is Iran. How does one explain the U.S. governing elite's fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world's more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi'ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in. "

Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Rise Up.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:32AM

Clint you're more Kool-Aid drinker than Tea Party activist.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:43AM

I'll Match My Tea Party & Registered Republican Real Conservative Credentials Against Yours Anyday, Little GOP Ruling Elite RINO-CINO Flunky, Micky.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Rise Up.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 8:44AM

So one guy who used to work for the CIA agrees with Ron Paul, and we should all join hands and sing "kumbaya"?

Hey, Clint... George HW Bush used to RUN the CIA, genius. Do you care what he says?

Folks, don't listen to Clint. He's a fraud.

Clint is "Clint Air" on the Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots website. He likes to thump his chest as a big guy in VFTPP, but if you look at his profile, he's not very involved. He uses their website to pimp his own pathetic, troglodyte blog.

Sleep well with Ron Paul's picture under your pillow, Clint. Ole' Ronnie walked straight off the cliff last night, so he needs his acolytes now more than ever.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:50AM

Doctor Touche'!

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:05AM

Apparently, The RINO-CINO Flunkie Little Micky Likes To Touch Dr.Reich.

Tina B| 8.12.11 @ 11:33AM

My gosh Clint, do you think you're on a middle school playground? Get over yourself and grow up.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 2:39PM

Tina:

Don't be surprised if Clint DOES like to hang-out around middle school playgrounds...

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:55AM

That's Dr. DAS Reich, Clint.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:03AM

Asked & Answered Serial Slandering Liar Dr. Reich.

I Got $ 1000.00 That Says I Ain't That Dude.

Put Or Shut Dr.Reich.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:06AM

Poor Clint Doctor hurt your feelings. Go drink your Kool-Aid and watch Ron Paul's convoluted explanation for using our money as his personal slush fund -- it will make you feel better.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:21AM

Dr.Reich & His Fellow Traveler RINO-CINO Apologist Flunkies, Like You Little Micky, Are Gettin' Ready To Try To Sell Out The Tea Party Rebellion.
We're Here To Stop You.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On RINO-CINO Micky's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Johnny H| 8.12.11 @ 9:21AM

I read TAS for the excellent analysis in the articles AND in the comments. Unfortunately this kind of invective is a real turn-off and belongs on the Huff-Po or Daily Kos. C'mon, guys... knock it off.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:46AM

Johny H:

You must be new here.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:03PM

Johnny H---it is hard to avoid being a five year old when Clint writes. He's such an annoying piece of antisemitic crap that it is hard to be nice. But we will try. When you catch us without Clint we discuss the strategy of the Byzantine empire, demographic problems with Europe and its inevitable economic decline, and such. With Clint on board, we are forced to deal as Moe to Curly. His Juvenalia, infantile insults, and constant use of caps invites it. I'm sorry. Like Dave Lister in Red Dwarf commenting on Arnold Rimmer---"I try and try to get along with him, sir, but I can't, because he is such a complete Smeghead!"

(Lister's analysis was right, by the way. Incidentally, when I was in New Zealand, the best drying machine I could get was this wheezy, asthmatic machine put out by S.M.E.G. It sucked greatly, as did most consumer products in NZ. But my wife and I, who have seen EVERY episode of Red Dwarf, couldn't stop laughing at the name.)

Tell me what you want to discuss, and I promise I will discuss it pleasantly with you. I'm sure Dr Right would like to, as well. Samer for Margie, Old Texican, Al Adab, Con Chef, and the rest of the crew. You seem a decent enough chap. (By the way, where's Brumbly, my Down Under Pal?)

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 2:40PM

Actually, I enjoy arguing with Clint. It's cathartic.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:34AM

The Lady doth protest too much!

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:46AM

And I got $1,000 that says you're NOT a Dude!

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:53PM

I've posted this before, but here it is again for those who don't know that this Michael Scheuer is a Ron Paul-bot and just as sick.
In his own words, here's what he also believes:

"–Foreign Policy: Norway’s government and population — like those in North America and the rest of the West — will have to pay for the lies political leaders in all parties, much of the media, and the academy have been telling their populace about Muslims for the past 20 years. These entities have preached to their populations and taught in their schools that Muslims who fight the West do so because they hate our freedoms, lifestyles, democracy, liberties, and gender equality, and so they have inculcated in their citizens a fear of and hatred for Muslims, as well as a belief that they are a monolithic enemy that will destroy all that Western citizens hold dear. In this sense, the governments are no different than the professional, pro-Israel Islamophobes — Spencer, Wilders, Geller, Horowitz, etc. — who work to ensure their fellow citizens never understand what motivates most Muslim animosity toward the West. The truth is that almost all Muslims who attack the West do so because of what Western governments have done or are doing in the Islamic world; the West is hated for what Western governments do — support for Israel and the Saudi police state, for example — not because of how Westerners live, think, and behave at home. By demonizing Muslims rather than debating the substance and impact of their own foreign policies, Western governments, media, and academics have been as much the promoters of a clash of civilizations as have people like Osama bin Laden."

AND THIS:

"Israel-Firsters, Evangelical leaders, and Neoconservatives: Each of the above problems is worsened by these U.S.-citizen-dominated but fundamentally anti-U.S. and Islam-hating entities; indeed, they also are fundamentally anti-Israel entities. Safely ensconced in North America with family, employment, and bank accounts safe, these groups champion a maximalist position for Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians; hunger for America to be at war with Iran — a non-threat to the United States; and work for an ever-increasing level of Western hatred for Muslims. These individuals are both war-lovers and cowards, ready to push others into fighting and dying for their selfish objectives, while they remain unctuously self-righteous and personally safe far from the front. Together these three groups are one of the main reasons America is facing an endless war with Islam, and the loyalty of each to a foreign nation — and their effective lobbying for that nation — will drive increases in defense and intelligence spending.

These areas, it seems to me, are going to require significant infusions of money to address legitimate and expanding U.S. national-security concerns. The debt negotiators may for the moment ignore the fact that America is in a worldwide war because of their policies, but whatever defense-related cuts they implement eventually will have to be much more than restored when the reality of war again sinks into their heads.

At day’s end, relentless U.S. government interventionism cultivates more and more lethal enemies and sheds allies. The ultimate cost of this war-with-Islam-causing interventionism will much more defense spending not less."

Fine fellows, the Paul-bots, hmm?

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 5:01PM

So Scheuer is a Paulie AND an anti-semite, too??

WHAT A SHOCK!!!

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:33PM

"Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004."

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:32PM

And what a fabulous job he did in tracking down Bin Laden both times! Maybe his Islamicist friends in the Pakistani intelligence service assisted him in hiding the Sheikh. No wonder we didn't track Bin Laden down until after he'd left.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:59AM

"I've posted this before, but here it is again for those who don't know that this Michael Scheuer is a Ron Paul-bot and just as sick."

Oh, Go-d, what a day... For the second time, I am agreement with Mullah Margie Dear.... Perhaps I should give up Judaism and conver....

Scheuer has some interesting opinions. Bit of a Crackpot, even though he was in charge of Alec Station. For every reasonable comment he makes, he'll make about 10 which make you wonder what kind of medication (legal and/or illegal) he's on.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 4:17PM

Your "Mullah" isn't me~ it's the prince of the power of the air.
Look it up, nasty one.

Vlady| 8.14.11 @ 11:51AM

Your are right Mullah Margie Dear. You are not my mullah, because I am not a Muslim. I am a Jew.....

I almost would look up your reference.... Almost. But it is most certainly some crackpot pseudo-religious reference to which you will attach your own ridiculous, outlandish, and moronic religious interpretation.

I'll stick with Tanakh and Talmud....

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:29PM

Thanks for those interesting revelations about Clint-Paulbot's latest "expert", Margie. So he's an antisemitic, proIslamic isolationist just like Tim* and his hero! What a surprise!

WJ| 8.12.11 @ 12:27PM

You might as well quit trying to convince the neocon nuts of anything. They hijacked the party like a nasty cancer. In reality they are frightened little girls that have had an hysterical emotional reaction to 9/11. They are gripped by emotion and have lost their power of reason.

They are so hypocritical that they would vote for a closet liberal like Rick Perry because he is pro Israel.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:05PM

Rick Perry is a "closet liberal"???

And please...would you Paulies be honest?

STOP saying "neocon" when what you really mean is "dirty Jew", OK??

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:02PM

It was hysterical to have a emotional reaction to the killing of over 3,000 innocent people? Guess that makes me a Neocon. Who knew?

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:06PM

"Hysterical emotional reaction to 9/11..."

I thought it was called Patriotism and respect for American exceptionalism.

And since when is it unreasonable to kill a man who wants to kill your children?

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:41PM

Any one in the pocket of the Israeli lobby is against everything America stands for. Bring home the troops and let the world defend itself. Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak and other conservative realists have been right for decades. The cold war has been over for 20 years. Our whole debt problem is the vast amount of money our overseas empire is costing us.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:19PM

"Conservative realist".
As Ricky Ricardo might say, "Hmm, I don' thin' so."

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 11:02AM

"Our vast amount of money our overseas empire is costing us."

Hey dude, pass the rest of us whatever it is that you are smoking, because you are in another world. Our whole debt problem is because we spend a sh*t more money than we take in. We don't have an overseas empire. Perhaps you are smoking some opium and think we are in the 19th Century with the British Empire in existence....

W| 8.12.11 @ 8:56PM

WJ, what would have been the proper response to the attacks on 9/11?

skip| 8.13.11 @ 12:02AM

Crickets, Doub.

I was kinda sorta maybe a little piqued at what his proper response was.

YeloStalyn| 8.12.11 @ 1:06PM

Ron Paul's analysis of Iran, along with Mr. Scheuer's, is accurate....

if you're dealing with a rational regime.

Iran is not rational. As such, fear of retribution is not an adequate defense against them. We can't have a Cold War standoff like we did with the Soviets. They'd push the button and then get on their mats and pray waiting for our nukes to hit them back.

To think otherwise is suicidal and crazy.

Last night Paul dropped off my list. I agree with his ideas about Iraq and Afghanistan... they're in no position to threaten us and we can leave there now. We shouldn't go marching in new places either if we can help it. But when it comes to Iran... that's a whole new animal.

For the entire world, the point of having nukes is not to have the ability to destroy your enemy... but to prevent them from attacking you in the first place. It's not a first strike weapon... it's a problem solver. To Iran... it's a first strike weapon and they're psycho enough to do it. The question is are we ballsy enough to stop them before it's too late.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:43PM

Iran has no nuclear weapons and threatens no one. It hasn't attacked anyone for hundreds of years unlike Israel, which attacks it's neighbors every year or so.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 5:02PM

"Iran threatens no one".

How moronic do you have to be to believe that??

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:36PM

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing."

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 5:26PM

Ahhhh a Palestinian apologist. Figures. I spent two wonderful port calls in Haifia Israel. Wonderful place, but if you walk the neighborhoods and look closely you can find the bullet marks on the buildings. Then go to the harbor and wait around. Sooner or later you will see the tugs that go around and depth charge their own harbor to keep divers out. You might even see the burnt out buses that were bombed. Or go the top of Mt. Carmel. There is a lovely little park there. Go in the main entrance and follow the sidewalk that turns to the right. You will find a tunnel in the hill complete with a civilian bomb shelter. All the hotels there have them too. I guess it's to "Attack" their neighbors from.

Give me a break.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:41PM

Tell it to The Surviving U.S. Seamen of The U.S.S. Liberty,who are requesting A Congressional Hearing into the deliberate Israeli IDF attack on their U.S. Naval Ship, Killing 34 of their fellow American Seamen & wounding another 171.

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 8:25PM

Clint goes around in circles never staying to long anywhere. What a wimp.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:00PM

Fanatic Israel Firster, Truth To Power now hides behind another moniker.

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 9:28PM

I have posted through the years as Truth to Power. I have always been an American Firster. You should try it.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 11:05AM

"Iran has no nuclear weapons and threatens no one. It hasn't attacked anyone for hundreds of years unlike Israel, which attacks it's neighbors every year or so."

You are clearly too stupid to be trusted to vote. Iran has no nukes, yet. And they have attacked people. Like our troops in Iraq. Do you read or watch the freaking news?

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 8:42AM

DR,

You wrote in part "He reached all the way back to the Eisenhower administration and the removal of the Communist Mossadegh to blame America for the downfall of the Shah and the rise of Islamic militancy."

Perhaps you should read history instead of repeating or manufacturing it: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm

"The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians."

I also suppose that the men and women in our CIA are "cultists" in your mind: thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

No doubt those who research complicated issues are "cranks" in your view as well: amconmag.com/2005a/2005_07_18/article.html

I find it disturbing that you think so lowly of many in our armed services that you feel the need to refer to these men and women as not "...much different than the Obama-Zombies. " www.politifact.com/texas/state.....-him-far-/

Regards,

Charles

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:21AM

The CIA did what was best during the Cold War. While the Shah ended his reign as a despot had Carter actually read Khomeini he wouldn't have acted as midwife for the Islamic Republic and Iran and the world would be better off.

As an aside it would have spared Ron Paul from embarrassing himself.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:27AM

And The CIA Was Right In The Last Presidential Campaign.

Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit,
“I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World â€“ because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Go Sell Your Sand To The Arabs, RINO-CINO Micky.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 9:32AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

What are you attempting to tell me? I honestly don't understand your post.
And... how is being correct with your history and proven right by the majority of evidentiary material "embarrassing"?

Regards,

Charles

Regards,

Charles

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:39AM

I know my history, Charlie...apparently better than you do, because I don't need to cut-n-paste to discuss Iran and Mossadegh.

The mistake you're making is twofold:

1. You think I'm unaware of the CIA/MI6 successful mission to overthrow the Communist-sympathizing Mossadegh

2. You think I disapprove.

Wrong on BOTH counts, Charlie. Overthrowing Mossadegh was a brilliant strategic move, the kind that we apparently SHOULDN'T expect from Ru Paul, were he to ever become President.

Blaming the overthrow of Mossadegh on the rise of Islamic extremism in Iran is a stretch. Had Reagan been in the White House in '79 instead of Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah would NEVER have been able to return to Iran because Reagan would have supported our ally, the Shah.

Nice try, Charlie. But as my 10-year old like to say "EPIC FAIL!"

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 10:10AM

DR,

In your mind presenting evidentiary material supportive of one's position is equivalent to not knowing history?

I see.

Evidently, clinging to your beliefs in spite of historical realities and ignoring the dangerous consequences created by the counterproductive policies you embrace is "success" in your mind.

I suppose the Iranians who captured our fellow citizens and held them hostage did so because they "hated us for our freedoms" and wanted to destroy our way of life....

Regards,

Charles

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 10:52AM

"I suppose the Iranians who captured our fellow citizens and held them hostage did so because they "hated us for our freedoms" and wanted to destroy our way of life...."

- Charlie Easterly

No, they did it because they wanted great taste, but less filling.

Have you been hiding under a rock since 1979?

In answer to your question, YES! Islamic extremists hate the freedoms found in the west, and they want to destroy our way of life.

And Ron Paul wants to play footsie with them.

What a bold visionary he is! And his acolytes! Sooooooo smart...

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 1:22PM

DR,

You proved my concerns accurate when you repeated the "hate freedoms" mantra that I set out in an attempt to verify your mindset.

At least for now, logic and factual information at variance with your prejudices will be lost on you, so I shouldn't waste any more of my time discussing foreign policy and terrorism with you.

Please let/encourage your ten year old to develop critical thinking skills. You probably do not trust me, but the rewards are greater than many parents imagine and I believe that your admiration and appreciation for him or her will grow all the more.

Regards,

Charles

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 2:04PM

Charlie,

Oooh! Your clever trick "trapped" me, eh?

If you don't understand that Islam is utterly incompatible with Western notions of freedom, then you're not really qualified to comment on this board.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:04PM

Wow!
Morally superior, smug & condescending all in one little paragraph. My, aren't you the multitasker?

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:05PM

That would be you Charlie.

Vlady| 8.12.11 @ 1:14PM

Hope you aren't Catholick, there Charlie.....

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:31PM

Hey!

It's "One-Trick" Vlady!

How are you, Mr. Plescinski?

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 11:08AM

I am doing pretty good Dr. Das Reich. How's that picture of Reinhard Heydrich doing on your mantle piece, right next to your copy of Adolf Hitler's bust?

Who is Mr. Plescinksi?

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 1:53PM

Yes, Charles, they did. They were Islamic fanatics. Mahmoud A was among them. And where do you get them supporting our way of life, genius?

Dr Right, my apologies for not being there frequently enough to "Clown Hammer" these guys (from MST3K--- when Mike is doing a dead on impersonation of the fawning metrosexual who hosts "The Actors' Studio," the robots finally get desperate enough to hit him with a "Clown Hammer" to snap him back to reality.) and help you out.

Geez, talking to Paulbots is like dealing with the "Pods" from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"---they look like humans and talk like humans, but they are actually brain destroying aliens from another planet...

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 2:06PM

No worries, O.T.

The Paulies are easy to deal with. Simply tell them their leader is nuts, and prove it with examples. That usually renders them incapable of responding.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 2:51PM

"Occam's Tool",

Is one of your main goals here to belittle Congressman Paul and the citizens and military servicepersons who support him, or are you open for a discussion with individuals who hold different opinions than yourself?
Certain of your other comments lend me the impression I may be wasting my time (or perhaps 'we may be wasting our time trying to get points across to one another' is more accurate), but I'd like you to clarify something you wrote - only if you intend to have an honest debate.

You wrote "Yes, Charles, they did. They were Islamic fanatics. Mahmoud A was among them. And where do you get them supporting our way of life, genius?"

Regards,

Charles

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 1:49PM

The Shah was a good guy. Ballcrushing and kneecapping Khomeinis is always a good idea. Thank goodness for Dr Right against the Paul Bots.

Scheuer didn't get his man. Epic fail. He blames others because he is a puss.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:46PM

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 12:41AM

The Shah was a good autocrat, who brought modernism, secularism and women's rights to a country badly in need of all three. Like Ataturk in Turkey, he worked to counter the nefarious influence of medieval Islamicism.

W| 8.14.11 @ 4:02PM

RCV,
I had a professor in college who worked for the State Dept (or CIA) in Iran. The course was about nationalism,with Iran as the prime example. He praised the Shah for modernizing Iran, and giving rights to women. There was tremendous opposition from the radical Muslims. The Shah's mistake was exiling Khomeni to Paris, he should have kept him in jail in Iran. Carter made a serious mistake in not supporting the Shah, and believing that Khomeni was a human rights case.
Carter based his foreign policy on his perception of human rights, and not the real world.
If the Shah remained in power the Middle East would be a much safer place.

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 8:16PM

Agree with all you've said, W.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:34PM

59% of the people in this country want no more wars and over 75% want no more foreign aid. Thats by polling. The CIA and all the other comined Intelligence agencies in the NIE [ National Intelligence Estimates ] find that Iran is not building any nuclear weapons. Ron Paul is again right. To attack Iran would destroy what's left of our economy. Iran has the right to nuclear power and is a signer of the nonproliferation treaties. It is under constant inspection which finds nothing. Israel is a rogue nuclear power with has hundreds of nuclear weapons. It threatens to blow up most of the Middle East and Europe in the Samson Option. That is a crazy suicide plan as nutty as what happend at Masada. Read about the Samson Option. There are hundreds of thousands of references to it on google

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 2:24AM

We could be fighting a dozen countries if we wanted too. Oh thats right we are. The only lunatics around here are those people who want to fight endless wars for Israel. Who's next for the war machine? Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Yeman, Somalia. You have bankrupted our country and ruined our future and still can't shut up and admit you are wrong.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 1:46PM

Ron paul is the earmark king. He wants Iran to have nukes. He's going nowhere. Sorry, jack. Polish your jackboots another 4 years.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:07PM

Check out Clint's. You can almost see the reflection of a fanatic in them.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:49PM

Asked & Answered Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.

Dr. Ron Paul has never voted for an earmark , as a Principled Stand. His Principled Stand is about The Constitutional Congressional Responsibility for Spending & Not Handing Tax Payer Money To The Executive Branch To Spend.
" Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.

Stand & Fight.

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 3:33PM

translation of all this:
another crummy GOP administration

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 5:04PM

Well, at least they won't be gay...

Ted| 8.13.11 @ 11:10AM

You obviously haven't been keeping up with the news... Pretty soon we will all be gay....

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 4:38PM

Paul said: "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

So it is okay for whites to hate blacks, but not vice versa? and Paul would dare to criticize the Gipper! why, Paul was lucky his mouth wasn't washed out with soap.

carnot| 8.12.11 @ 6:37PM

what a poof you are intellectually...we go from Ron Paul to "...okay for Whites to hate Blacks....."?

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 4:53PM

Latest factoid-oid:

"Analysis: Perry likely Romney's biggest threat"

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 6:27PM

That's because Perry's a real cowboy man while Romney's a poofy haired say-it-the-way-they-wanna-hear-it kinda guy.

Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 8:26PM

You might be right, but please try to forgive Catholics, Marge.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:17PM

Quit with the troll behavior, Alan. You know better.

carnot| 8.12.11 @ 6:35PM

Ron Paul is an emotional and intellectual adolescent.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:51PM

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:01PM

ummmm.....30 yrs off?

I notice you and Jack never really go into an in-depth threat analysis. you just rocket off your bumper sticker stuff.

Mister Grady| 8.12.11 @ 9:53PM

Ron Paul is a lunatic.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:41AM

Sponge Paul!!

Just occurred to me.

AH| 8.13.11 @ 4:41PM

The Ames straw poll means NOTHING. It is just a fundraiser for the Iowa GOP. It means nothing.

Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 8:23PM

I don't like anti-Catholicism, it is as pernicious as anti-semitism.
The best priest I know, Don Willette, is Catholic.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:42PM

We're all sinners in need of God's Grace.
But Catholicism doesn't teach that. It teaches Salvation by works, which is unbiblical.
Sorry, but it really IS the truth.
Only Jesus Christ can save you, not another person, and not a Religion.
It's what the Bible actually says, I'm not making it up.
Have you given your life to Christ yet, Alan? Or are you blindly defending something that you yourself don't even really follow?

W| 8.14.11 @ 4:09PM

Margie, that is not exactly correct. Catholics believe in the primacy of grace, along with good works. Evangelicals believe in grace alone. I am not a bibilical scholar, but if you have grace you will do good works.
I just finished an excellent book on this, "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, agreements and differences." by Norman Geisler and Ralph McKenzie.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 5:55PM

Catholics believe that Grace is through the church. They teach that the Pope is their representative of God on earth and the bow to him like he's a king.
They teach prayer to the dead, and hundreds of false teachings that are in opposition to God's own Words as stated in the Bible.

This is the doctrines I'm talking about.
I know individuals follow this because they are fooled. But one day each one of us will have to stand before Jesus and answer as to why we did or didn't obey His Words.

There is no such thing as a Pope in the Bible, no such thing as God wanting Mary to be worshipped, prayed to or considered the "Mother of God".
It is all just so utterly wrong.

Again, it's the doctrines I am talking about.
Why did the Papacy murder millions of Christians? Because they would rather die than bow to these false doctrines.
Why do I so oppose this Religion?
Because it still teaches the same false doctrines that led them to think they could take the place of God and kill others who rejected those doctrines.
And, as seen in your nasty insults to me~ you respond in the same exact way they those Papists did to my brethren. With vile, vehement hatred and insults.

Yet, I am only speaking the truth.
W, I know you cannot understand this~ but if you truly come to Christ and asked Him to come into your heart, your eyes would be opened.

I just responded to you below before seeing your post here.. I used some strong words. Do you really think that because I'm a Christian I am perfect or that I don't have feelings too? Am I expected to lay down and allow anyone to hurl insults at me and not defend myself?
And it isn't really myself I wish to defend, but the gospel.
The true gospel, as it is written in the Bible.

Perhaps we can aim for better conversations in the future?
I am willing.

W| 8.16.11 @ 10:42AM

OK.
I dont believe your religion is false. You believe it for the reasons you state. You should respect other people's beliefs, though, none of us know now what is the ultimate truth. There are six billion people in the world, over a billion catholics, about a billion muslims, a couple hundred million protestants, over a billion hindus, and so on. Everybody thinks their religion is the truth.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:25AM

The GOP Ruling Elite RINO-CINO's & Their Media Flacks Are Setting Us Up For Their Ruling Elite RINO-CINO, Mittens Romney.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 7:55AM

Romney looked Presidential last night.

Meanwhile, your man-crush looked like a total loon.

You're becoming a parody of yourself, and you don't even know it.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:30AM

There It Is .

These RINO-CINO Apologist Flunkies Are Getting Ready To Set Us Up For The GOP RINO-CINO Fop Mittens Romney.

Aaaand, Dr.Reich Is A Joke RINO-CINO Bootlicker Flinkie.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Dr.Reich's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:41AM

Yeah, Einstein. Romney looked Presidential.

That doesn't mean I support him. It means he's not a lunatic, like Ron Paul.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:11PM

Let's see what happens in New Hampshire, C(lint) Elegans.

I'm working on phrases to use on you when Paul gets destroyed in the real votes---this one looks good--- " Hi Clint,your punk ass boy dropped out of the race after Super Tuesday. Sorry, Clint, that StormFront Ron didn't win. Have a good cry, Roundworm. Right on Egypt/Right on Paul/Right on Hermaphroditic self-fertilization---Clint Air."

Your boy is going DOOWWWWNNNN.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:34PM

Personally I'm saving this one.

Ron Paul went down last night like Barney Frank at a weinie roast.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 3:27PM

...Thanks for that image...

Ted| 8.13.11 @ 11:11AM

Wow, I don't know quite what to say... Except, TMI!

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:58PM

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

Ted| 8.13.11 @ 11:13AM

Truth is, no matter if Congressman Paul is crazy or not, he simply does not have the base to be elected.

JimH| 8.12.11 @ 8:44AM

I think Romney may look too presidential. He looks to have stepped out from central casting as your generic handsome executive. I think it works against him somewhat.

Mike 3/505| 8.12.11 @ 9:03AM

My Sweetie says the same thing..."too slick."

Regards,

Mike

Prester John| 8.12.11 @ 7:41AM

It seems to me that T-Paw is running to be Romney's VP.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:42AM

No he's running to be a footnote. Whoever wins the nomination will be looking to Marco Rubio to fill the VP spot.

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:43PM

Rubio would be the natural and wise choice for any GOP nominee. He'll keep tea party enthusiasm, but not alienate independents and Latinos like most tea party candidates do; he'll guarantee Florida, a key swing state for the GOP, and he'll be darn hard for the Democrats to attack.

martin j smith| 8.12.11 @ 7:49AM

Pawlenty should have taken on Romney. Funny no one did much of that i wonder why ? Ron Paul's foreign policy is a complete no no for me even though he knows his economics quite well. Lets see what happens with Rick Perry in and what will Sara Palin do. Still quite fluid. So lets move on.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:59AM

Perry and not Palin is the only candidate who can stop a Romney nomination and ultimately Presidency (Obama despite the current polling is going to make Carter's crushing defeat in '80 look good).

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:34AM

We Ain't Buyin' Your RINO-CINO Agenda Little Micky.

" Perry supported Lance Armstrong’s 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s not free market.

Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, he gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial which later went bankrupt.
Perry supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed Perry on the steps of the state Capitol for that.

Perry, signed an executive order forcing young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine even if it was against their will — even if it was against their parents’ will — while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision."

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.

Rise Up.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:41AM

Ron "Wild Shrimp Cowboy" Paul for President ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Donald Trump nailed him he's not got a chance in hell to be President.

Put down your Kool-Aid jihadi boy or get off the boy considering Paul's affection for "Bruno" and Muslim extremists.

As a US Air Force veteran Perry will not tear down the US military and he’d obtain Congressional support before going to war. He would also defend America against Paul and Obama's Muslim friends.

Under Perry’s stewardship Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the US. Significant tort reform signed by Perry has losers paying court costs blocking the ALCU, labor unions, environmental extremists and other Democrat special interest groups from killing jobs. Perry signed into law eminent domain legislation to protect property owners from state and local governments. Perry signed voter ID legislation that requires Texans to show photo identification to vote. Perry signed into law pro-life legislation that requires women seeking an abortion to first get a sonogram. Under Perry Texas has balanced the books each biennium and slashed spending to reconcile the numbers. The libertarian leaning CATO Institute over his years in Austin give him an average of 60 and he has an A+ NRA rating.

Between 2001 and last June, Texas — a right-to-work state that taxes neither personal income nor capital gains — added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. And since the recovery began two Junes ago, Texas has created 37 percent of America’s net new jobs.

As for the Tea Party Rick Perry was the first political heavy weight to get behind the movement, because he was RIGHT on the issue of taxes and the 10th Amendment before there ever was a Tea Party.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:53AM

Try To Sell Your RINO-CINO Excuses To Your Fellow Texans.
"Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, won a poll of 882 “highly active” Republican voters in Texas. Paul won the poll with 22 percent of the Republican vote. Texas Governor Rick Perry grabbed second with 17 percent of the Republican vote."

Aaaand,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Texas.

Rise Up.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 9:47AM

Mr. Tomlinson,

This response of yours and others reveal to me an unthoughtful and emotive-based dislike of Congressman Paul. It really undermines your credibility when your comments read like the childish and rather desperate attacks some citizens hurl at, for instance, Governor Palin.

Returning to the political discussion, given your opposition to the redistribution of taxpayer earnings by politicians, I am interested in your justification of Governor Perry's mandate to force young girls (and other Texans) to get vaccinated at taxpayer expense: http://www.vaccineinfo.net/ale.....1177.shtml

"Governor Rick Perry is making quite a name for himself as the FORCED VACCINATION governor - from HPV for 11 and 12 year old girls in 2007, to required meningitis vaccines for college students, and now teaming up with Senator Jane Nelson ... and authorized in his executive ordered session buried in a Medicaid finance bill is FORCED VACCINATION of health care workers with penalties for non-compliance."

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 10:38AM

Why is it that all the Anti-Perry posters that mention the "Forced Vaccinations" forget to mention that Texas has a "Opt out option". Mandatory vaccines have been around for a long time. In fact, check your public health laws and you will see that you can be mandated to do all sorts of things in order to protect the greater public health. Google Typhoid Mary and you will see you can even be forcible quarantined (She was twice for almost 30 years).

And I hate to mention this as Clint will explode but in the poll he mentioned Ron Paul coming in first and Perry second, that was before Perry was even officially running. After he offically announces it I would place money on those spots changing.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 1:38PM

"Drunken Sailor",

You are quite correct to point out that Governor Perry isn't the only politician who has attempted to or has forced vaccinations on his fellow citizens (not that I made any such claim).
In fact, a glaring recent example of this type of authoritarianism is the 2009 bill passed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: http://www.malegislature.gov/B.....nate/S2028

Had you read about that particular affront to liberty/civil rights?

In any event, I hope that you are not excusing Governor Perry's actions by showing that he isn't alone in his efforts.

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:13PM

Excusing him? From wanting to protect young girls from cancer with a preventive shot, like say polio, Menningicoccal, or MMR? Why yes I am. Especially since it's a straw man when you consider that any parent can opt out of it. And that the reasoning behind his doing it is to make the insurance companies cover it instead of it being soley out of pocket.

Surely, if you protest that shot, you must also protest all the other "required" vaccines that most schoolchildren have to have. The list may say recommended but good luck getting your child into school without any of these.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sp.....0-6yrs.pdf

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 3:21PM

"Drunken Sailor",

It is not a Straw Man argument to point out that a Governor or anyone else took actions to force individuals and families to buy or receive a product or service. I am criticizing Governor Perry's actual actions, not something I made up which he didn't do.

I also notice that you haven't addressed the other vaccinations I mentioned.

You asked "Why is it that all the Anti-Perry posters that mention the "Forced Vaccinations" forget to mention that Texas has a "Opt out option".

I've a similar question for you: Why would you support a (probable) candidate for the Presidency who has a record of trying to force vaccinations on his fellow citizens?

Regards,

Charles

P.S. I appreciate your providing a link to make a germane and good point. The line of "where does good stewardship end and draconian measures begin" is probably a good debate. I think you and I would agree that "ObamaCare" is significantly more threatening than "RomneyCare" or even "PerryCare" (if the latter gets traction during the campaign), if for no other reason that we may move out of a State more easily than move out of the nation. Perhaps you'll disagree.
-C

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 4:32PM

Yes, we would agree that Obamacare is bad. As for the other immunizations I did not mention them because I have already stated there are multiple immunizations that are considered mandatory in the name of public health. I have a little background in public health law and believe it or not they can make you do things the police can not if you are deemed a medical threat to others. Most of those vaccines are to prevent widespread disease and save lives, with or without the persons consent. Hell even OSHA gets in on the act by making people get certain immunizations for their jobs (think sewage workers, childcare providers). The fact there is a opt out makes it a straw argument, unless your a liberatarian. Like it or not there are certain instances where goverment has a role that libertarians do not like. Protecting the health of the public is on of them.

A true Libertairain is not going to be elected President in my lifetime. They scare off the independents and without that 30-40% their goose is cooked. Getting a Conservative elected is hard enough without going to the far right. Lots of Libertarian ideas have merit but to many of them want the goverment totally out of their life without realizng all that it means.

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 8:40PM

"Drunken Sailor",

I appreciate the well articulated and civil response to my post. It seems to me that you and I are in agreement with regards to this topic of government forced health care primarily on the matter of scale, but disagree regarding the fundamentals behind the "government-forced" aspect. Also, it doesn't matter to me if a self-identified Democrat pushes his/her version of "healthcare" on our fellow citizens or a self-identified Republican does it (or any other self-labeled politician/bureaucrat/legislator/et cetera). What matters to me is the transfer of freedom of choice (under the force of law) from the citizenry to the fewer number of men and women in government who are supposed to be protecting their fellow citizens' rights of life and liberty.

Given the options available to us, many of us can and do make intelligent and appropriate choices for ourselves and our families every day, while others of us do not. However, trusting a minority of the population to permanently make intelligent and appropriate choices for all of us because they can force their preferences upon us through laws and regulations is irresponsible, in my opinion. Fairly recently an administration official explained to an interviewer that people are basically incapable of making good decisions for themselves and their families. Ergo, it was his and his fellow governmental officials' responsibility to make citizens do "what is best" for them (as determined by him and those of similar mind, of course): http://www.colbertnation.com/t.....foods-raid

Admittedly, the segment I provided a link to is meant to humor viewers, but I hope the statement by the public official makes my point (and the segment itself provides you some levity given my otherwise dry commentary).

Since you have some background in public health law I think it safe to assume you have studied medical ethics at least as much as or more than I have, and learned that there is a tendency for some politicians and legislators to push regulations and pass laws which are more in accord with their own agendas and those agendas of their financial backers than with the health concerns of their fellow citizens (or foreigners, should public outcry/lawsuits force products and mal-practices outside the United States).

I believe that it was in 2006 that Congress passed a law protecting pharmaceutical companies from legal recourse should our fellow citizens be harmed or die from use of their products. This was a bi-partisan effort. It is this type of politician that I oppose, regardless of party affiliation.

Regards,

Charles

P.S. I've found that one of the many interesting and challenging realities of being independent of any political affiliation is that I often have to overcome the prejudices of some of my fellow citizens. Supporters of self-identified Democrats ("DINOs" or otherwise) in general, and more recently supporters of President Obama in particular, have accused me of being uncaring (to put the typical criticism I have received nicely) because I do not support their (his) version of "healthcare."
"Drunken Sailor", you seem to support Governor Perry on the issue of his governmentally coerced vaccinations because he apparently had good intentions. From what I've read, Governor Perry did not provide the means by which his fellow citizens could "opt out" of his directives: the Texas legislature blocked his attempt to force vaccinations upon their fellow Texans. For me, this ends your Straw Man argument (although I would like you to provide evidence to debunk my opinion if I'm wrong).
I have an honest question for you: If Governor Perry still self-identified as a Democrat, would you still support his actions in this regard?
-C

Drunken Sailor| 8.13.11 @ 3:47PM

If a Democrat wanted to make vaccines mandatory would I be ok with it. Depends on the vaccine and reasoning. A varicellas vaccine for chickenpox? Nope. Life threating, easily transferred preventable diseases? Most likely.
Public health law is coverd in Section 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations if your interested. We modeled most of ours from Britains Public Health act of 1875.

As for medical ethics. Yes, politicians do get in the way. The push for mandatory Immunizations came from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and from the WHO (World Health Orginazation).

As for the pharmeceutical law you referred to. Yes, that was wrong and I work for a Pharmeceutical wholesaler.

Seems our disagreements are the typical disagreements between a conservative and a liberatarian as to extent but not cause.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:13PM

Guys---children get raped, as do women. This vaccine reduces the risk of Cervical Cancer from unprotected sex. My daughter will get heres as per the vaccination schedule.

Any of you oppo guys have a young daughter? (crickets) Thought so.

carnot| 8.12.11 @ 6:44PM

nothing like focusing on the essential.

the only thing I learned last night is that Paul is a nitwit. I would have immediately called him out on his thoughts on non-proliferation.

he's a grating....obnoxious putz. as someone who has voted Repub his entire life...I will never, ever vote for this insult to fighting the fight "over there"...vice..."over here".

what a rectal orifice.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:03PM

ALL Paul-bots cannot STAND strong pro-military and strong defense people.

They are anti-war, anti-American, blame America firsters complete with a cult mentality hatred of Israel.

That's why they try and destroy them with their filthy lies~ they destroy the characters of anyone that doesn't think like they do.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 3:26PM

I don't think many people on this forum would be too upset if Clint exploded...

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:49PM

Unfortunately, being still in junior high, he'll be with us for a long, long time.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:42AM

This is where Clint and the Paulie-boys begin to reveal their fear of Perry's candidacy...

After last night, Paul is finished.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 1:49PM

Nobody is afraid of Perry. His candancy just proves how desparate the neocons are to retain power. He will flame out like that other blowhard from Texas, John Connelly. All he does is delutes the other dwarfs and makes Ron Paul look more like a giant.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 2:08PM

Ron Paul...a giant???

Maybe among Libertards...

The fear of Perry is palpable.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:14PM

A Giant Smeghead, Jack, is what Paul is.

Practicing your SS salutes in the bathroom much?

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:16PM

"He will flame out like that other blowhard from Texas"

You mean like Ron Paul has twice before and will again?

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:43AM

don't you have some Union destruction to attend to?

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:50PM

Paul was finished the day he announced.

Mimi| 8.12.11 @ 8:16AM

He didn't get much face-time but he maximized the time he got to deliver a few good lines...and powerfil and strong ones.
Newt came out with a plan of action...of things to do even tomorrow like "GET back to town" and undue the Democrat costly agenda, forget the Committee Plan "A waste of 4 Months time , while 523 legislators twiddle their thumbs" What was interesting he was the strongest sounding of all those on the stage. Some commentators think he won the debate!
Pawlenty was irritating trying to undue Bachmann ....and she wasted too much of her time on the Nations problems defending herself...She couldn't move the needle
I think the Republican debate that demolished the Dem's and Obama showed them as better candidates...this one was uncomfortable to watch....Blame Fox for that!

Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 8:28AM

Yes, Mimi. I also appreciated Newt Gingrich's "So what are we doing right now?" statements. He closed by saying something like, "Look, this presidential election date is 15 months away. That's a long time away. We need action now."

With what is occuring in our economy, no job growth/job losses, more companies going under, the normal crazy hijinks of Wall Street and European markets, more home losses than EVER BEFORE, everybody on food stamps, well, Newt's right.

What are our Congress idiots doing on vacation. Boehner could trump all the Democrats do by bringing the House back into session and doing the very repeals Newt mentioned.

Sometimes it seems a bit too academic for all the participants (to include the media), just like a livey round table discussion where you score points by trying to be cheery and the smart guy or gal in the room.

Folks, we are in real peril. I want action.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:44AM

The House can vote to repeal all it wants, but until we control the Senate and Presidency nothing is going to change. Newt knows that, but I do appreciate your suggestion, because the symbolism would help the GOP even if it doesn't get the repeals enacted.

Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 9:05AM

Mr. Tomlinson, we agree. We do. But I think it more than just symbolism. It is the leadership and DRIVE/direction the American people want & need.

I am all for shaming individual politicians (or appointees) when they grossly fail to do the people's business. Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Ryan, and the many others could outright lambast their across-the-aisle Democrat chamber colleages for basking in three more weeks of summertime vacation.

As Newt said, "Who gets more than 10 days vacation from work these days?" (that might have been in an interview afterwards)

Plus, Newt said there is a rise of some Blue Dog Democrats again....

With our nation in such true peril (our house in such disarray), it would take a gutsy Democrat senator with only 15 months to go before his next re-election date in November 2012 to just "hang out" on vacation if the GOP pillories his name by name.

Boehner must: Put 8 or 9 measures on the White House Oval Office desk for approval/signature in quick succession -- right now. See what POTUS does. If he rejects them all, just stand before the microphones and cameras every day telling America who is to blame.

Tell America how often POTUS has been golfing this year already and how he wanted to not have to break away from Martha's Vineyard (and dancing the Electric Slide with Chris Rock).

The guy who just lost his house, $125,000 in his IRA and $59,000 in his 401K ain't going to be looking kindly on Reid, Obama, Hoyer,Schultz, or anyone with a (D) behind the name in that kind of scenario.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:08AM

Good points!! Call the Speakers Office it couldn't hurt. Currenlty, I'm living outside the US so it isn't that easy to make the calls.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:15PM

I get 4 weeks off per year, but I accumulate and can accumulate, almost 7 weeks in my "bank." I'm at 5 now after 3 years.

Jordan| 8.12.11 @ 8:36AM

Gingrich definitely won the "tactical" debate. He had the best answers, the most enthusiasm. I didn't really like him calling the question on his campaign staff leaving him a "gotcha" question though. If you can't manage a campaign across two or three small early primary states then how could manage a campaign across a the third largest country on Earth? But apart from that snark reply he did well. Bachmann also did well but her constant bickering with Pawlenty was a drag on both of them and her being ten seconds late after a commercial break got me thinking about her migraines again, so that was not a smart move by her.

Strategically Romney was the winner. He appeared Presidential, did not get into little spats like Pawlenty did with Bachmann or Santorum did with Paul. He got some easy questions and wasn't pushed to hard, but he'll have to do better than "win by default" during the next debate when Perry will be there and a few of this current crowd may quit due to a poor showing at Ames, meaning that instead of just having to do above average compared to the rest of the people on the stage, he'll actually have to win.

On a whole other level, you're definitely right about Fox making this debate a debacle. Any independent or liberal moderate watching this would definitely have a lower expectation of the GOP candidate after last night.

Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 8:47AM

Jordan, I was out of my seat when Byron York (National Review, right?) asked Michelle Bachmann, "If you become president, will you submit to your husband?"

I thought my sense of hearing had gone.

Am I daft to think that Byron York just made an idiot of himself on the national stage? (I think I heard a lot of booos from the live auditorium audience.)

Where does a lunatic question like that come from? (And the Fox network wants people tuning in/ratings?)

**Wonder if ole Byron will be asking that question of Frau Chancellor Angela Merkel the next time she is in Washington, D.C.?

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 9:09AM

Pelligrino,

Mr. York revealed the vapidity of most pundits and political commentators. I disagree a great amount with Congresswoman Bachmann but in my opinion and to her credit she responded in a manner much more respectful than the situation warranted. If she had told Mr. York how inappropriate, puerile, and completely inane his question was I think the audience would have approved (as would have I).

Regards,

Charles

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:26AM

It was impertinent, but relevant since Obama and his slime patrol is going to make that an issue to undermine her with women if she gets the nomination. Better to start dealing with it now that on the campaign trail for the Presidency.

Still it was a tacky question, but she handled it well.

Jordan| 8.12.11 @ 9:39AM

I think my jaw dropped to my computer desk when I heard that. And yes, you heard the boos correctly, and I'm sure you heard the cheers after she nailed the answer. Debate focused way too much on these kinds of questions; it's like the questions came from talking points spread by the DNC rather than asking questions about jobs and the economy.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 10:47AM

He explained it on Fox this morning. Apparently she made a statement awhile back about a disagreement they had and she stated remembering the bible verse about being submissive to your husband, and it caused her to rethink the disagreement.

In that light it makes but I still think it was a pretty sophmoric question

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 10:47AM

Correction:
"In that light it makes SENSE but I still think it was a pretty sophmoric question

Ted| 8.13.11 @ 11:18AM

I disagree. The liberal media already thinks they smell blood in the water because of her religious beliefs and her husband's counseling practice. It was a good question to ask. She handled it properly, and has set the tone on how to handle future inquiries which will be (for all practical purposes) religious litmus tests disguised as political questions.

Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 8:19AM

I appreciate the things former Senator Rick Santorum said. His topics were good. And he was patient for the first half of the debate/questions/discussion because he really did not get any questions. He has obviously worked hard to cover much of Iowa; let's see how the Iowans respond on Saturday.

Also, did you note? He talked about working this time last year to remove Iowa judges that made the travesty decision on gay marriage in Iowa. As he is from Pennsylvania, that speaks volumes for the man. But it also revealed his smarts and insights on what the liberals are doing to undermine both the family and this nation. He briefly interjected that into the mix (due to the incredibly "sound-bite-like" time constraints). Mr. Santorum's got it pegged.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:26AM

Santorum is a true blue conservative and to be respected for standing by the party and his principles.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 1:22PM

Well Texas RINO-CINO Micky,
We Pennsylvania Conservatives Walked Away From Rick Santorum in 2006, After He Interfered In Our Primary Fight To Unseat The Super RINO-CINO Arlen Specter & Place Our Guy Pat Toomey Into That Senate Seat In 2004.

It Then Took Us 6 More Years To Chase Away RINO -CINO Arlen Specter & Then Beat The Little Admiral Joey Sestak In The November Elections.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:16PM

Nukes for Iran, Clint!

Ted| 8.13.11 @ 11:20AM

And how did walking away from Sen. Santorum advance the conservative cause in Pennsylvania generally or in the U.S. Senate particularly? You walked away, and we got Casey, who's father is rolling in his grave.

YeloStalyn| 8.12.11 @ 1:22PM

Rick's problem is not Rick... it's the media not covering him. The guy's rock solid and, as he pointed out, has been involved in all sorts of these issues for years dating back to him time in Congress where he was very active in legislation that dealt with some of these things.
His response about the 10th Amendment was good, I thought. I hate Lincoln... but think the quote nailed it.

If the media would give him the time of day and quite propping up Romney (calling him the front runner ensures he gets more support than he should... people love a winner) I think a lot of real conservatives would like what they hear from him. I would like to vote for him... but I don't think he'll make it to the end unfortunately.

Bob Grant| 8.13.11 @ 11:28PM

I agree and don't understand the media giving him short shrift. He's solid on the issues, well spoken, and passionate. His only negative is the perceived "loser" tag because of his big loss in '06. Don't blame him, blame the Toe Tapper and the creep congressman from Florida who caused a massive back lash against republican leadership.

I now see Santorum as a potential solid vice presidential pick. He's from a large state in the rust belt and has tons of landmark legislative experience, a huge plus for a future vice president pushing a president's agenda.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:09PM

I agree with your comment, Pelligrino, and appreciated Santorum as well.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 11:23AM

Watch our Dear Mullah Margie. Santorum is a Catholick! We don't want ye burning in Hai-yell over sayin' somethin' nice 'bout a Catho-leek!

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 1:17PM

Hmm, now just where have I heard this name calling before?
There's only one individual who refers to my person as "Mullah".
Such cowardly behavior, "Vlady."
You sound like a good cult member, too.
I pity you.

W| 8.13.11 @ 7:33PM

Margie, I refer to you as Mullah, no need to explain, but I do not use the name Vlady or any other name. By now you should know my opinion of your views, and I have no reason to hide my views. I will only respond to you when you go off on one of your tirades. It seems you have a new fan.
I do not need your pity. As Brooks stated above, look in the mirror. Oh, and I do not use the name Alan Brooks either.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 8:33PM

Nor do I have the need to apologize for standing on the Word of God, just because you hate both Him and me.
And I don't pity you one bit. You're a nasty liar.
Your hate filled tirades against me are disgusting, as are you.
Good luck.

W| 8.13.11 @ 9:31PM

You are crazy. I do not hate you, I feel sorry for you. You cannot help yourself. I have not replied to you until you started implying that I wrote as Vlady. My last reply to you was when I asked you to document your charge that the Catholilc Church killed fifty million (50,000,000) of your protestant brethern. Then you disappeared until now. Were you researching that fifty million figure?
You certainly do not stand in the word of God, you stand for yourself and hate everybody who disagrees with you, which is most of the world, that is why the name Mullah.
You are filled with hate and rage and can't help but insult, and project your problems by calling everybody who disagrees with you a liar, or disturbed. You are not a Christian.
Don't bother with your inane replies, not interested in talking to you. Adios.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:11PM

You think much too highly of yourself. And talk about not being able to help yourself~ why did you assume I meant you?
LOL.

And you still cannot help yourself, you lie like a rug.

You did not ask me to document anything, and I did not "run away." I posted in that thread for hours and days and I stood on the Bible. The only thing you stand on is lies.

You hate the Word of God~ yes, you hate Him. You care not one iota for the truth. You do not ever argue or reason, you just hurl disgusting insults because you don't like what you're hearing.

And I call liars liars. Yep. I do. And you are one of them.

And since you're not a Christian you have no idea what Christianity truly is, and have no authority to judge me as an enemy "mullah" as you do.

So, "W"~ not sure who you think you are, but the God of the Bible actually wants me to stand on His Words, and that I will always do in spite of what you say about me.

And if you're not interested in my replies, then keep your insulting mouth shut~ ok? Because I will reply to you each time you insult me.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:15PM

"You are crazy. I do not hate you, I feel sorry for you."

Then, "W" what DO you call hurling insults and names like "Mullah", and trying to turn others against me like my friend Occam~ and others?
Hmm?

You need to quit playing the victim when you are the abuser.

Vlady| 8.14.11 @ 12:00PM

Hey, isn't there a Christian scripture about how women shouldn't be teaching men? But I digress....

You are standing on something, babe, but it ain't the word of G-d. You a' standin' on the word of Mullah Margie Dear.

Hey W, Mullah Margie Dear isn't crazy. She's just mean and ignorant. And she apparently thinks G-d has called her to be a Prophetess... Uh, in a word... NOT.

And Mullah Margie Dear, since you seem to be constantly forgetting, I am a Jew, not a Catholic. Substitute the word Jew where you use Catholic, and I have heard the song and dance before.

Bob Grant| 8.13.11 @ 11:34PM

W, or whatever handle you use, you play the provocateur but are incapable of bouncing ideas around with other posters here, and therefore, are worthless.

Your attacks on Christian belief are despicable.

As the Brits say: Piss off!!

W| 8.14.11 @ 9:00AM

It is not an insult to call you Mullah, because you act like the radical Muslim mullahs who claim to have a direct line to God and call every other religion a false religion. You know it is true, and you cannot handle the truth yet.
Ok, tell us the historical authority for your claim that the Catholic Church killed fifty million (50,000,000) of your" protestant brethern" or "brethern."
I assume you referred to me because you put Vlady in quotes, and you said who uses the word Mullah, and you said who is hiding behind that name vlady. Don't pretend dumb. It seems you have attracted another fan, I don't use the word "dear" to refer to you. And I do not think of myself as a victim, I only respond to you when you post attacks on Catholics, and I replied now because you are confusing me with Vlady, as i told you I have no probem telling you my views, and do not need another name. With your other views, I usually have not disagreement. Adios.

W| 8.14.11 @ 12:27PM

PS, if you want real history of conservatism, skip Wikipidia, try Russell Kirk "The Conservative Mind," and George Nash "The Conservative Intellectual Movement In America."
As I said I will not use the word Mullah or "attack"you unless you go off on those anti catholic tirades.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 5:35PM

I see. So in your debased mind it's not an insult? Well then I am sure that if I were to call you a nasty anti-Christ and anti- Christian bigot that wouldn't be an insult, either. Because that's what you are, along with a liar, and a persistent one at that.

Why are you a liar? Because I do not attack Catholics, I attack the false and perverted doctrines of Catholicism.

And I will continue doing so because I choose to stand on the Word of God.

You never once cared and still don't to honestly look at what the Bible actually says, because you are a disingenuous hack.

If you were an honest human being you would consider the truth, as written in the Bible.

But since you are a fraud, and care nothing for the truth~ you insult and attack me for speaking the truth.

I don't have my own views. If you were a Christian~ which you don't even claim to be~ so you have no authority to judge whether I am one or not~ you would know that God tells us that our thoughts are not His thoughts (Is.) and that He wants us to have His thoughts.

This is what true Christians do~ put on the mind of Christ. And the mind of Christ is not in agreement with Catholicism.

Every real Christian knows this.

As far as the 50 million murders by the Papacy~ it wasn't me that said so, it was an ex-Catholic who did. He came to his right mind and actually became a Christian, and did a lot of research, and as a matter of fact~ and to once again prove how utterly disingenuous you truly are~ I posted a link to a video with him speaking about it.

But you disregarded it~ and like a nasty punk would do~ took to hurling your disgusting insults at me.

As a matter of fact, "W"~ who ever you truly are~ the Papacy murdered countless Christians like me for 600 years.

600 HUNDRED YEARS!!

They murdered (tortured first) men, women AND THEIR children, "W".

Yet you do not care about this fact.

Do you not think that this many could be possible? No, because it is so inhuman. It is worse than the Holocaust and why?

Because they did it IN THE NAME OF GOD.

And I do NOT need YOU teaching me about conservatism. I've been actually living it for the past several decades.

I pray God opens the eyes of "W" of AmSpec.

W| 8.14.11 @ 9:01AM

Bob, the only name is W. I have not seen any idea of yours worth responding. If you don't like what I write hit the scroll key.

W| 8.14.11 @ 12:28PM

Bob. Name one Christian belief, and my attack on that belief.

LarryK| 8.12.11 @ 8:24AM

Newt was the only one to give specifics to the problems we face, not just "catch phrases".

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:28AM

Newt is one of the smartest men in modern politics. But he's got more of a shot as Secretary of State in the next Republican Presidency than Commander in Chief.

Mimi| 8.12.11 @ 10:09AM

It's not too late for NEWT...ie McCain !
At the very least he better get a position as Presidential Advisor...The country needs his insight, with things so dire and getting worse.
I was truly impressed with Rick Santorum lets see what Iowa says. Pawlenty just didn't cut it IMHO. Herman Cain looked great and did himself well . As I posted before Newt , was totally in REALITY and what to DO...Impressive !

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:12PM

I WISH Newt could be President. Who knows? Maybe this time around the people are finally realizing he's brilliant, and that we need his no holds barred approach to the Left.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 8:25AM

I have worked in the prolife movement for decades. Rick Santorum and his warmongering is a disgrace to us real prolifers. I follow the Savior Who said. " blessed are the peacemkers." Ron Paul has been the best candidate on the life issue, war and peace and economics for decades.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:29AM

Paul's pro-homosexual isn't he? Too bad Bruno didn't slip him some tongue in the movie. Then we would have to suffer his delusional rants anymore.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:30AM

Apologies "wouldn't have to suffer his delusional rants anymore." Probably, wouldn't have to hear from his cultist anymore either.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 1:22PM

The only delusional rants around here are yours, if you think another prowar Republican is going to do this party or country any good. 59% of Americans by polling want out of these wars. It is time to bury the Bush's and move on to true constitutional conservative govenment. That is the only way to fiscal and moral sanity in this country.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:45AM

yawn.

what Republican the other night was advocating for another war?

none.

JimH| 8.12.11 @ 8:47AM

What does pro-homosexual mean? Paul does not support any more or fewer rights for any individual over another.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:59AM

The homosexual agenda of forcing their sexual choices down our collective throats and making their lifestyle decisions a civil right – an agenda that consistently defends NAMBLA and other degenerate practices.

Ron Paul isn't interested in the Constitution he's interested in getting the most he can get out of the tax payer's pocket for his pet projects and making sure murderous Muslims are "understood" and treated fairly.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 1:29PM

I agree with Clint. Ron Paul is totally against special rights for any group. He is a fine Christian man who is the best prolife political spokesman I have ever seen in over 20 years of prolife political action. Your rants are nothing but desperate propaganda as you see your warmonging propaganda sink. The people and most conservatives are disgusted with all the lies that come from the neocons and countryclub elites. They have bankrupted this country, morally and fiscally.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:17PM

Dr. Paul is for Nukes for Iran.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 5:07PM

Ask Clint...

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:37AM

You're A Slandering Liar RINO-CINO PropagandaBoy Micky.

" Dr. Ron Paul said because of his personal beliefs he is opposed to abortion and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 federal law that allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states. President Obama recently instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Paul said he doesn’t agree with Obama’s instruction because he thinks the president’s goal “is really to undermine state law that defines marriage.” One goal of the Defense of Marriage Act was to protect state laws, Paul said, adding he believes marriage is a very personal religious matter that ideally should not involve government."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

Bruno| 8.12.11 @ 11:56AM

Who says I didn't.

YeloStalyn| 8.12.11 @ 1:27PM

Peace through strength. That's how God's gonna do it in the end, right? A great ware between good and evil? You can't have peace with evil without war unless you are either made a slave, or are submissive to it. There's no two ways about it.

W| 8.12.11 @ 2:47PM

Jack, are you a pacifist? Are you opposed to all wars, please explain which wars you would suport or have supported.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:59PM

The vast majority of wars could have been avoided by sane leadership and commonsense. I believe in the Christian idea of Just War. That is that war is too be avoided except in absolute self defense. Not one of our recent wars come close to that. It also means that the force used must be the least posssible, with the saving of human life as the main goal.

W| 8.12.11 @ 9:18PM

Jack, I agree with the general statement, however the dispute is always applying general principles to specific facts, and there is honest disagreement whether self defense includes premptive war. I believe premptive attack is part of self defense. If you can disable your enemy before he attacks, then you should do it. As for using the least possible force, I disagree. You should use maximum force to win and end the war as quickly as possible.
An example is Japan. The predictions were for massive casualties to civilians and our men if we had to invade Japan. They surrendered after the bombing.
What is your opinion of the following wars?
1.Vietnam
2.Korea
3.WW11
4. WW1
5.Civil War
6. Mexican War.
7. War of 1812
8. War of Independence
9. Gulf War-Kuwait in 1991
10. Iraq
11. Afghanistan

skip| 8.13.11 @ 12:36AM

That the U.S. casualties of all of them, combined, are less than the average of any one of each of the thirty nine years abortions have been 'legal'.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 2:36AM

I can't think of one war up there that was worth fighting under just war priciples. Even our War of independence was fought over minor issues that could have eventully been resolved peacefully. But the worst war by far that we stuck our noses into was WW1. That is the war that led to Communism, Fascism, and all the rest of the wars we have been involved in since. It would have been far better if The Central Powers had won that war. Even the Scott historian Nial Ferguson wrote a book about that. It is called.' The Pity of War.'

W| 8.13.11 @ 8:27PM

Jack, you may be correct about WW1. We had no national interest in that war. And we got the IRS and income tax as a result of that war.
But WW2? Tha Japanese attacked us on December 7, we declared war on Japan only, and then Germany declared war on us, then we declared war on Germany. Were we supposed to not defend ourselves?

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 10:57PM

World War 2 comes out of the failed policies of WW1. There was nothing moral about WW2. Our ally Stalin was a far worse criminal and killer than Hitler. He was Hitler's ally to start the war and then we confirmed his thefts and murders by handing him most of Easern Europe. Truman dropped 2 atomic bombs after the Japanese were begging for an armistice. That was also a massive war crime.

The Morgenthou Plan after the war led to at least 3 million deaths in Germany after the war, another massive crime. Morgenthou originally wanted to cut the population of Germany in half. That would have ment the starvation of up to 35 million people. Then we have the shipping of millions of Stalin's people under Operation Keelhaul to death and suffering with the full conievence of the Americans and British. Then we had a 50 year cold war. Hitler winning the war could not have been much worse.

That is especially true because Hitler offered the British and French a truce after the fall of Poland. He didn't declare war on them they did on him. Then after the fall of France he offered a complete truce to the British. Churchill's response was to bomb the French fleet and start bombing. Germany. Hitler had told the world in 1939 that he would hold the Jews responsible for any world war. He did not start the Final Solution until 1942 when the War with America started. Just last week I heard Hitler's speech, with translation, declaring war on the USA. He listed plenty of reason to do so.
His case against Roosevelt is at least intresting. The main point of this is that in my opinion the Jews of Europe could have been saved if Hitler would have been negotiated with. He wanted them out of his empire, but not dead. He knew that once he had committed such a monstrous crime there was no turning back. So he hesitated for over 2 years. I believe there was a chance to save most of the Jews if we had been more open to talking to Hitler. If we could kiss Stalin's ass, we could of at least talked to Hitler. We talked to the Soviets in the 1970's and most of the Jews left the USSR.

Now for the Japanese I hold the same thing. We gave them sanctions and refused to negoiate in good faith. There are plenty of books on the subject. I have a few in my basement buried somewhere. I suggest you read a few. One I have here is ' Pearl Harbor ' The Seeds and fruit of infamy. This book is by Percy L. Greaves Jr.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:47AM

welll...that's a fine moral principle for all the people being killed, butchered, tortured, raped along the way by their governments. no obligation unless it directly impacts me. you're just so wonderful!!!

say...you truly are a moral person!!!!

W| 8.13.11 @ 8:32PM

It is fine to make such statements, but do we go into every country where the government is killing its people?
Where do you draw the line?

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:15PM

"Blessed are the peacemakers."

Hahaha, you have no idea what that even means, do you? It has nothing to do with America not defending herself and her enemies.

And I bet you are not even aware of the fact that the Jesus of the Bible is a Man of War?

Consider this:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Mt. 10:34.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:07PM

Jesus said. " Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth. " He also said." Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Love your neighbor as yourself. Turn the other Cheek and turn it again. Love your enemies. What you due to the least of my brothers you do unto me. " Margie: Jesus is God. All you warmongers are defying God. Christ is the Prince of Peace. He is my guiding light.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:36PM

Dear Jack,

Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Yes, Jesus did say all of those things, but for you to use them the way you are using them is wrong.

And I'm not a warmonger. I do not know anyone who is! And surely none of the regulars that post here are, either.

You're in a fantasy world in your own mind.

1. You can't make peace with murderers, unless they repent.

2. Americans do not live by the sword. We defend ourselves and our allies against murderous terrorists.
I'm not saying we're perfect and that our leaders are perfect in these areas, but I believe we try our best most of the time.

3. Loving your neighbor doesn't mean you let murderous terrorists kill you.

4. Turn the other cheek has nothing to do with not defending your country and helping your allies.

5. Doing to the least of these~ key word~ "MY BROTHERS" is written to and about Christians, not murderers and terrorists.

6. Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, and the Prince of Peace, and this entire World is corrupt and fallen, and it is filled with not only spiritual warfare, but physical warfare as well.

No one, NO ONE wants to have to go to war. Pacifism isn't a possibility, and blaming our own country and considering it as an evil empire is so wrong. And the fact that you consider people like me warmongers along with that actually makes you a little bit scary.
You seem to side with the enemy more so than your own fellow Americans.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:51PM

Margie we are violating every precept of our God Jesus and his teachings. The USA has been involved in numerous wars that don't come close to any Christian idea of a just war. The murderers are Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Clintons, Powell and the rest who lied us into a war with Iraq.
God told the Jews in the book of Leviticus. " To love the foreign among you as yourself. He also said a little later. " To love your neighbor as yourself. " You zionists both Christian and Jewish have forgotten a few of God's Commandments. " Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors peoperty. " Margie it is time to get with God's progam not the the reverend Haggee's. He is a relative of the Antichrist.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 6:14PM

Jack,

I'm sorry for you. You are really very disturbed in your thinking.

I won't even bother to pick apart everything you've said here because it won't matter, and you'll just go on with more of the same, and it's only hurting you.

And by the way, I'm not with anybody's program and I do not know what Haggee is about, nor do I care.

You don't know me at all, but you can bet that I believe every Word of God.

Just not in the way that you are using it~ to justify your mindset.

I hope that God will open your eyes.

skip| 8.13.11 @ 12:47AM

Jack

Who was it who said:

"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."

Hint: The person who spoke these words is a realist who is living in reality. You should try it.

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 11:26AM

Dear Jack,

Margie also disguises herself as an Angel of Light....

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 11:43AM

Now that's funny coming from a coward hiding behind another name!

Vlady| 8.14.11 @ 12:02PM

Yawn.....

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.12.11 @ 9:24AM

It looked like a cavalcade of big government types who refuse to believe they are part of the problem. Exceptions: Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain.

That's precisely why Tim Pawlenty broke the inviolate rule: Never attack a woman.

And that brings up the question. Why did he do that? It wasn't necessary but he rushed headlong into the attack and it was an underhanded attack for the most part.

It also weakened any argument Pawlenty had that he can bring people together. Apparently he can bring them together but only if they see things his way. How very Obama of Pawlenty.

But the attack by Pawlenty while the others sat back and let Pawlenty do the dirty work shows they are all candidates tied to the same string for the most part.

Surprisingly, all of them missed the opportunity to say something nice about any of the other candidates. In that sense they are playing into the media's hands by letting the media control the debate and therefore the issues.

Our issues are economic and only a couple of the candidates alluded to the problem: failed central economic planning. It's an easy issue, but it's never mentioned and only rarely alluded to in the debates or the media.

After Pawlenty gets out of the race watch his future closely. The payoff and the answer will lie there.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 9:52AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 9:39AMRon Paul shot himself in the ...er "foot" last night, Johnson.

Telling the whole world he didn't mind Iran with the bomb was simply a continuation of johnson shots that will keep him on the fringe with the other cranks.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 10:08AM

The CIA's Former bin Laden Desk Director, Michael Sheuer Agrees With Dr.Ron Paul.

Michael Scheuer,
"And then there is Iran. How does one explain the U.S. governing elite's fear of Iran? Here we have a country that admittedly is led by one of the world's more histrionic politicians, but one that also is ringed by U.S. military bases and surrounded by an overwhelmingly more numerous Sunni world that hates Shi'ites far more than it hates Westerners. Iran‘s Islamic regime, moreover, is helplessly watching the final stages of the march of its energy resources toward oblivion, and preparing for the impoverishment and resulting internal political instability that event will usher in. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Carpe Diem.

RCV| 8.12.11 @ 12:59PM

What a naive observation. We're supposed to not worry about Iran having a nuclear bomb because it is "surrounded by Sunni states...". Like Syria, its firm Sunni ally. A lunatic like Akhminjad with nuclear arms could launch missles against Israel or Saudi Arabia in a moment. It will small comfort that we have military bases in the area, or that the people killed are sunni or Jews, when a region wide nuclear war erupts.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 1:43PM

Obama Israel Firster LawBoy RCV Thinks He Knows More Than The CIA's Former bin Laden Desk Director.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Iowa.

Rise Up.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:19PM

I know more than the former Bin Ladin (missed him) desk director about correct Middle east tactics. Scheuer is about as competent at his job as Gehlen was predicting Stalin's military moves for the Wehrmacht in WWII. And Obama is a grad of HLS.

Performance matters more than credentials, monkey boy.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 2:31PM

Clint,

I share the opinion implied in another comment that any positive contributions you may have made to the ongoing discussion(s) are undermined by your credibility reducing name-calling.

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 4:37PM

Finally, a paul supporter that agrees Clint alienates more than he convinces.

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 5:09PM

Ya' know, there's no better evidence that Clint is deranged than the fact that I agree with RCV...

RCV| 8.13.11 @ 11:59PM

I know, Dr R. It makes me uncomfortable as well. But people of intelligence and good will across the political spectrum despise Clint. He's the one remaining unifying force in America - kind of a perpetual 9/11.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:50AM

they're killing Americans now! and have been all along in Iraq! as if those bases posed an existential threat to Iran. pfffftttt........

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 1:34PM

Iran is no threat to us or even Israel. Israel has hundreds of atomic weapons and so does all of Iran's neighbors. It is their business, not ours. Go and try and run a candidate for president on a prowar platform. He won't get 30% of the vote. You lunatics have lied us into enough wars. Your time is up.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:20PM

Jack--Israel is a one nuke hit country. Iran with a bomb in the hands of maniacs is quite worrisome.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:52PM

Hey, don't confuse him with the facts!

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:51AM

very deep strategic thinker you are Jack. got a lot of experience in the intel and military communities do ya?

POST American| 8.12.11 @ 9:54AM

---Great '90's Show' op!

NOW, as BOTH Fukishima AND Britain burn
in good, Masonic, agenda advancing fashion
---coud we get a little mention of that magical
1.5 quadrilion of FAKE USURY derivatives
'debt'? ----and the at large Free Traitors, uh,
we meant traders ---of the RED China sellout
and TREASON OP?

REALLY

--------------Just for the HELL of it.

Dan Mathewson| 8.12.11 @ 8:39PM

Well I think that the question what many people have, and by many I mean some, is what, if any, if not, then how much?

martin j smith| 8.12.11 @ 9:55AM

The winner SHOULD BE the one able to handle Obama and the Socialists. Frankly when the candidate list become smaller and the FIRST TIER CANDIDATES are left the emphasis should include
THEIR ABILITY TO COPE WITH THE SOCIALIST CAMPAIGN MODE WHICH MEANS A CANDIDATE AND POLITICAL PARTY THAT WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN AND ALL THAT IMPLIES. Can they handle it ?

fmm| 8.12.11 @ 10:02AM

These debates are so sophomoric due to the self importance of the questioners and the gotcha style that I am surprised any of the candidates participate. I certainly don't watch them as there is nothing to learn and I don't care a whit for the news personalities involved. It is better to stay informed throughout the year by paying attention to the issues and how each candidate measures up.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:53AM

gives them an opportunity to look Presidential. it has its purposes. it also has the secondary purpose of motivating campaign contributions.......free TV exposure.

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.12.11 @ 11:06AM

Pawlenty may have harmed Bachmann, but it was a suicide mission. He's destroyed his own chances.

My theory is that he is going easy on Romney because he already realizes that he has no chance to win, but that while there might not be a Bachmann administration, there is a very good chance there could be a Romney one, and Mitt is going to need to fill cabinet posts.

Bruno| 8.12.11 @ 11:37AM

Ron Paul is a beautiful man. With what other man could you go from Austrian economics to the bedroom with a complete stranger. No, he is not crazy just lonely.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:22PM

Bruno, I stand corrected. How could I not see the radiant Hefneresque metrosexual passion emenating from his 78 year old body.

My apologies.

Admit our errors, Mike, Margie, Dr. Right!

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:24PM

Sorry, "emanating."

And he knows, like Borat, that "Jews" are the problem. What a sexy, sexy man Paul is. I can see why Clint loves him.

Admit our errors, Dr Right, Margie, and Mike!

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:19PM

Oh, my! Yes, I was ready to dump my husband after watching him speak last night..... aaaarrgghhh!

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 4:39PM

Ewww, I just tasted bile after reading that.

W| 8.12.11 @ 11:37AM

The losers were all the media questioners. I expected better from supposedly conservative media, but media is media.
1. York should know the the Biblical term "submissive" has a different meaning to Bachman than the everyday meaning. Why ask a stupid question like that, did he really think Michelle will submit to her husband's opinions if she is President or VP? Did anyone ask Bill Clinton if he would submit to Hillary's opinions (demands), or did anyone ask Hillary if she would submit to Bill's opinions? The question was meant only to annoy and harass, and not in good faith to elicit information.
2. Newt was great in telling Wallace his question was stupid. Who cares if his staff quit. That is interesting only to the media. With the debt, budget, economy, and three wars, Wallace is concerned about Newt's staff quitting.
3. Pawlenty looks like a mean, little twerp. He thinks attacking Michelle is good stategy? He should have focused on Obama and attacked Obama all night, instead of sparring with Michelle and making a class-warfare joke about the size of Mitt's lawn. After he loses, Pawlenty may need a job cutting grass or cooking.
4.Cain was good. He could be VP.
5. Santorum is smart and principled, but he should stop screaming at everyone,especially at Ron Paul. Paul has no chance and it is waste of time and effort attacking him. Santorum speaks too fast and too angry.
6. Huntzman did OK. first time I saw him. He is smart, but has no chance.
7. Bachman did well. She handled the idiot York question well by saying "thank you, Byron." She will be the VP. She will destroy Biden in the debates.
8.Romney won. He showed humor when he told Pawlenty " I liked the other answer on Obamacare," and refused to stoop the class-warfare dig at the size of his lawn. He smiled both times, and shrugged it off. Showed some class, which Pawlenty lacks.
Romney showed a good grasp of economics and the job issues. He is also the only one on stage who understands the 10th amendment. Romney said Obamacare is unconstitutional (under the federal constitution), but each state may experiment with healhcare legislation under the applicable state constitution. Each state has it own constitution. Wallace did not understand this.

The winning ticket is Romney-Bachman.

YeloStalyn| 8.12.11 @ 1:34PM

I hate to say it... but I think you nailed it. I hate to say it because I don't like Romney. I don't trust him. It scares me that he can quote the 10th Amendment... afterall, Satan can quote scripture (no... Romney isn't the devil).

But... I think Santorum's "screaming" at everyone was the only means he had of getting air time. I don't blame him for trying to get in on the debate. How can he be a candidate if he can't campaign? And part of that is the debate. I think Cain should get more time as well... and when he does, he should try to ignore the defensive as much as he can (time spent on his "touchy" statements takes away from him presenting his ideas on a number of issues).

And you got it right about Wallace not understanding the difference between the US and a State Const. He looked like a fool during that bit. I also think that Santorum made a great comment about it when he quoted Lincoln. It said that he supports the 10th so long is what the state and people want to do isn't against the founding principles... which mandated health care is. You can't take the US Const. on its own.. you must take it with the Declaration of Independance. They go hand in hand.

W| 8.12.11 @ 2:35PM

I agree that Cain should stick to his strong points about his business knowledge and use every question to speak about his business background. It is a compelling story. It is a waste of time to keep talking about building a border fence, they all say that.
Santorum's point is valid, a state cannot pass a law that violates the US constitution. The question will be whether a state law to mandate persons to buy health insurance violates any of the federal constitutional provisons that also apply to the states, such as the Bill of Rights.

YeloStalyn| 8.12.11 @ 3:03PM

It's a tough one, that's for sure... on the state level that is. Adam's said that the state and people have a near unlimited power... that would seem to indicate that they can mandate it. But... my natural inclination is that that would be wrong. Why do I feel that way? Is it because the natural longing for freedom we're granted by our Creator leads me to just "know" that it's wrong? Or is there a reason? If so... what is it that can't be trumped by the unlimited power of the state and people? Does my right to freedom protect me from compulsory activity? What about a seatbelt law? What about driving on the wrong side of a street? Sure, it's dangerous... but if I don't actually hurt anyone, what did I do wrong? If I wreck and kill someone, charge me with murder... but if I don't... then what? I was annoying? Dangerous? Is being "dangerous" enough to be illegal? It's "dangerous" to have a fire in your home... but no one would stop you (no rational person). It's dangerous to operate a car even on the right side of the road. So "danger" can't be the sole reason it's wrong... can it?

Makes you think.... at least it does me.

W| 8.12.11 @ 6:45PM

State governments are generally considered to have more power than the federal government because the federal government is supposed to be a government of enumerated powers under the constitution, and a state's power is general as limited by the state and federal constituion.
But in practice the federal government has grown to unlimited power, and have reduced the states' powers. When there is any problem, everybody looks to the President and Congress to solve it. Everything is now a national, federal issue.

Oldefarte| 8.12.11 @ 11:55AM

The debate was mostly typical, and each of the candidates had both good/bad points. The Pawlenty-Bachmann feud was sophmoric and counterproductive to the big picture, as was that of Santorium-Paul. I agree with Paul's points regarding monetary/fiscal issues, but his libertarian stretch concerning foreign policy is excessive [Iran's building missles would not be a problem if not for the fact of their racial-terrorist extremism]. Paul's age makes him appear, although intelligent, a bit too senile and as some have said """"looney'''''. His point against American's involvement with recent wars is correct, in that our leaders apply political correct military operations by fighting land-wars through invasion, instead of employing our significant atomic bomb/missle capability for same. Guinguich was correct to correct Wallace on his asininely insignificant/impertinent questioning of him. His point about getting involved is noble but as someone here said correctly, the Rs only control 1/3, so until the November of 2012 elections nothing much is accompolishable anyway. Cain has obvious corporate managerial expertise which would be useful as president. Santorium and Bachmann are too extremely rigid in their positions IMO. The former Utah govenor [and Pawlenty] is too RINO for my taste. Overall, any one of them would obviously be preferable to the current office holder or to any Democrat [who are all radicals/extremists who have effectively captured this nation]. Perry and/or Palin's entrance will be welcomed and interesting. Once again, the important issue is to defeat as many Democrats as possible next year !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ame| 8.12.11 @ 1:03PM

Paul has some things right but then he veers off into weirdo land - his remark
about Iran was childlike foolishness, and his remark about trade with Cuba was idiotic - only SOME people deserve to be free???

I thought most of the candidates had at least one thing to say that was true and impressive, but Pawlenty and Huntsman
were poor - Gingrich let Wallace have it several times and Wallace deserved it - Gingrich is smart and unafraid, but
I would never vote for him and he will never be the nominee - wish he would just find a place in the Party to aide
candidates by sharing his knowledge, but I like his bluntness - so tired of wishy-washy political correctness crap -
and Wallace couldn't grill a tomato over an open flame. The questions asked of candidates are many times stupid,
and most times irrelevant.

Romney is too soft - fine man, I am sure, but misunderstands the 10th Amendment - the states do NOT have the right
to do whatever they want - HELLO, this is the USA and government cannot mandate all citizens to buy anything -
Romneycare is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - as bad as Obamacare, which the Supreme Court must overturn because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
All candidates are soft on illegals and I don't agree with Paul that business should not be responsible for hiring illegals!!!???
It's so simple for them to do - ??

I also do not think we can recall our military from Japan, etc, and turn that all over to China - I'd also keep NASA - why
should the USA rent space on Russian rockets to outer space?

I really like Rick Perry - now he is one tough man - and he knows what America is and loves her - I think enemies would find
him formidable - he's savvy, ethical, tells it like it is, has a sense of humor, walks the walk - grew up poor and knows what work is -
No Excuses Perry - the opposite of "mommie cry baby" Obama... and, by the way, Reagan was also a Democrat, but he found his way to Republican fiscal conservative wisdom Rick Perry can crush Obama - Republicans also have to take the Senate, get rid of Rhinos, and we can be on our way back to a Constitutional Republic -

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 1:11PM

WOW! HEADLINE, PERRY'S SPEECH FOR PRESIDENT, (when he wasn't even running yet)
Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dUMJyzjtA

simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 3:18PM

Thank you, Ken. The speech was awesome, informative, and certainly a first good look at this potential candidate. He certainly can communicate his passion and his ideas very well.

Solo| 8.12.11 @ 1:20PM

The problem that I have with the RuPaul is this:

I agree "somewhat" with just about every thing he says, but then he goes waaaaay out into left field with it.

I agree with states rights but I also recognize that we are a union of states. As such...we can't allow gay marriage in 10 states and not the rest. We can't allow heroin to be legalized in California and expect that it won't effect Nevada.
I love the Constitution as much as any conservative but I recognize that the Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact.

RuPaul, and his acolytes don't seem to get that.

On foreign policy...?
Yes...I agree that we are defending states who should be defending themselves. I agree that "adventurism" is ill advised. But I also recognize that our national security or national interest isn't defined by our physical borders.

Ron Paul had me in the palm of his hand last night (for the most part) right up to the point when he started spitting and sputtering about foreign policy. He started in with making the claim that our war in Iraq was "hyped-up" by the Bush administration and is claiming that our concerns over Iran are similarly "hyped".
That's drooling, fever swamp, conspiracy theory tripe and, once uttered, renders him unqualified as a national leader of any stripe.

It wasn't based on "hype". It was based on the best available evidence at the time.

And by the way....Iran doesn't need an Air force capable of reaching us in order to be a nuclear threat, once obtaining "The Bomb". All they need is a terrorist organization and a shipping container marked "USA or Bust" and we're screwed. And...if he thinks merely trading with them is going to avert that, then he's got rocks in his head. We traded with Germany in the late 1930's. Fat lot of good that did us, huh?

Ron Paul is a crackpot and should never be allowed within a million miles of the Presidency.
And ...trust me....as desperate as we are, he won't be.

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 2:17PM

"Solo",

As I've written above, I disagree with Congressman Paul (and in fact most Congresspersons) on a variety of issues. However, it is important to note that his foreign policy views do not belong solely to him and those of our fellow citizens who support him.

The non-interventionist foreign policy is held by many individuals who have studied history and the results of our own Federal government's interventionist global activities, and especially its militarism and its funding of violent insurgents (using our taxed earnings no less).

In Afghanistan our military is fighting some of the same individuals and groups our government helped train and fund in the 1980s.

The regime in Iran came to power as a direct result of our government's assistance in the violent overthrow of its one-time democratically elected leader in the 1950s.

Even more recently billions of our tax dollars are funding terrorist activity and an insurgency in Iran: http://www.newyorker.com/repor.....fact_hersh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTlx-TmgWuo

Basically, our government helps create problems for our nation and citizenry using our taxed money, then spends much more of our "treasure and blood" trying to "fix" the very problems their interventions helped create originally.

The research shows strong evidence that if our Federal government continues its failed and failing foreign policy of aggression and interventions our military, our country, and our citizenry will be targeted and likely successfully attacked again.

I am confident that should Iran's government finally realize any goal it has to achieve a nuclear capability, it will immediately lose that capability - and much more - at the proven capabilities of the Israeli government (just as Iraq did in the 1980s).

Any nuclear threat our fellow citizens face will likely come from a non-state entity, not a government (no matter how "crazed" its leaders act and talk).

Regards,

Charles

P.S. I can offer more resources to support my claims but this format only allows two in any one response.
-C

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:07PM

how niaive can you be?

do you seriously believe that there have not been State actors involved in both terrorism AND proliferation of WMDs?

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 2:21PM

How dare you suggest the sensible leader of Iran would stoop to using dirty bombs and terrorist when Clint and Jack have both assured us that the tensions between Shia and Sunni's would prevent such a catastrophe. You sir must be a NEOCON.

W| 8.12.11 @ 2:42PM

I do not have a problem with a general policy of non intervention in the internal affairs of other nations if those nations are not a threat to us or our allies.
But when you have a country like Iran that threatens to destroy Israel, our ally, and supports terrorism against the USA, what do you do? Ignore the threat and hope for the best, which is the Obama policy. Iran is not a minor, peaceful country that prefers a theocracy, and doesn't threaten to start a nuclear war. There are many countries with authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that are not a real threat to us.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 4:41PM

I totally agree. My tongue was in my cheek on the previous post. According to Clint and many others that makes us NEOCONS.

W| 8.12.11 @ 5:02PM

DS,directed at the Iran apologists, not you, hit wrong button.

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 10:28PM

"Drunken Sailor",

Your apparent intentional misrepresentation of my factually based conclusions to make a personal criticism of other citizens is not only simplistic, but arguably "cheap" and dishonest.

The two of us have debated significant issues and important distinctions which affect our fellow citizens and other persons. What do you hope to gain by this recent comment?

Regards,

Charles

Drunken Sailor| 8.13.11 @ 3:51PM

Unknot your knickers Charles. My post was a tongue in cheek reply to Solo. You were not even mentioned in my spiel.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:15PM

aligning fats doesn't equate to structuring a valid argument.

btw...your threat assessment is weak. speaking of facts.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 1:30PM

WOW!
Governor Perry's Prayer Speech on a day of fasting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csn7HrsLJxc

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 1:38PM

There were eight candidates on the stage last night. There was one intellectual and moral giant, Ron Paul and then there was 7 intellectual and moral midgets, the rest of the panel.

Conserdude| 8.12.11 @ 2:15PM

Ron Paul says sensible things here and there, but overall he is a buffoon who does not carry himself well and could never be elected president. His ardent following is a tiny sliver.

Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 2:26PM

Paul is no intellectual giant. He's a baboon. By the way, I also am an MD.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:17PM

Ron Paul has been right on economic issues, monatary issues, prolife issues, and foreign policy issues for decades. He is the main defender of constitutional government in this country. That makes him an intellectual and moral giant. He does his own thinking and appears on any forum without a bunch of handlers. Ron Paul has some advisors. All the rest of the candidates have handlers. Most of them can't go to the bathroom without talking it over with some handler.

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 3:02PM

Anybody who carries water for Hamas or Iran is not a moral or intellectual giant. He is is a just an ideologue doing what ideologues always do. As his theory breaks down, he makes wilder and wilder claims. It is possible to be anti-interventionist in our current wars without trying to put lip stick on the Palestinian or Iranian pig. Throw in a couple of Clint's anti-Semitic remarks and a we get a good picture of Paul's flash mob at the debate. What a bunch of pukes. I might add dimwitted and bigoted pukes. These are party destroyers not party builders.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:24PM

Yep.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:23PM

Ron Paul and his son Rand have a huge and growing following in the RepublicanParty. There is no way that any Republican can be elected without us. There is also a large contingent of people who like Ron in the Independents and Democrats. Again no Republican can be elected without these people. You prowar Bush robots are down to about 25% of the country. Get used to Obama and the Democrats for decades unless you dump your prowar policies and bring the troops home. You have bankrupted this country morally and fiscally.

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:46PM

Ron Paul makes makes the outlook of anyone who's started to consider voting Republican, rather bleak.

And the R. Paul faction is still very small, just very loud and obnoxious.
I'm not worried, because when he opens his mouth, or any of his followers do~ the same cult speak comes out, and it scares people away.

It's like the hippies from the 60's have re-awakened to protest the Viet-Nam war all over again. except this time, they're way worse.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:57AM

Sponge Paul is anything but Presidential!

Here's another thing I learned the other night. This guy gets rattled easily. Don't want him answering the call at 0300 any more than Obama.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:59AM

in fact...I'm laughing on this one.

in the impossible event Paul were elected...we'd see a massive exit from the military...precisely what you want in the first place. speaking of hidden agendas.

you sound no different from the wingnut activist religious types on the Left. in fact..that's what you are....same endpoint whether you realize it or not.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 11:25AM

Ron Paul gets by far the most financial support from military people than any other candidate. The soldiers are sick of being sent overseas for years to die in the stupid and needless wars of you chickenhawks.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 11:47AM

You've got it right, carnot.
Ever read David Horowitz on the mind of the Leftist? The Libertarian mindset is same.
(They despise Horowitz, also Mark Levin). Anyone who nails them.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 3:06PM

Levin and Horowitz can't stand Ron Paul because they are Israel firsters. Horowitz is also an old Stalinist Communist. Ron Paul has stated many times that he wishes Israel nothing but the best. The thing they don't like is that he would cut all foreign aid to everyone, includig the number one welfare queen in the world. After 63 years as a charity case. it is time for Israel to stand on it's owon 2 feet. That also includes all the other foreign countries we are defending. If they don't want to spend the blood and treasure to defend themselves why should we.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 4:09PM

"Horowitz is also an old Stalinist Communist."

Sorry, Jack, but anyone in their right minds knows that's a blatant lie.

David Horowitz USED to be a Leftist. In fact, if he'd never seen the light and stayed what he USED to be, I bet Ron Paul & co. would love him to pieces.

Why is it that you guys see fit to lie so easily the way that you do?
Never mind. Because I already know the answer to that~ it has to do with the end justifying the means.

Whatever gets ya there. You guys do the lying, yet you accuse everyone else of same. Some interesting psychology there, but not "interestink enuff!"

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 11:15PM

Horwitz wrote a book. I think it was Called Radical Son. I have it in my basement. I read it.He comes from a Stalinist Family. He was a young communist when he was a radical leader. Most of the Neocons come from old Trotskyite Communisst roots. Thet is the Kristol's Podhoretz's etc. They moved to the Republicans when the Stalinists took over a lot of the Democrat Party. They went from a worldwide Communist revolution to a worldwide Democratic revolution. Most of them also went back to their Jewish roots and became radical zionists. I suggest you read Irving Kristol's book on the neocons. He invented the term.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 11:24PM

Key word, "was."
And Horowitz is a conservative to the core now.
He abhors the Left. He is a true convert to conservatism.
He's written many books and all are truthful and excellent.
I cannot stand the term neocon, I don't care who created it. It is used in a derogatory manner by the Paul-bots to try and signify that we aren't "true" conservatives/
And a true conservative to a Paul-bot is someone who abhors Israel, blames America for terrorism, and is an isolationist.
Anyone who doesn't fall in line with that thinking is a "traitor to conservatism."
It's a joke, and it's ridiculous.
Are you aware of this, Jack?

Jack in Wi.| 8.15.11 @ 2:21AM

It was invented bu the origal Neocon Irving Kristol. I think the title of his book was Biography of a Neoconservative.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 7:08PM

Uh Oh !

The Slandering Liar Russkie Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 9:02AM

yes...because they'd never think of exporting their conflicts to us and other places around the globe.

yes...because however much beyond the pail their methods might be for handling their own conflicts...not our moral problem.

yes...because...like as not.....the rest of the developed and developing world has no energy dependencies to that part of the world. not a concern!

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:16PM

nah. he's just an isolationist.

nothing wrong with that...just a long as he isn't Prez.

martin j smith| 8.12.11 @ 1:55PM

Tell me--Was anyone asked this question: Why are you running for President and how would you want to change course ? What are your greatest criticisms of Obama ? Why should you be President and not one of your rivals ? How would you address voters who do not agree with your policies particularly Liberal voters and Liberal media media critics ?

Solo| 8.12.11 @ 2:03PM

Wow! Thanks, Ken! That speech by Perry was a stem-winder!

Imagine this......

Rick Perry is not a man (or woman) who was angling for a run at the Presidency. He was literally DRAFTED by the people.

If he is nominated and gives that speech to the people on national television, he'll win in a landslide!

The leftist media must be crapping their collective pants!

Conserdude| 8.12.11 @ 2:13PM

Newt Gingrich showed flashes of his intelligence, but his barking at Chris Wallace and his question was a sham and undignified. Wallace asked a totally legit question that Gingrich didn't like, so he attacked the questioner. Gingrich is a deeply flawed character as many important GOP House members who served when he was speaker would attest. He is unfit to be president no matter how good a debater he may be.

martin j smith| 8.12.11 @ 3:45PM

Top tier: Romney,Bachman and now Perry
Second and third tier: Caine,Gingrich,Paul etc.

I have no one I have decided upon but whoever is the winner better show a far better campaign than John McCaine. And that person MUST be ready to confront Obama and the results of his policies.

GW| 8.12.11 @ 3:56PM

Ron Paul continues to amaze me. He has a solid, conservative philosophy when it comes to domestic government yet continues to blow it when he starts going on and on about the "neo-cons" or about how evil the US has been in the MidEast.

To Paul: This doesn't play well in middle America, the vast majority of Republicans. Whereas many of us are disillusioned by the current wars--both in their tactics and spending--we aren't isolationists that believe Iran will just play nice if we leave the Middle East. It is foolish to place blame Iranian insanity on American policies from the 1950s. The cultural and political backwardness can be attributed to a morally relativistic Islamic culture (i.e. lying or murder isn't wrong when advancing Islam), yet Paul is no more likely to place blame on radical Islamists than Obama is likely to place blame on government spending for economic woes.

One of Paul's favorite remarks is especially myopic. "The Soviets had nuclear weapons, why can't Iran?"

Well, for one, the Soviets weren't suicidal. Can the same be said for those who believe God told them to blow up infidels? No one believes Iran could take over the US if they got nukes (and no one argues this), but most believe they are more likely to use nukes than the Soviets ever were. Or, in the words of Santorum, "This isn't Iceland!" Icelanders aren't a threat because they aren't insane. Iran's leaders are.

Second, we were dangerously close to using nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obviously military action to prevent a crisis like this from ever formulating is worth the high price that might have to be paid. Or is there no instance in which preemptive warfare is just? Even if Iraq was an unjust war, who is to say all preemptive war is (else we get a Pearl Harbor)? This requires a better philosophical groundwork, not one instance.

If Paul wants to push his foreign agenda, he should try to find common ground with most conservatives. Speak about the costs, the sacrafice, the difficulties in nation-building, the fact other countries we help (Iraq, S. Korea, Israel) have surpluses, or that we should follow the constitution (which he does mention, rightfully). Paul has deep convictions, but he isn't politically savvy. His robots follow the dear leader and would probably kill for him, but he just won't win the primary if he continues to shoot himself in the foot.

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 4:46PM

Ahmadinejad is willing to bring the catyclysm that will bring the return of the 12th Iman. The critical point here is that Ahmadinejad believes that a Hell of Nuclear War could bring a Messiah back to Earth

But don't tell the Paul-bots that.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:30PM

He does talk about all that but he still has to talk about Iran because it is a big issue. The neocons want to lie us into another war with Israel's enemies. It has to stop and Ron has to keep telling the truth about it. Alminajadad has nothing to attack Israel with. israel has a huge military and atomic weapons and threatens to attack Iran every other day. every thing the iranians have done is defensive.They know they have no chance in an offensive war. Stop the warmonering on the right. It is destroying our chances for peace and prosperity.

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 6:17PM

Classic Paul nonsense. Israel and Iran are equal? Ideologues of all types love moral equivalence because the facts show that their world view is a loser. I can make distinctions. Israel is not perfect in my world but there is no comparison with Iran. America made them do it is a lame horse to ride. Every country that is unfortunate to have a border with Muslims has problems with Muslims. Every country that has a significant population of Muslims has problems with Muslims. Even Muslim countries have violent problems with Muslims. The problem is Muslims. You don't have to look very hard into their religion to find something that resembles the KKK. Within their scriptures are a rationalization for murder, rape and mayhem. Where are the Jews in India, Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, Paris, London, etc? When I see these kind of mental gymnastics with the anti-Semitic remarks from the likes of Clint, I get a real idea of the kind of crank that makes up Paul supporters and it is not a pretty picture.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 7:22PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Crippled Russian.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 8:14PM

Clint is an unoriginal goofball. Same old, same old except for that Russian stuff. A bigot's mind is hard to figure sometimes. I think Clint would be a lot more effective Paulbot if he would use all caps. That combined with his magnificent cut and pastes would make him much more readable. I hear Hamas calling you Clinton, time to go home to your mama. You made your bed now lie in it, sissy bigot boy.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:40PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Israel Firster Crippled Russkie & Joisey Bigot Victor-Margie.

"Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Truth to Power| 8.12.11 @ 9:52PM

You have mental problems Clint/Tim*. I am not Victor or Margie. I don't live in New Jersey. I am just a Christian from flyover country who is disgusted by anti-Semites. I also see the folly of these wars but I don't blame Israel. I damn sure don't believe Muslims are my friends. I take them by their words and their works. Iran shouldn't be reckless with their words. By the way, Michael Scheuer doesn't have any credibility. There are and always have been a lot of turds at the CIA. Thanks for your efforts. You can't hide your antisemitism well and give a view into the disgusting world of Paulbots.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:59AM

Uh Oh !

Mr. Truth Here Attempts To Play His Dog Eared Anti-Semite Card On Tea Party Clint.

Apparently, You've Developed Mental Problems Over Former Air Force Officer Dr. Ron Paul & Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Speaking Truth To Power, Mr. Plastic Phoney Truth To Power.

Aaaaand, I'll Match My Jewish- American Friends, Ron, Steve, Tall Steve, Enoch.... etc. Against Your's Anytime, Sport.

They Don't Have An Israel First Litmus Test.

They're Americans First.

Truth to Power| 8.13.11 @ 10:08PM

"Some of my best friends are Jewish", really? Are you really doing that? I go by what you say not some pretend friend. This is another dodge of lefty ideologues, the invented life for trying to win an argument. Makes me wonder about daddy the war hero, the whole works. What a punk.

Truth to Power| 8.13.11 @ 10:15PM

By the way, nice caps. It gives you that paulbot smell.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:17PM

btw...you ever serve in the military?

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 2:46AM

I don't agree with and don't like the philosphy of the Koran or the Talmud. But that doesn't mean that I think of many millions of people as enemies. I lived peacefully with many Muslims, Jews and Hindus. They are all God's children and each is a unique indivigual.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 9:04AM

you're such a good person!!!

the issue is...can I live peacefully with the likes of you?

Tina B| 8.14.11 @ 4:17PM

During Christ's 3 year ministry, as He was talking to His Father about us, He said words referring to "those You have given me." He was not referring to the whole world. He may have died that ALL might be saved, but in order for that to happen, ALL would have to choose Him as their Savior.

And those you refer to, Jack, those Hindus and Muslims, have chosen someone OTHER than Christ. So they are not ALL His children. They could be, but they are not. If allah or krishna or any of the other hundreds or thousands of gods, small g, could save souls, that would be made known. But they don't, they can't and they won't.

God's children, therefore, they all are not. Sorry.

Just remember, they COULD choose Christ, so they can become children of the Living God. Their choice. But not automatically so, it is an adoption, by choice, into the family of God, through faith in the death on the cross and the resurrection from the dead of His only Son and God, Jesus Christ.

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 11:23PM

I can't judge God and his mercy. I don't think you can either. I would look at the tree in my own eye before I condemn someone else. Even if they have no chance of salvation what right do I have to kill them? Jesus told us to love out neighbor as ourselves. I had a lot of Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu neighbors. Let God judge them I won't. Jesus told us blessed are the peacemakers. I would say all you people calling for war and blood have a lot to answer for.

Truth to Power| 8.14.11 @ 6:24PM

"I don't agree with and don't like the philosophy of the Koran or the Talmud."

Another telltale sign of an ideologue, moral equivalence. Pathetic and ignorant as well. Wisconsin Jack can't make distinctions all because he has thrown in with bigots.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 11:31AM

Israel is far worse then Iran. Iran hasn't attacked anyone for hundreds of years. It has no nuclear weapons and acccording to the CIA isn't building any. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and is headed by luatics who threaten to use them at the drop of a hat.That also includes it's crazed followers on the internet who always want to attack somebody.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:19PM

bet you were saying the same thing about Syria a few short years ago.

don't you have a kiln to stoke?

W| 8.13.11 @ 8:19PM

What about the Iran-Iraq war in 1981.

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 12:06AM

You lost everybody in the country with your first sentence, Jack in Wi. The American people will never and should never, support anyone who believes "Israel is worse than Iran."

Tina B| 8.14.11 @ 4:06PM

Are you out of your tree??? Israel has never attacked first. She just defends her God-given and man-appointed borders and survives as the only free country in the Mideast. FREE even for the Israel haters living or working within her borders.

Iran . . . well I guess we'll just have to see. In the end, however, it will all go according to God's plan, and that would be Israel's God, not that imposter allah.

I want to know who to vote for in 2012, but I am confident the good guys will ultimately triumph, regardless. Sooner, or later, God will return for all His people, and that, mi amigos, is the bottom line.

Truth to Power| 8.14.11 @ 6:32PM

At least Jack can't be accused of moral equivalence this time. His hatred now inspires crazy charges. This really shows what resonates in paulbots and it isn't pretty.

Wayne | 8.13.11 @ 1:14PM

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and I would say they are at least as dangerous as Iran. Paul could have also said, China is not out their taking the heat trying to protect the rest of the world, why is the US?

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:20PM

ummmm...have you observed the weapons CHina has been building lately? or their activities off the Taiwanese coast for the last few decades?

protecting isn't the issue.

David| 8.12.11 @ 4:01PM

Bachmann does not have the experience or accomplishments. We knew that Bam Bam didn't have it/them and knew he should not be prez. As fine a person as Bachmann is, and no doubt she is great for the conservative movement, she is NOT READY to be prez.

Santorum did a great job. I like his explanation of the same sex marriage issue as a federal matter. We didn't allow some states to continue the practice of slavery - it is a moral issue.

Hermann Cain is obiously a quick learner. He has a knack for explaining why he may have said something earlier, but NOW UNDERSTANDS why he was was mistaken. He will admit his mistakes. I would love to see him maybe as VP or in some important position in the Cabinet.

I am embarrassed to say that being from Texas I don't know as much about Perry as I should. I do know that Texas has prospered the past 10 years, but don't know how much Perry had to do with that.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 5:36PM

Let them all debate it out. I have no doubt that the best man will win. Come on in and fight it out with Ron Paul. He is the contrast to the long line of intellectual and moral midgets on the other side. I figure Pawlenty and Santorum drop out after Saturday, I figure Perry gets in. I also figure Sarah Palin doesn't get in.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 9:04AM

Sponge Paul!

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:49PM

I figure Ron Paul will drop out at the bitter end.

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 6:01PM

Margie: He will never drop out and he may well support a third party unless the party moves his way on economics and foreign policy. He did not do it last time when he had a lot less money and a lot fewer followers. He is the choice of at a 20% of the party right now and he has the money and issues all on his side.

W| 8.12.11 @ 6:36PM

Jack, he has support because of his economics about cutting the budget and auditing the federal reserve. But his comments about Iran and terrorrism are not supported by 20% of Republicans. They may like the general statement about minding our own business, but do not agree with the specifics of that policy as applied to Iran and terrorrism. The vast majority approve of destroying the terrorrists and any country that is a specific threat to the USA, and the vast majority rightly approve of supporting our ally, Israel, and other strong allies, such as Britain, Australia, and others.
Third parties are a waste. In 1992 Perot gave us Clinton, in 1996 Perot again helped give us Clinton. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third party and that elected Woodrow Wilson. Wilson campaigned that he kept us out of WW1, and would keep us out. Then over 100,000 died in France. He also gave us the income tax and IRS. Wilson did more damage than Carter or Clinton.

Obama would love a split in the Republican Party, with a third party. It would guarantee his re-election.

Jack in Wi.| 8.13.11 @ 2:51AM

Nonsense his foreign policy views always get the most applause at the debates. Most of the country is sick of the wars and you warmongers. Ron's best position is on foreign policy. The people are proud of such a courageous position on these issues. The polls and people are on our side not you Bushites.

W| 8.13.11 @ 8:18PM

He gets applause when he uses general language that we should mind our own business, but he does not get any applause when he says it is ok for Iran to get nukes, and that we invited the terrorrism by our conduct.

Jack in Wi.| 8.14.11 @ 11:35PM

Baloney: He never said that. He said the CIA say that the Iranians are not building a bomb. But even if they did have one are we suppoded to bomb them? The Soviets had many thousands of bombs pointed at us. We still do have them pointed at us. But the poor little Israel can't have onebomb pointed at them even though Israel has hundreds and threatens to use them all the time. Read about the Samson Option. The Israeli plan to blow up the middle East and Europe. It had millions stories about it on google. Israel is a rogue nuclear power who has 500 atomic weapons, attacks it's neighbors at will, and has the Samson Option. It is far worse then Iran which has does none of this.

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 9:06AM

well...since this is his last hurrah...who cares?

YOU may not realize it...but his career...at least in elected politics....is over.

if the economy is still tanking next year...Ron Paul will be an afterthought...a sidebar. folks will elect the front-runner...no matter who that is.

RCV| 8.14.11 @ 12:09AM

Of course Paul will support a third party when he fails to capture the GOP nomination - it's all about him! And that's the same reason Palin won't enter the race - her "campaign" is really just all about her.

David| 8.12.11 @ 6:17PM

We never know what someone like Ron P will do. I sure hope he doesn't pull a Perot. That will ensure Bam Bam gets another 4 years.

JackWi, Perot is too narrow minded on the states' rights thing and on foreign policy. The idea that if we leave everyone alone they will leave us along is naiive at best and dangerous at worst.

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 7:14PM

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

1.) Explain to the American people that Iran is no threat to the United States unless we or Israel attack it first, and then it would be a serious threat to U.S. access to energy and would likely stage terrorist operations in the continental United States. [The last thanks to 30-years of federal immigration policies that leave us without knowledge of who is in the country or what they are capable of doing.]

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 9:09AM

thank God they haven't been killing Americans in Iraq, funding and equipping carnage in Palestine....and working with the Syrians. Yup.....got me convinces.

I know. I know. It's all our fault. The Iranians just follow a Newtonian foreign policy.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:16AM

Former CIA bin Laden Desk Director Michael Scheuer,

On Iran, The President should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:23PM

irrelevant to the matter at hand.

and...as before...totally absent any real threat analysis or inspection of Iranian intentions in the ME.

how shallow can you get with this sloganeering?

POST American| 8.12.11 @ 9:47PM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------

'Mitt ROME KNEE' --or 'ME SHALL ____BALK
MEN' ---such inspiring, capstone vetted,
authorized and 'on board' 'choices'.

Remember kiddies, them thar' MASSIVE tunnels
connecting Pigeon Lake with Asia ---are waiting.

Quietly, ominously waiting.

Keep that in mind as you gaze up through the
Fukishima world DEPOP OP fallout, invisible
through the CHEM-trails that don't exist, sky.

Even as you sip you're GM modified, bisphenol
leeching plastic cup of coffee.

POST American| 8.12.11 @ 10:20PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

----One and all NOTICE as well how the reality
of Ron Paul winning 2/3 of the straw polls thus
far being buried, right on top of John Wheeler,
Fukishima, the RED China TREASON OP, the
1.5 quadrillion in FAKE USURY derivatives,
Bush State Department memo 200 ----and, and,
and------

NOW, sit down in front of your Fabian front
Murdock media, and gobble up some Rockefeller
meds, and see if it's time for another Bill and Melinda Gates
sourced 'helpful' injection.

------------YOU ARE BEING DETROYED-----------

jesse| 8.13.11 @ 5:36AM

It is this blatantly crass political sleight of hand hypocrisy that disgusts the majority of conservatives and Tea Party voters.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.ainibag.com

Mike| 8.13.11 @ 5:37AM

But don't tell the Paul-bots that.
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

Jabber3| 8.13.11 @ 10:08AM

"But even if Pawlenty is deemed the loser of Thursday's debate, who was the winner? Certainly not Fox News. " - McCain

Mitt Romney was the winner but Fox News was the loser for orchestrating what can only be called a fiasco. Certainly it cannot be called a debate because the Fox panelists did not ask the substantive questions that America wanted asked in order to sort out the candidate’s qualifications for president. Chris Wallace acted as if he were some third rate detective in an interrogation room trying to poke holes in a suspects alibi. Even Bret Baer joined in on the "turd throwing” contest. The only person missing on the panel was Chris's best buddy, Juan Williams. David Axelrod must be cheering this as a referendum for Obama’s re-election.

carnot| 8.14.11 @ 12:07AM

yawn.

this will be long forgotten by January. As were the equally silly Dem debates in 2008 which everyone also complained about.

Wayne | 8.13.11 @ 1:09PM

The winner was Sarah Palin. She makes all these other candidates look dull and boring, especially Romney. Romney does not even answer the questions and comes off as scripted and lacking in passion.

martin j smith| 8.13.11 @ 3:40PM

My point of view: IF RON PAUL WOULD BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE BECAUSE OF HIS IGNORAMOUS FOREIGN POLICY OR LACK OF AND HIS IGNORAMOUS LACK OF DEFENSE POLICY I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR HIM. NO BETTER THAN OBAMA IN THOSE AREAS . PERIOD.

Wayne | 8.13.11 @ 6:13PM

What has the US foreign policy gotten us these past 20 years?

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 7:24PM

Barak Obama.

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 8:13PM

We Tea Party Patriots Just Delivered A Solid One-Two Message In Iowa,That We Have Changed The Dynamics Of Elections.
Aaaand, While The Bloviators Were Blowin' Smoke, We Tea Party Patriots Stepped On Their Faces & Brought In Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul To A Near Dead Heat Finish.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Watch & Learn.

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 9:58PM

Near dead finish is right. He's almost.. there.
Dead and finished.

Truth to Power| 8.13.11 @ 10:19PM

Margie,
Does crazy Clint accuse everybody of being you as part of his very clever argumentation or should I feel complimented?

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 10:32PM

I guess if you think what I say is good, you should feel complimented, LOL.

I just think that anybody who straight talks him he thinks is me. Probably because for a couple of years I've been pretty much the only one confronting him.. well, mostly I think.
He even thinks my husband is me.. and no matter how many times I come out and say that I am not my hubby and my hubby isn't me.. or whoever it is he's accusing me of being, it simply doesn't matter.

I think he's projecting because I truly think HE is the one who posts under many different names himself.
It's the old thinking everybody else's doing it because you're doing it yourself.
I do believe he's a snake.
Right there, Clintypoo/Tim*?

Bob Grant| 8.13.11 @ 11:41PM

Marge, you forgot Post American. His idiotic rantings have Clint's fingerprints all over them.

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 8:12AM

You're A Liar, Grant.

Margie| 8.14.11 @ 5:17PM

Calm down, Tim*. I don't think he's you. See, I stuck up for you.
Now, are you able to take anyone's word for the fact that they really aren't someone when they say they're not?
And are you able to admit that you haven't done what you are always accusing others of doing?
Please, do not insult me. I'm tired of all the nonsense.
Okay?

Clint| 8.14.11 @ 8:10AM

We've Had Poseurs Posting As "Truth Is King", " Elron H.", "Clint", "Allen Brooks", You Name It.

Apparently, You Didn't Get The Memo, Truth Is Poop.

POST American| 8.13.11 @ 10:47PM

--------------------CHECK IT OUT!---------------------

AS that fallout from GE reactors rains down
across North America, and the RED Chinese
set up their 'first of several' sovereignty zones
near Boise. and those MASSIVE tunnels connecting Pigeon Lake B.C. with Asia wait quietly------------AND as 2012 approaches

DO CHECK OUT

'VOTE Rick Perry for President; DO U know
his record?' ---on Google videos.

----------ALLLLL WE NEED TO KNOW-----------

George Felton | 8.16.11 @ 4:27PM

Nothing is ever sure. Who knows at the end we all may be surprised.

George Felton | 8.16.11 @ 4:30PM

Who knows at the end we all may be surprised. Nothing is ever sure.

The American Spectator

Campaign Crawlers

No Winners… Yet

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (424) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 6:21AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 7:22AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:11AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:19AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:36AM

WJ| 8.12.11 @ 12:19PM

massmile | 8.12.11 @ 1:13PM

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:45PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:13PM

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 5:37PM

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 6:08PM

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 6:15PM

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 9:22PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 1:03AM

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:40AM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 4:29PM

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 11:10AM

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:36PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:12PM

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:38AM

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 3:37PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:18PM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 4:53PM

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 5:15PM

W| 8.12.11 @ 8:47PM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:25PM

TrueBlue| 8.12.11 @ 7:25PM

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:32AM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:09PM

carnot| 8.13.11 @ 8:40AM

Clint| 8.13.11 @ 10:36AM

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:43AM

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:40PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:07PM

Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 9:23PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 12:57AM

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:39PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:06PM

Alan Brooks| 8.13.11 @ 8:13PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 8:26PM

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 8:17AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:24AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 8:40AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 8:49AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:08AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:15AM

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 9:00AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:05AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 9:14AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:23AM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 1:07PM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:32PM

Clint| 8.12.11 @ 6:29PM

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:45AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.12.11 @ 9:39AM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:44AM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 9:44AM

Drunken Sailor| 8.12.11 @ 10:19AM

Elron H.| 8.12.11 @ 10:47AM

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 2:45PM

Joseph| 8.13.11 @ 5:42PM

Margie| 8.13.11 @ 6:04PM

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 9:23AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.12.11 @ 9:33AM

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 10:32AM

WJ| 8.12.11 @ 12:23PM

Charles Easterly| 8.12.11 @ 1:00PM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 1:34PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 4:22PM

Doctor Right| 8.12.11 @ 4:57PM

Jack in Wi.| 8.12.11 @ 6:27PM

Margie| 8.12.11 @ 6:36PM

W| 8.12.11 @ 8:54PM

Vlady| 8.13.11 @ 10:54AM

Charles| 8.12.11 @ 9:21PM