Reader Mail
Ron Paul and Conservatism: An Exchange
Jack Hunter, the Ron Paul 2012 campaign blogger, responds to Jeffrey Lord’s Tuesday column. With a reply by Mr. Lord.
(Page 2 of 3)
And “radical” is certainly the operative word. The supposedly “kooky” Paul believes we should only wage wars of national defense — not irrational offense. Paul supported military action against Afghanistan after 9/11 because there was a clear link between Al-Qaeda and that country. Paul opposed the Iraq War because he believed that country had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not possess WMDs.
Was Paul right about Iraq? Admitted Buckley as early as in 2004 “If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.” Lord’s former boss Jack Kemp wrote in 2002 that based on the evidence he had seen, there wasn’t “a compelling case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”
Lord is right about one thing — Paul’s campaign is about reeducation. It’s about reminding Republicans still confused after Bush what real conservatism is. Have Paul and some of his admirers criticized their fellow conservatives? Yes, but typically only to the degree that those figures continue to value partisanship over conservative principle. Early National Review was defined in large part by constant intellectual spats, in which some of conservatism’s most important figures (Frank Meyer vs. Russell Kirk, for instance) argued over the true definition of that term.
Reflection, reexamination — and yes, reeducation — have long been integral to the health of the conservative movement. Concerning Paul and “real” conservatism, the question today should be this: Is today’s Tea Party-influenced GOP more conservative than Bush’s GOP? And if we can agree that it is, is today’s GOP now closer to Paul’s philosophy or Bush’s?
That Paul still upsets many by asking hard questions,
attacking sacred cows and challenging convention is understandable.
But in doing so, it is also undeniable that Ron Paul continues to
make the Republican Party more conservative.
— Jack Hunter
(Jack Hunter writes at “Paulitical Ticker,” where he is the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign blogger. He also blogs at SouthernAvenger.com.)
Jeffrey Lord
replies:
Ron Paul’s blogger-in-chief Jack Hunter, aka “the Southern
Avenger,” seems to begin his history always at very interesting
spots.
He asks if I ever considered George W. Bush a “neo-liberal.” Just as I’ve met Ron Paul, I’ve met George W. Bush. Both are good and decent men. But alas, my boss was Ronald Reagan. So alas for both men, yes indeed I do consider them to have liberal tendencies. For Ron Paul it’s his addiction to leftist foreign policy, for George W. Bush it’s his acceptance of statist philosophy on exactly issues like Medicare Plan D, No Child Left Behind, etc. There is a difference, as I have written many a time, between a “Reaganite” and a “Bushie.” This is apparently a news flash for Mr. Hunter. Mr. Bush and Mr. Paul are simply liberal on different sides of the policy coin — one, Bush, domestically, the other, Paul, on the foreign policy side. In Paul’s case his mantra is the same as non-interventionist left-winger George McGovern’s in 1972: “Come Home America.”
It is always a very good thing to realize, as Ronald Reagan used to say, that the Republican Party is a political movement and not a social club. And political movements must have two things to both survive and move forward: core principles and ideas. Congressman Paul deserves credit for moving the current discussion forward. Yes indeed, there is little doubt that 2012 Republican presidential candidates are in some fashion adopting Ron Paul’s ideas even if not attributing them when doing so. In the writing world this is called plagiarism, in the political world this is the way history unfolds. The New Deal agenda of Franklin Roosevelt, for example, moved the country in a direction first laid out in a substantive fashion by the populists of the late 1800s. One could charge plagiarism, but in point of fact no American living life in November of 1932 seemed to have cared who thought of FDR’s ideas first. C’est la vie in politics generally.
Particularly amusing is Mr. Hunter’s insistence that Ron Paul is “reminding Republicans still confused after Bush what real conservatism is.” Actually, it seems Ron Paul apparently uses this sentiment as shtick. Why would I say that? In 1988 Ron Paul ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. His opponent: Russell Means, the famous Indian rights activist. Mr. Means wrote in his memoirs that Paul insisted “Reagan wasn’t really a conservative and didn’t represent conservative Republicans.” Means was so in sync with Ron Paul that he agreed, adding that Reagan was a “Mussolini fascist.” Newsflash: Ron Paul believes Ronald Reagan was a fascist? Tell us more, Mr. Hunter!
The interesting thing about the Ron Paul-Russell Means connection is that it perfectly illustrates Mr. Hunter’s hypocrisy on issues of self-determination. In this video Mr. Hunter makes his usual impassioned case for why Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. He even says Lincoln’s idea of saving the Union was genocide. The problem, of course, is that Russell Means applies this same principle to all the ancestors of Ron Paul and Jack Hunter who showed up on the shores of North America and proceeded, from Hunter’s view, to commit “genocide” so Mr. Hunter could live the good life in South Carolina or Washington, D.C., neither of which belonged to Hunter’s ancestors. So Hunter’s idea of the valiant Confederacy is, gently put, a phony. The only difference between Lincoln and Hunter is that Hunter would sanction “genocide” to save South Carolina and the Confederacy for Southern whites. The pleas of Indians for self-determination are no big deal. And, of course, he seems to have no problem with the fact that the Confederate Constitution completely eliminated 100% of civil liberties for its own citizens of a certain color.
The reason no one thinks conservatives George Will or Ann Coulter are anti-Semitic when they discuss “neoconservatives” is that neither Will nor Coulter have a reputation for anti-Semitism, although because the latter criticizes liberal Jews for accepting pandering from Democrats, liberal Democrats have so charged, hilariously.
The central problem here is in foreign policy. Simplified more than a bit, it’s the oldest of human questions: Do you let the bully regulate your behavior — or do you do what you choose, act like a free man — and take on the bully? Ron Paul repeatedly tries to convey that the Founding Fathers were “non-interventionists” and therefore conservative. The problem is that this is historically not so. To a Father they chose to take on the bully.
General George Washington authorized an attack across the American border on Quebec in 1775. John Adams conducted the Quasi-War against France, authorized by Congress in July of 1798. Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli to fight the Barbary pirates. James Madison, father of the Constitution Paul cites so frequently, invaded Canada. James Monroe drew a line around, literally, half the planet Earth and declared it an American protectorate. Ron Paul says that he is asking if American foreign policy hasn’t over the decades put Americans in greater danger and made Americans more vulnerable to attack. In every single one of the above examples the answer to Paul’s question is a resounding yes.
If Paul was right about Iraq, the Founding Fathers — the men Paul identifies as conservatives — were wrong about their actions invading and attacking other countries as well. Per Ron Paul’s logic, had we not antagonized the British, the French, the Barbary pirates, the Canadians and all of the Western Hemisphere, Americans would not have died and we could have saved a bunch of money.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (498) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/24/ron-paul-and-conservative-reed
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Screwtape Protests
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike Hawk| 8.24.11 @ 6:45AM
Have fun today, all you Paulbots. He is still an aged, past prime, Libertarian fringe kook. Not a viable candate, not a Conservative, and certainly not a Tea Party founder or TP supported pol.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:19AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
“Anytime any of the other candidates wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and humidity is 102. I will ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle…"
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 7:23AM
Please stop the "Dr." crap. It sounded elitist when the libs referred to "Dr. Howard Dean", and it does so now. You are not helping your cause. It's just pissing people off.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:37AM
No,Israel Firster.
You sound like Tokyo Rose.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 10:21AM
"No,Israel Firster" and that is a perfect example why many conservatives loath Ron Paul supporters. Instead of simply saying you are calling him by a title he earned you instantly resort to name calling. Good Luck with convincing people you are principled.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:35AM
The Big Yellow Bus calls the Dr.Ron Paul supporters yellow.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 10:41AM
Israel Firster is just an honest term. Israel controls most of our political class using, bribery, blackmail and intimidation. They do this with our own laudered foreign aid money. Congress is Israeli occupied territory and every person who can think for himself knows It.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 11:06AM
In 2011, Israel's entire GDP was $211 billion. The US Department of Labor's spending in 2010 was $206 billion.
Your 'facts' are not facts, they are imaginings which you imagined to support your non-sensible conclusions.
Wake up to reality man, it is the danged Caliphate...Israel is the canary in the coal mine.
We are next.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 11:07AM
"Israel Firster is just an honest term"
So is bullshit and your explanation smells just like it.
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:13PM
That's simply the largest pile of excrement stated STUPIDLY that I've ever read in 65 years. Forrest Gump was sadly correct!!!!!
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 1:23PM
Jackboot in Wi.
It is one thing to attempt to make a claim that the US has leaned diplomatically too much in the direction of one country but to make the claim that the Jews control most of our political class using bribery, blackmail, and intimidation is not only paranoid, ant-semetic but classic jew hating propaganda..the cream of NAZI propaganda and worldview. Keep talking. You make our case. You are a jew hating liberal anarchist. Am I name calling or accurately describing you?
You are an embarassment. As a conservative, I denounce you, I reject you, I spit on you. You make me sick. Did I make myself clear?
Michael Tomlinson| 8.24.11 @ 10:56AM
God bless Israel and Americans who stand by the brave little democracy in a sea of Muslim authoritarianism, collectivism and extremism.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 1:53PM
Amen!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 2:14PM
Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.
SpiralArchitect| 8.24.11 @ 3:25PM
Poll's are good for three things, in no special order:
Fishing, holding things up (ie:powerlines, etc) & manipulation of data for a favorable presentaion.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 3:33PM
Then, ignore them as We Tea Party Patriots & Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate,Dr.Ron Paul pass you by, Sport.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:24PM
Simon, Margie, Mike: Have I mentioned how awesome you guys are lately? Thank you so much for existing and putting up with those cretins. Let me know the next time you want to escape a heatwave in July---we have a nice lakeside community here and I'll spring for a few dinners.
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 10:17PM
How can they be a real democracy while having a conscript army? Whose the sovereign in that country? What do they offer us other than worries. Why should I as an American citizen be loyal to any country other than the US? What's with your obsession over a country whose Mossad is known to have spied on us?
Mr. Torello| 8.25.11 @ 11:49AM
And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
SpiralArchitect| 8.24.11 @ 3:23PM
Review how he, Drunken Sailor, politely & with courtesy not only showed you the error in your way ( which could benefit you if you heed his advice ) but highlighted how big of an ass you are.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:22AM
He is Dr. Ron Paul, OB/Gyn. Which is why he knows NOTHING about the pernicious effects of Marijuana, for example; knowing nothing of the research of the Christchurch group.
As for antisemitism: Clint calls Jews "SandMonkeys." Paul attracts asswipes.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:46AM
Uh Oh !
Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Tool Job attempts to play The Anti-Semite Victim Card again.
Asked & Answered ad nauseam.
"Clint| 2.2.11 @ 7:44PM
Brooks,
You are a negative attention craving ObammaBoy Propagandist.
My position is that U.S. Oil Companies Need To Drill Baby Drill Our Own Oil & marginalize all Middle East Sand Monkeys, including Your Tribe."
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:17PM
OMG, and I thought Tim McVey acted alone w/o followers!!!!!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 1:53PM
We didn't Arlen Specter acted alone w/o RINO-CINO fellow travelers, like you, Sport .
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:24PM
Yes, Clint, that is an antisemitic comment, you brainless goon.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 3:38PM
israel Firster Tool Job attempts to Play His Anti-Semite Victimhood Card, again.
You sound like An ObamaBoy.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 1:56PM
Him and his supporters are too busy smoking the stuff and defending its legalization to know much of reality.
They're the old hippie anti-war pot heads all "grown up."
And we don't want them in our government in responsible positions.
Thanks, but no thanks,
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 2:15PM
Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.
Daniel| 8.25.11 @ 2:22PM
Hey Margie,
I do not smoke pot but I support Ron Paul. I sure there are a portion of supporters for whom the marijuana issue is central but it is by no means the only reason why Ron Paul is a desirable candidate to his followers. I support his candidacy because of his Austrian economic philosophy and the implicit rejection of Keynesian economics. He understands the business cycle and the importance of sound money. If GOP voters care about jobs this coming election, we should understand the theories that underpin our economic policy and hold our candidates accountable to this issue. Otherwise, we resort to nothing more than divisive name-calling and generalizing (from both sides) that serves no other purpose than to offend.
I believe the next presidential term will be absolutely critical in determining the future of our economy, and by extension our country. Politics as usual is no longer a luxury we can afford.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:14PM
Hello Daniel,
There are many conservative candidates running in the Republican party this time around that DO get it.
Because of this, along with their sane understanding of foreign policy, Mr. Paul hasn't a chance.
Shane| 8.25.11 @ 11:50PM
Dear Margie,
Do you know of any other candidate on that stage that had an inkling of an understanding of Austrian economics before 2008?
Do you know of any other candidate that understood the looming housing bubble as early as 2002.
Do you know of any other candidate that stood on the house or senate floor (or any other respective platform) as early as 2002-03 and denounced the practice of foreign aid, particularly to Pakistan who very well might have been housing and paying for the defense of Bin Laden? (whoops)
There are plenty of candidates on the stage who have solutions to our problems, after they are problems. There is only one on the stage who alerts us to problems before they are problems. Ron Paul has been ignored for most of his political career, and while I can't pretend he is right about everything (though I agree with him on alot) he is certainly more deserving of my vote than any other respectable candidate in the spot light. Some will tell me I am wasting my vote. They are wrong, voting for anyone else is a waste of my time and energy, and I refuse to commit it to people who only get things when its politically rewarding.
But we are all entitled to our own opinions.
Thanks for listening.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 6:20PM
Clint It is official. It is a three man race now. According to Gallup Rick Perry is at 29%, Myth Romney is at 17%. and Ron Paul is at 13%. The nice lady and flash in the pan Michelle Bachman is heading down and out. The dimwitted Perry is just a few week media sensation. Romney is sinking. The polls also reveal that by huge majorities, people agree with Dr. Paul one getting out of the wars, ending foreign aid, and auditing the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul for the second day in a row is tied with Obama head to head in different polls. Today it is Rassmussen. Yesterday it was Gallup. Fox News has caved and invited Ron to be on 3 Fox shows in the next four days. He will be on Fox News Sunday. He will be on with Lew Dobbs tonight. I am going out on a big limb and will say that Sarah Palin will endorse Ron on Sept. 7th. I am proud to present the next President of the United States Dr. Ron Paul.
Erik the Red| 8.24.11 @ 6:42PM
Jack in Wi. Believe me when I tell you that I am one person who certainly hopes you are right. Ron Paul is definitely the best for our nation out of anyone running. Unfortunately, the uphill battle is not against the liberal media and their lackeys - that is to be expected. No, the larger obstacle is facing those in the "conservative" camp who have been subtly brainwashed over the past few years that neoconservatism is the way things should be done. We are in for a dogfight, but I personally am up to the challenge to do what I can to contribute to the success of Ron Paul's campaign and eventual victory.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:14PM
Real conservatives are fine Pro life people. Ron has a good team of evangleicals working for him. I expect the huge majority of evangelicals to vote for Ron. He was elected by huge majorities in a rural Texas district. He knows how to reach the working people who are conservatives.
Mike M| 8.25.11 @ 3:54PM
Hmmm..... Anyone else think Clint might be a false flag?
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.28.11 @ 8:18PM
This.
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 10:13PM
Sorry you couldn't make it through med school chuck.
chuck| 8.25.11 @ 7:11AM
Chemical Engineering.........not exactly one of the easiest degrees to obtain. Truthfully, I would never had been able to stomach 4 more years of med school, then 4 interning. God bless those who do.
My comment was not a slam on Dr. Ron Paul. He earned the title, and if he was a practicing doctor, I would certainly use it. However politician Ron Paul, does not require using the Doctor title.
I stand by my original comment.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:15PM
I appreciate you, chuck.
Robert| 8.25.11 @ 1:34PM
Dr. Paul worked hard and long as an undergraduate and in medical school and as an intern and a resident to earn the title Doctor, and worked hard as a doctor to save lives and give comfort and aid to patients. He deserves the respect that the title grants him. Only a jealous ignoramus would deny him that respect.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:04AM
Hi Bob- I was waiting for someonelse to reply that. It's completly immature: If you call a Doctor a Doctor then its elitist? You should also ask him then why do we call Romney: Governor when he is no longer a Governor? Why do we call Santoreum Senator when his term is up? At least Ron is still a Doctor.
chuck| 8.26.11 @ 9:15PM
It's the elitist tone of the commenter, not the Doctor title earned by Ron Paul. If you panties weren't in such a wad, you would understand, as most of us non-Paulistas do.
The Congress has many Doctors, such as Phil Gringrey from Georgia, former Senator Frist from Tennessee, among others. I very rarely ever heard the others addressed as "Doctor".
I still stand by my original comment.
And it sure is fun riling up the Paulistas!
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:24AM
All you neocons have left is name calling and lies. Your policies have sunk the party and country. go slither back to the Communists and Democrats from whence you came.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 10:23AM
See Clint's post above before you try the "only defense you have is name calling and lies" defense. Even if you have a viable point some of your fellow supporters only post to get a reaction, not to convince others.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 12:24PM
We Tea Party Patriots Counterpunch Your Israel Firster Smear Campaign,which is designed to repetedly attempt to marginalize Dr.Ron Paul & his supporters.
chuck| 8.25.11 @ 7:12AM
You marginalize yourselves.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 1:56AM
Clint's behaving badly, but look at the first comment. I read Hunter's response, then Lord's rebuttal, and was surprised that Lord totally ignored Hunter's points and digressed into some weird land where Reagan was conservative because he made government bigger and pulled troops out of the Middle East, or something. I scrolled down to the comments, and the very first poster is a hostile, derisive post... by a neocon.
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:20PM
Go build an oven in Germany and crawl into it!!!!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 1:54PM
Go To RINO-CINO Hell, Old Stinky Pants.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:26AM
He is the only one that can beat Obama and the polls prove it. The public wants out of wars, bailouts and foreign aid by huge majorities. That is the program you want to run on.
Dick Nome| 8.24.11 @ 8:43AM
BS. McQueeg was the only one who could beat Hildebeast too. Didn't work. You RubeP-bots are nuttier than he is.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:24AM
When the first nuke WMD explodes on US shores courtesy of an Iranian sponsored group, I will do my damndest to make sure Paulbots are first in to clean the debris---without radiation gear.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 10:34AM
I am far more concerned with an Israeli false flag attack to provoke us into another war. They have a long history of using terror to gain their ends. Iran has no nuclear weapons. It hasn't attacked anyone in hundreds of years. They won't attack us because they know they would be leveled. Read up on the Lavon Affair and the Terror attacks on Jews in Iraq to scare them into coming to Israel. Google them and also Google Israeli False Flag attacks.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 11:03AM
OK, enough ad hominem for now. Let's state these disagreements accurately. I think Red is the most sane Paul supporter here, but Jack will do.
Still, here it is folks, in a nutshell. Do tell me, Jack, if you think I'm misquoting, because I want to capture this accurately:
Ron Paul and his supporters do not feel that Iran or the Islamic world is much of a threat, and therefore withdrawal from military engagement with the world is a fiscally prudent thing to do. Michele Bachmann's/Rick Santorum's supporters do feel Islamic terrorism is a SIGNIFICANT threat worth engaging, with Iran or Saudi leading the group of bad players. Stripped of the fact that I believe that Jack and Clint are actual antisemites with Protocols of The Elders of Zion as bedtime reading, therein lies the difference.
Non-interventionism versus isolationism is basically tomato, tomato.Paul doesn't believe that we have a threat overseas that is not of our own making, and he believes withdrawal of our military will cause no significant problems that won't be outweighed by benefits. Bachmann supporters believe that withdrawal will be catastrophic, because nature abhors a vacuum.
I happen to think ill of our Islamist opponents. I think that they will stoop to anything to win, including the beheading of babies. I think they want us destroyed. I do not trust Ron Paul with my safety, or that of my children. I would not have Clint or Jack as babysitters for my babies.
The domestic issues, except for Paul's whacko views on Cannabis (I'm a psychiatrist for 3 Native tribes---I strongly disagree with Paul on this Professionally, and there is really not a one of you fit to debate me on this on level ground.), are essentially a wash between Paul and Bachmann. Foreign Policy is the difference. And it is significant.
That's it, folks.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 11:19AM
Nicely done!!
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:27PM
Thank you sir. It is a pleasure to be in the same world with gait challenged Navy Men. (Actually, I work with a former CPO and a Former Army SF. Both are aces.)
Have you considered| 8.24.11 @ 12:24PM
DS, I disagree with a couple of your points.
I will not debate the merits of your cannabis argument, insofar as it's effects, I will however point to the lack of Enumerated Power to address it at the federal level.
If your goal is to remain within the confines of the US Constitution, you Must submit to the states an amendment to ratify, that grants the power to control it. The perfect example of a truly constitutional way to control a substance is the 18th amendment, ie Prohibition.
Anything less is simply usurpation of power.
I agree with you that the basic issue insofar as Paul's foreign policy seems to be non-intervention vs. intervention.
I also agree that the Islamists are a very real potential threat. I am just not convinced short of total all out war that we can do much about it.
Intervention can take many forms, and, correct me if I am wrong, but most of the anti-Paul sentiment seem to focus on the lack of military intervention.
It appears that many here at TAS think that we should declare war on Iran, as there is no other practical way to accomplish the stated goal of disallowing them the bomb. I don't believe that anything less than total obliteration of Iran will accomplish the stated goal. Do you?
If this is what you agree we should do, then you should work to get representatives elected who hold this view as well, because the president in this country does not declare war, only the House has that power constitutionally.
I think it would be a great thing to debate, hopefully cordially, What The US Goal's Should be, in relation to bad actors in the ME.
I think we really should define the goals (the What) then we can explore the means (the How)
I was taught that critical thinking examines the What, Where When and How of any situation.
Let the debates begin.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 1:13PM
As for cannabis, I could care less if anyone smokes it. It lowers their drive and ability to be self motivated. Just seperates the winnow for the chaf in the job market.
As for foreign policy my basic disagreement is with the Ron Paul view of waiting to be attacked before taking any action or in other words a reactionary role vs a pro-active role. Not saying we should attack Iran as of yet and I do not believe many people have said that. However, if you have a country talking about wiping out another country and calling the US the enemy then fine. I will grant them their wish and become their enemy. Pull our troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan? I can see the arguments for that, however, if you leave before the job is done correctly you will be back there to do it again at a higher cost. Don't believe me? Can you honestly say that if we had kept marching to Bahgdad and overthrown Hussein under poppa Bush we would have had to go back under his son? I was there and can tell you that many of us wanted to finish the job then. Instead we left, with few casualties and had to go back, do it again, with many, many more casualties.
You do not defeat a enemy, hand him the power back, wait for him to rebuild, strengthen and prepare, only to go back again. You finish the job and let it be a lesson to others.
Same goes for pulling all our troops back. You pull them out of our ally countries and you no longer have a forward, rapidly deployable base. Consolidate them down? Fine, but pull them out completely? Foolish.
If the French had thought like Ron Paul and never assisted us in the Revolutionary war we would be British citizens, French Canadian, or speaking Spanish.
For now, we should encourage Democracy. When people get a taste of it they want more. Military action is a last resort. Support and supply democratic factions that may already exist first. Once it is determined that you have no alternative, go in, clean house and exterminate any and everything in your way, then assist in the rebuild. Worked in Germany and Japan. The methods we are using now in Iraq and Afghanistan are questionable and only time will tell if they will work. You do not win a battle, while simutaneously tying your hands behind your back and limiting your options.
If that makes me a Neo Conservative, I am ok with that. I put my money where my mouth was and then some. I stayed in the military for 20 years unline Ron Paul who served for 5. And that was during Viet Nam. My hats off to all Viet Nam vets but the military and times were different now than they were then.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 1:48PM
GW's post below does a much better job of explaining a view point I share with him.
GW| 8.24.11 @ 1:09PM
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 2:03PM
Dr.Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968).
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:29PM
Yes. he was in the Medical Corp. MDs start as Lt. or Captain. If I went in today, I would be Captain.
That is ZERO combat experience.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 3:41PM
Tool Job's IDF Buddies want him to enlist. They need A Latrine Seal
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 10:22PM
So what. He served. Should we now go on convincing other flight sugeons that their services aren't valuable and have them drop out because they never participated in combat? Politicians today don't serve in combat but they're more than willing to send our kids to fight for them. Bush never served in combat, and neither did Kerry. I'm sure as a flight surgeon Paul's been more useful to our country's defense cause.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 2:33PM
Like I said. 5 years service as a flight surgeon. He was a O-3 and most likely in the rear with the gear.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 3:43PM
These Israel Firsters have a bad habit of badmouthing American Military Service.
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 10:24PM
Go on telling that to all serving flight surgeons. Tell them their services is irrelevant. Go ahead. See what the consequences of your negligence are if they ever take you seriously. ad-hominem drivel is all I gather form you.
Drunken Sailor| 8.25.11 @ 8:44AM
Never disparged flight surgeons. Served with many a fine flight surgeon. But being a flight surgeon, in the rear for 5 short years, does not make one a foreign policy expert.
Sploithunter| 8.25.11 @ 1:25PM
Shooting a gun in the front lines does not make one a foreign policy expert, so what is the relevance of this entire thread?
J3_annapolis| 8.25.11 @ 8:30PM
Doctors typically enter the military as Captains. A 2-year AD stint is...unusual.
What is the "United States Air National Guard"? I know what the (insert State name...or District of Columbia) Air National Guard is, and I know that a 3-year stint in a Guard unit is also unusual.
I don't really want an answer. There is no such entity as "the United States Air National Guard".
Credit to Paul for serving.
Boomerbabe | 8.24.11 @ 9:28PM
Well put. Excellent. Some of these posts are just appalling and I am horrified people like this actually know how to use a computer, let alone own one.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 1:59AM
Fair enough, except for that part about beheading babies....but let me ask you this: what has Ron Paul ever been wrong about? Why do you doubt his judgement, when he was the only one who was predicting all the upcoming troubles back in the '90's?
JaimeInTexas| 8.25.11 @ 9:29AM
Enough of misrepresentation of Dr. Paul's, yes, doctor, Paul. The issue is FedGov's Constitutionally delegated authorities/powers. If an amendment was required to grant the authority to the FedGov to ban alcohol, why is it not also required to ban other drugs? Regardless on how we feel about drug use (I am a father of 4, want to take a guess where I stand on the issue?) the issue is whether the FedGov has the authority to ban. Ditto with showers heads, toilets, light bulbs, education, arrests of objects, banking reporting, limits, ad nauseum etc., in view that there is no explicit delegation of authority within the articles and of the 9th and 10th amendments explicit exclusion.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:16AM
I want to clarify the "Whacko" views that Paul has on Marijuana so the good Psychiatrist doesn't mislead anyone. He personally is opposed to using the Drug itself but thinks it is not Constitutional for the FEDS to be telling the Sates what to do vis a vie Marijuana. If California opts for Medical Marijuana so be it. If Georgia makes it a Felony- its up to them. This makes him a Whaco???The misinformers are trying to convince us that DR PAUL is going to force legalization upon all the States.
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:22PM
Google Nazi Germany concentration camps!!!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 12:46PM
You were afraid of Saddam too.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.26.11 @ 1:50AM
What will be your position when the main streets on US shores inevitably explode like Greece because of the debt incurred by endless wars and the unfunded entitlement mandates of the Republicrat Welfare/Warfare State?
Mike| 8.26.11 @ 9:22PM
Israel hit Iran in 81 (Operation Opera) and set them back years. They wouldn't hesitate to do the same. Do you really think you know more about Iran's nuclear program than Israel's intelligence? Pffft. Israel knows how to do what the US can't: take out a national threat without the quagmire of nation building or occupation.
Ron Paul would take the leash off of Israel. If anything, he's helping them more than any other candidate or Obama.
Quartermaster| 8.24.11 @ 7:57AM
Lord still has not dealt with the core of his argument against Paul, interventionism. Wilson was a leftist and racist. there is no question about it. That it was leftists that opposed that is simply what is known as a "bad fact." Lord has yet to show such opposition is wrong. Instead he resorts to smears, teh very thing the left specializes in.
Lord's article is still drivel, and his response to Lord is just part of his effort to change the subject.
The neoconfederate thing is characteristic of neoconservatism (a leftist ideology if there ever was one).
Once again, I am not a fan of Ron Paul. But Lord stoops to the very thing he decries in the left. Neocons are good at such things, alas.
You, Lord, are no conservative.
Ryan| 8.24.11 @ 8:23AM
What is a "neoconfederate?"
Sea Cucumber| 8.24.11 @ 8:46AM
A leftist slur. It can be used to denigrate anyone who favors decentralized government, thinks Lincoln was wrong to invade the South, or a Southerner who isn't ashamed of being Southern. It's used to imply that anyone who meets the above criteria is a racist who wants to reinstate slavery.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:24AM
Quarter---he was RR's Political Director. He has actually DONE it, unlike us.
Quartermaster| 8.24.11 @ 5:54PM
And he has proven beyond doubt that he is a faux-conservative. It doesn't matter who he worked for.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:03AM
**shrugs** Lord is probably one of those guys that worked really hard to talk Reagan into his embarrassing choice of a Rockefeller Republican vice-president. Meanwhile, Paul certainly has more than a couple of ex-Reagan staffers in his camp. too. The difference is, he got the conservatives.
Alan Brooks| 8.24.11 @ 8:29PM
the GOP must be cast into the lake of fire for all eternity so that the multitudes can say "the Republican Party has been cast down into fiery perdition and the smoke of its burning can be seen by all"
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:22PM
The more you call him names, the more you prove how truly foolish you are. Every time you cast aspersions his way, his message grows louder. Every time you try to discredit him, his credibility rises. Why? Because you can't control the spread of truth. Because you can't stop ideas that are rock-solid and time-tested. Because people know "real" when they see it.
John Green| 8.24.11 @ 10:52PM
So a man who wants peace and Constitutional government is labeled a fringe kook? If you have to love war to be a conservative then hell is filled with conservatives. When you fly I hope you like the way your wife has a choice of (1) being seen naked by a government goon via a backscatter scanner, or (2) being sexually groped by some other government goon. Of all candidates in either party Paul is the only one who will restore the 4th Amendment.
By the way, the famous $6 million dollar money bomb in 2007 for Ron Paul (not organized by Paul's campaign, but by a free lance supporter) was held on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. It is Paul who was at the birth of the Tea Party movement, no matter how much the war mongering neocons try to pretend otherwise. (If you love high taxes, you should love war. Advocates of endless war who pretend to favor low taxes are hypocrites.)
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:21AM
Well said.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:23AM
Hey, I thought the "Paulbots" were supposed to be the idiots who name call and disparage other posters in the comment section. You've gone and got the signals crossed.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:22AM
You lint licker!!!
(There, better?)
:-P
Jason| 8.25.11 @ 11:01PM
Ron Paul has young ideas, and most of his supporters are young. Im 29 and his age means nothing to me. I would support a quadrupole amputee if they told the truth, over slick young fast talking liars.
And Ron Pauls supporters DID start the TEA parties, that is a matter of historical FACT.
No one can stop an idea who's time has come!
John| 8.24.11 @ 6:51AM
I am a lifelong conservative.
I have voted Republican my entire life.
I am the CEO of a business (128 employees).
I am a husband, and father of 3.
I am a Christian.
I am voting for Ron Paul.
Butler Reynolds| 8.24.11 @ 7:48AM
We have little in common, but...
I am a longtime small government guy.
I have avoided voting Republican my entire life.
I work for a rich guy.
I am also a husband and father of 3.
I am a non-theist.
I'll probably vote for Ron Paul.
DaveD| 8.24.11 @ 7:52AM
I am a life long Conservativc.
I have voted Republican better then 90% of the time.
I am currently retired, though I'd rather be working.
I am a husband and father of 2.
I am a Christian.
There isn't a close pin big enough to clamp down on my nose to get me to vote for Ron Paul.
Which proves exactly and precisely nothing.
DaveB| 8.24.11 @ 8:05AM
No, but you spelling "clothes" as "close" (Not even close) sure does prove something.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:05AM
Why do you think you're a conservative?
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:24AM
Are you anti-war?
Small government?
Oppose entitlements? (SSI/HUD/Welfare?)
Anti-inflation?
Pro-business?
These are Dr. Paul's positions.
John Navratil| 8.24.11 @ 9:15AM
John,
I am a lifelong conservative.
I have voted for the best candidate in every election (oops, I missed a run-off in 1997) and that has been almost always Republican.
I am a sole proprietor of a consultancy.
I am a Christian, husband and father of two.
I would vote for Ron Paul for the House in a New York minute.
I would never vote for Ron Paul for President.
John Green| 8.24.11 @ 11:04PM
I find it odd that you'd want to see Paul as your representative but not as your President. If you like war (and the main thing the conservative Paul haters seem to have against the man, is that he is, like Jesus, pro peace) then prove to me that you're not a hypocrite and enlist to fight in the infantry yourself.
BTW, people who *are* fighting the wars are highly pro Ron Paul. He got more donations from active military than any other Republican candidate.
William Casino| 8.24.11 @ 11:55PM
John, he actually got more donations from active duty military than ALL other republican candiates COMBINED. I'm not picking on you, I'm just very proud of this fact.
Bill
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:34AM
I am an anarcho-capitalists.
I am a veteran.
I voted for Perot, (skipped while deployed), Bush, Bush, and wrote in Ron Paul.
I am married with 1 child.
I am a Christian.
I support Ron Paul in foreign AND domestic policy. I regret voting for Bush (twice!!!). I have seen first-hand what our foreign policy does to the middle east, and have the scars and limp to prove it.
I have studied Austrian Economics and am convinced that Dr. Paul's views on job creation, monitary policy, trade, regulation, and spending are spot on. He is the only person in DC that predicted the 07-current depression, so it stands to reason that his answers should carry more weight than any other.
I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012, regardless of who becomes the GOP nominee. If they want my vote, they must run Dr. Paul.
I refuse to compromise ever again. I refuse to pick the "lesser of two evils" again.
Liberty or death.
Steve| 8.25.11 @ 12:05PM
Thanks John for starting this.
I am a traditional Catholic and Christian.
I am a classical liberal and Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. I am also a medievalist.
I homeschool with my wife.
I am an energy attorney at an international law firm.
I am a husband and father of 2, soon 3.
I rarely vote.
I will vote Ron Paul.
Steve| 8.25.11 @ 12:05PM
Thanks John for starting this.
I am a traditional Catholic and Christian.
I am a classical liberal and Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. I am also a medievalist.
I homeschool with my wife.
I am an energy attorney at an international law firm.
I am a husband and father of 2, soon 3.
I rarely vote.
I will vote Ron Paul.
Sploithunter| 8.25.11 @ 1:45PM
I am a lifelong conservative.
I have been a registered Republican my entire (adult) life.
I am a industry security expert and PhD student in that same field.
I am a husband and father of 3.
I am a Christian.
I voted R for 18 years and now see that policy is a path to destruction. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Any R who supports the Patriot Act, undeclared preemptive wars, or expansion of federal power will not get my vote regardless of the D competition.
I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary.
Unless there is a serious change in the GOP field, I will not vote R in the general if Paul doesn't win the primary.
Jay| 8.24.11 @ 7:04AM
I am done with National Review. The effort with which it is straining to exclude Ron Paul strains credulity. NR is no longer about championing or advancing conservatism, but about protecting the Republican establishment – quite often at the expense of conservatism. Since high school I have been reading NR as a refreshing retreat from the media’s pervasive liberal opinion. Now when I go to NR all I find is an empty glass crusted with status quo bromides.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:29AM
I was a subscriber to National Review for 42 years. Buckley got in trouble about 20 years ago and let the neocons take over. they destroyed the magazine.
aware| 8.24.11 @ 4:56PM
National Review=New World Order.
Boomerbabe | 8.24.11 @ 9:43PM
Feel the same way. Very disappointed - they are not providing equal coverage for each candidate, just like the MSM.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:12AM
Like ( Dr. Ron ) Paul, Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them.
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 7:20AM
I think this is the 20th time you posted this same message. You're starting to sound like "young and beautiful" looking for a man.
Get some original material.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:26AM
You're starting to sound like an Israel Firster NeoCon Propagandist.
Jay Pitsby| 8.24.11 @ 7:47AM
Exactly the sort of goofy response and name-calling that makes me cringe. "Israel Firster NeoCon Propagandist"? Good grief! Lord's point made.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:55AM
Lord Played His Anti-Semitic Card.
William R| 8.24.11 @ 8:23AM
Clint, you need to get off that kind of reply. You feed Lord's narrative.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 8:39AM
We Tea Party Patriots know what buttons need pushin'.
You do your thing & allow us to do ours.
Joe Mama| 8.24.11 @ 10:01AM
What? Don't be silly! They know what we should be doing better than we do. We can't be trusted to live our lives properly. We'll just mess it up!
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:26AM
Bachmann worked on a Kibbutz. Problems with that, ClintNaziboyJihadistCatamiteButtSpreader?
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:36AM
You understand, I only talk like this to Clint.
Otherwise: very simply, the best Defense is a good Offense. We are at war with the new Caliphate. This is why Libyan intervention was a bad idea, and Nation building in Iraq will ultimately be useless. It is also the reason to support Israel. The money we give to Arab states goes into the leaders' pockets (witness Mubarak's fortune). The money we give to Israel goes into buying our weapons to fight Islamists with.
Demographics show we are in for a world of hurt over the next 20 years. The Paul campaign deals with that as effectively as Obama deals with the deficit. We need a Tea partier who is for a strong defense. She has a name. Two of them, actually.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 11:09AM
You know what you can do with your Caliphate fairy tale. Islam was a backward third world nothing until we stuck Israel in the middle of it and woke up the sleeping giant. Saudi Arabia funds most radical Muslims and is building Mosques all over the world. It provided 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists. Yet following the neocon playbook we invade the country that was keeping the balance between the Shia's of Iraq and the Sunni's of Saudi Arabia. That was Saddam Husain's Iraq. Saddam ran a secular regime.That allowed women to participate in a modern way. He let every one have the right to a drink and anyone could own a gun. The large Christian community ran most of the bars and liquor stores. He let the Christians practice their faith freely. The vice President of Iraq was a practicing Catholic. On top of that he was an old ally of ours and a former CIA employee. Hussain could have easily been out ally in the war on terror. He would not let Al Quaida opperate in Iraq. They hated him and his secular regime. Now we have the Shia friends of Iran in charge of Iraq. The large Christian community has been driven out, killed and displaced..
Following the neocons playbook on foreign policy we have had 6000 killed, 50,000 wounded with many diabilities, and we are bankrupt. Boy they are some smart cookies. Why do we allow them anywhere near out movement? They are all a pack of lying criminals, in my opinion.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 11:25AM
"He would not let Al Quaida opperate in Iraq. They hated him and his secular regime."
Really? Hmm, the Weekly standard September 2003 issue disagrees.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....3jgqyi.asp
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 11:32AM
Ha Ha Ha The Weekly Standard you have to be kidding. That's the best joke I heard in a long time. . I am off to more charity work. You can lie and name call till the cows come home.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 11:54AM
Would you prefer American Thinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com.....eda_1.html
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:31PM
REALLY?, Jack. Islam is birthing faster than we are. The former Head of Rule of Law Training at the Army War College, who's friend of mine, thinks you are full of it.
Ask the Swedes or the Norwegians, both of whom have over 80% of their rapes committed by the nothings how minor they are. Israel has NOTHING to do with the rapes in the Scandinavian countries, the cartoon attacks in Denmark, the 7/7 bombings in Britain, etc. You are, like your mentor, a doofus.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 5:37PM
What are you going to about that? Are you going to murder them all because they are following God's adomition. " To be fruitful and mutiply. " We have aborted our future. We have to learn how to live together like Jesus said. " Love your neighbor as yourselves. "
Tom deSabla| 9.26.11 @ 12:01AM
"We" didn't "stick" Israel in the middle of anything.
If you knew your history, you'd realize that we were sitting on our hands in the beginning, when Israel declared independence - it was the French, ironically, who stepped up to the plate with Mirage fighters. We didn't even encourage statehood, we gave Israel nothing, and weren't involved until much later.
The point is, as Ron Paul says, Israel can handle themselves, and they don't need our meddling nor our aid.
......
And I'm highly suspicious of old Clint here too.
I don't think real tea partiers or Paul supporters would use his methods or his rhetoric. I think he's false flag troll.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 2:02PM
Ron Paul IS Obama.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 5:38PM
George Bush gave us Obama. Now you want to give us another George Bush.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:32AM
Come to think of it I've never seen both Ron Paul and Obama together in the same place at the same time. The birther movement is dead so maybe you could ask Obama to prove through documentation that he is not Ron Paul.
Tom deSabla| 9.26.11 @ 12:03AM
Yes, Margie...and up is down, and right is wrong, and the moon is made of green cheese.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:11AM
Why do you think that Paul has no credibility in foreign policy? That's what baffles me. He predicted an attack on American soil, and when it happened the first time, he said it was going to happen again. In 2003 he told us Bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was dead right about Iraq, he knew we would be in Afghanistan for years upon years.....he's the only person who either knows, or at least tells, the truth, and yet all his critics can do is insist he is still wrong about things that haven't happened yet. Please help me understand how you pick "experts" to believe in, because I seriously don't get it.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:53AM
WTF ?
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:32AM
Clint, William R is your ally and you attack him, too. Love you approach at consensus building. Exhibit one on why Paulbots will lose.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:53AM
WTF?
Eric| 8.24.11 @ 2:06PM
You are not a "Tea Party Patriot," you are a usurper, a bandwagon-jumper, a tagalong from Fox News.
When the Tea Party was formed, it was egalitarian, calm, focused, and non-inflammatory. It was also in direct opposition to Bush's terrible administration.
Now that Obama's here, and Beck's jumped aboard, it's racist, denegratory, neoconservative, theocratic, and revolting.
You are not a patriot. You have never been a patriot. You are a follower. You are the reason that for the past 3 years, I've been ashamed to admit I ever had faith in that organization.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 3:49PM
Apparently, You ain't one of Us Tea Party Patriots.
Surprise.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 5:40PM
I wonder how much of our foreign aid money is in Glenn Beck's and John Hagee's Swiss bank accounts?
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 5:43PM
Clint is an original thinker not some Fox News zooomie. I used to love Fox News and Rush Limbaugh until they went all Israel and all war, all the time.
Boomerbabe | 8.24.11 @ 9:44PM
You, sir a NOT a Tea Party Patriot! You are disgusting.
Sploithunter| 8.25.11 @ 1:54PM
Clint, are you a NR plant or troll? Your comments do RP no favors. So much so, that I can't believe you really believe in the movement. Your comments prevent any real discussion or debate. Paul challenges serious issues with critical thought and you do the opposite, preventing any hope of real discussion on this thread. I don't believe you to be a Paul supporter.
Ron Paul 2012
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 10:26AM
Finally a Paul supporter with a voice of sanity.
Even if I disagree with your choice of canidate I thank you for trying to explain to Clint how his arguments hurt your cause.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:54AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz !
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 8:18AM
The establishment Republicans hated both Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. They called Goldwater a mental case and did everything in their power to make sure he lost to Johnson. They called Ronald Reagan senile and a dimwit.They ran John Anderson against him as a third party to make sure he lost. Again they would rather have Democrat, no matter how bad, then a real conservative. Mr. Lord continues with that tradition.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:40AM
I agree.
Didn't the GOP claim Goldwater was a racist Bircher, as well? Wasn't it a Rockafeller that gave that speech at the RNC?
Now Goldwater and Reagan are like SAINTS in the GOP. Ron Paul will have his day. Lets just hope that day is at the 2012 Republican National Convention!!!
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 7:18AM
Can't we get over the conservative, not conservative, neo-conservative,neo-liberal thing? This is not about names. It's about what Ron Paul stands for! Domestic issues...he's great! If it's not enumerated in the constitution, it's not allowed. Foreign policy......he sucks! Sees nothing wrong with Iran developing nuclear weapons. Probably would not have seen anything wrong with the German rearmament of the 30's. Willfully blind, and out of touch on foreign policy.
And I believe we can all agree the Bush was no conservative, in any meaning of the word.
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 7:48AM
Funny you point to German re-armament. It is a fact that American and European oppressive policies created the economic situation Hitler came to power in.
The problem is not our intervention in countries business, it is the method. We are the proverbial bull in a china shop and Ron Paul is right that we should disengage from so much overt aggression.
Let Iran have a nuke, Pakistan was much more unstable when they got theirs and no holocaust has happened. In fact we should help them get a nuke in exchange for normalized relations and open diplomacy. That is called reality.
Regime change is a fantasy that does not work as we are too clumsy at it.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 8:08AM
Iran is not building nukes and is under constant inspecion by international agencies. I believe the Saudi's have enough nukes to blow Israel away. Who do you think financed the Pakistani bomb? Turkey will soon be building a bomb as well because it doesn't trust Israel. Egypt hates Israel as well. How many people are we supposed to attack just because Israel doesn't want any Muslim to have nuclear power, even for peaceful purposes?
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 8:16AM
All of them. Israel is like America. They hate Muslims as a policy and are still fighting Black September and the Holocaust while we still occupy Korea, Japan, and Germany.
The world won't get better till the war mongering generation dies off.
I say we let Germany defend Israel for their sins.
America didn't cause the Holocaust so it is sheer arrogance that we will have to eternally pay with our young mens' blood for their piece of dirt.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:43AM
Ron Paul polls #1 in the under 30 age group. Why? They don't want to fight other people's wars. They don't want to pay into SSI when they won't ever get money out. They're tired of taxes. They're tired of the TSA, they're tired of being both ignored AND pushed around.
In short, they want their freedom.
Ron Paul offers that.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:19AM
Jack,
My friend, when you lose a tooth, do you still put it under the pillow?
Iran is not building nukes? You share Congressman Ron Paul's naive notion that they will leave us alone, if we leave them alone.
Kind of like the Japanese in 1941? Kind of like Al Qaeda in 2011? I'd rather fight the war on their turf, so that their civilians become refugees, their homes and factories are destroyed, and their economies are destroyed than ours. Or do you prefer to have wars here, so that you can 'enjoy' them first hand?
Sorry, the isolationism thing has not, does not, and will not work, at least not until this country looks like Afghanistan...
Face facts.
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 10:33AM
"Has not, will not, and does not work" History lesson: Staying out of Europe's wars made us the richest country in the world. From the Civil War right up until 1917 we supplied Europe with food, Raw materials, and manufactured goods. Wilson kept us out of War until it was almost over. We came out of it the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Had we listened to interventionists such as TR then we might have left millions of our sons on the battlefield as did France and Germany.Perpetual War has brought down every Empire From Rome to Great Britain.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:58AM
You betcha!
Europe lay in ruins because the war was fought 'over there' on their land, not ours! Get it? Fight the fight on somebody else's turf, not ours. Duh?
War did not bring down Britain - SOCIALISM DID!
Again, straight facts, please.
JohnGault| 8.25.11 @ 8:31AM
The countries that you are afraid of do not have the capability of invading the United States. You must be afraid of your shadow!!
Eric| 8.24.11 @ 2:15PM
Dan, between this comment and the response to 'professorjoe', you completely contradict yourself. First you propose offensive war (have you really thought about what your statement about refugees means? casting children into homelessness?), and then when joe gives you an example of wars we stayed out of, you say "yep, that's exactly what I mean!"
Let me ask you a question: how does your view of our foreign policy deal with the installation of the Shah in 1950s Iran? The fact that we created this sentiment ourselves.
I suppose that installing a brutal dictator is cool, as long as we're not fighting on our turf, eh? Oh, btw, when's the last time we ever fought on our turf? I could see your point if we were being invaded once a decade, but it's never happened. Why, if we left Iran alone, would it suddenly happen?
They don't have the resources (technological or physical) to nuke us. All their neighbors have nukes. Is it really that hard to understand why they would want one?
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 4:35PM
Eric;
Accusing me of supporting the joint British/US operation that installed the Shah in 1953 is a non sequitur. You have imagined a position for me and then assailed me for it. President Obama uses the same technique to demonize his opponents. Look at what The New York Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05.....straw.html
I say again, do we want to fight the wars over here or over there?
You suppose that Iran does not have the resources to nuke us. Do the Russians? Are not the Russians building the reactors for the Iranians? So why in the world would the Russians refuse to sell missiles to the Iranians when they have already sold them nuclear technology? Because we are not bothering them? Our very existence bothers both the Russians and the Iranians.
Where do you put your fallen-out teeth?
Wake up- there is evil in the world and it is targeting you and us, no matter how much you just want to be left alone. Pretending that this is not the case is an open invitation to attack, whether you think it is or not.
Don't tread on me...
Owen Sands| 8.25.11 @ 9:58PM
So we have to start wars to prevent wars? So do we invade Russia first or Iran? Maybe both at the same time? How about this: we invade Iran, Russia, and N. Korea with money borrowed from China.
MattMC| 8.25.11 @ 11:03AM
"You share Congressman Ron Paul's naive notion that they will leave us alone, if we leave them alone.
Kind of like the Japanese in 1941? Kind of like Al Qaeda in 2011?"
Do you call supplying the Nationalist Chinese with aircraft and mercenary pilots and imposing an oil embargo on the Japanese "leaving them alone? That embargo was the reason they felt compelled to invade the Dutch East Indies, which meant strategically they had to hold Singapore, the Philippines, and a host of other Pacific strongpoints in order to have a defensible position.
Bet you didn't know that. Bet you also didn't add 2 + 2 and find it odd that the USS Reuben James was sunk by a U-Boat while escorting convoys carrying war material to Britain while the US was still officially a neutral nation. Bet you also didn't know that the Pearl Harbor attack was part of a much larger offensive across the Pacific, of which the FDR administration was well aware and was prepared to support the British if the Japanese attacked Singpore, which they did.
Pearl Harbor was the best thing that ever happened to FDR. We would have been in that war without it. Hell we already were.
These aren't the actions of a government "leaving the world alone." Sounds like a bully picking a fight as a last-ditch effort to make his decade of Keynesian failures to restart the economy go away.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:46AM
We imposed oil sanctions on Japan before WWII.
We bombed and starved Iraq and occupied Saudi Arabia for 20 years before 9/11.
So, how exactly did we "leave them alone" prior to them attacking us?
Face it, Ron Paul is right about blowback.
Sploithunter| 8.25.11 @ 2:30PM
Japanese in 1941: The US put an oil embargo on Japan, which Japan considered an act of war and retaliated so they could pursue oil in the pacific to replace the US supply. In 1940, the US stopped shipping machinery to Japan, but continued shipping oil because we believed if we stopped the supply of oil to Japan (Japan's primary supplier), Japan would retaliate.
Al Qaeda 2011: Middle east meddling since the 50's
You defend your position of pro intervention by pointing out failed interventions. We were far from anti-interventionist in either of these scenarios.
I would ask you to face the facts. Intervention causes wars. US intervention made today's Iran, intervention made Saddam's Iraq, intervention gave motivation to Al Qaeda and Japan, yet you advocate for more intervention. Iran having nukes is not pleasant, however, you miss the point. Iran, if they can produce nukes, could not make a modern nuke. They are no threat to the US, they couldn't get a multi-ton nuke here. If they could get one to Israel and detonate it, Iran would be a giant glass field a few moments later. More than likely, the nuke would never make it to production because Israel would take care of it themselves.
Claiming that Al Qaeda and Japan were unprovoked attacks is just like the stories I heard from anyone I ever arrested in a bar fight. The claim that "minding your own business" is limited to throwing the first punch is not entirely true if you pissed in the aggressors beer. Granted the suspect needs arrested for assault and is not justified in the aggression, but neither is the "victim" without culpability. He gets arrested for harassment ;-)
Jay Pitsby| 8.24.11 @ 7:50AM
http://hotair.com/archives/200.....-about-it/
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 8:06AM
That is some really poor reporting right there you linked to. Ad hominem attacks make a fool of the writer, not the speaker.
Ron is right. The USSR had nukes and would use them. They were arming Cuba for hell's sake with them and those could hit us.
If we are afraid of terrorists, don't we have a huge number of agents we can use to fight a 'covert' war?
Aren't the doing that anyways?
I don't see how destabilizing a dangerous nation with a war that we have a very bad past is intelligent and I don't see any good argument from the other side why open warfare is so great except to 'protect' Israel.
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 10:22AM
Yes Chuck, you're only half right. So we should apply the constitution only on domestic issues but not on foreign policy? According to the constitution the President DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to declare war. Congress can not delegate its authority to the President therefore Iraq, Libya, Pakistan et al. are illegal wars and we are well on our way to an Imperial Presidency. There hasn't been a declared war since 1941. This should concern you more as an American than any threat Iran posses. Now lets take Iran. Do you honestly believe a country with a GNP less than California and no Airforce capable of reaching the US posses an eminent threat to America. Our own CIA has reported that there is no indication that they are building a bomb. If they're wrong then maybe we should stop spending millions of dollars on the CIA. Iran was neutral in WWII and has never started a war (they were attacked by Sadan Hussein). Now I'm not naive to think they might not be working toward a primitive bomb some day. If that day ever comes the country they would threaten would be Isreal . They are well prepared with 250 nukes, and if they were a threat the Israelis would be bombing now.What part of WE ARE BROKE do you Imperialsts not understand. We simply can't afford more war. You can kill Soc Sec and all entitlements and it would be peanuts compared to the Trillions being spent on war.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:36PM
Yes, I do, Joe. Check out the literature on EMPs, and see what Newt has to say on it (no temperament for a President, but he is NOT stupid and has been in the Center of Things on foreign policy). One EMP properly placed can cause us enormous damage.
Our CIA was wrong on this one. I tend to trust MOSSAD more than the CIA on stuff like this. But the estimate on Iran's by that goofus NIE abilities has already been noted to be incorrect by US sources---it's as accurate as the Goldstone report.
Luke| 8.25.11 @ 1:40PM
@ Occam's Tool-
Yeah, certainly the "let's-you-and-them-fight" Mossad which regularly committs espionage against us, wouldn't lie us about Iran's nuclear program. What's Mossad's official motto, by the way?
If you want to fight wars for the sake of another country, go do it. If the IDF won't have you, you could always form your own group. Google "Abraham Lincoln Brigade". The Americans who went to fight in the Spanish Civil War were mostly communist sympathizers, but I can respect them for having the courage to put their own lives on the line for what they believed .
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 4:52PM
Perfesser joe,
In case you haven't heard, the Russians have been working with the Iranians on their nuclear capabilities. The Russians do have ICBM and MIRV capabilities. What in the world do you think would prevent them from selling these technologies to the Iranians, when they ask for it? Russia's outstanding WWII Lend Lease indebtedness?
Iran is a real problem, unless of course, you think that whole Holocaust thing was a Zionist PR stunt, like President Ahmadinejad does.
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 11:24PM
I'm following your logic - the Russians have this technology and at any time can give it to Iran. Hmn
for that matter they could give it to any of the nations you consider an enemy. It then appears thatRussia is by far the real threat & danger so why don't we go to war with the real threat instead of pussy footing around with these third world wars?
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:48AM
lol, right. We only attack countries that have NO chance of defending themselves, and then usually manage to lose the war anyway.
Luke| 8.25.11 @ 1:59PM
@ Texas Chris:
Right. You know what makes me sure the Iranians *don't* have WMDs? Because the ilk here and all but one GOP presidential candidate want to attack them!
Ol' Stanley Kurtz at NRO was lamenting the other day that, gosh, next time we foreign policy geniuses claim some middle-eastern hellhole that can't even feed itself poses a threat, the rubes out in flyover country might not buy it! Wouldn't THAT be terrible? ;)
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 9:09PM
Okay, here is the question: Some country will dominate militarily in the world. Which country do you want that to be?
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:16AM
Us obviously. But if we don't stop fighting these non-stop mega-expensive wars against people who essentially have little more than rocks to use as weapons against us, it'll be China.
chuck| 8.25.11 @ 7:16AM
I happen to agree with you. We need to be much wiser about where and how we project our military power. But we can't completely leave the scene like these Paulistas want.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:49AM
To borrow a phrase:
"YES WE CAN"
Luke| 8.25.11 @ 2:22PM
We can't afford to be the world's policeman/nanny anymore, Chuck. We're broke. Even if you think it's the right thing to do...
We.
Can't.
Afford.
It.
Some of you understand that, and spew bile at Ron Paul not because he believes it, but because he dares to point it out.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 10:28AM
Chuck, I hear you brother, but you said a disparaging word against Ron Paul, and inferred he is not perfect so many of his supporters are not going to listen to you.
Valiant effort though.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:32PM
That's about it, Chuck.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:20AM
Mr. Lord continues with his name calling and trying to use so called guilt by asssociation. Ronald Reagan was the man who had the 11th commandment of not attacking his Republican opponents personally. Ron Paul does not use ad hominum attacks on his opponents. He rather uses his vast intellect and communication skills to challenge them. That is why they are stealing his ideas. I shook hands witth ronald Reagan, went to his second Innaugeration, and followed him his whole career. You sir disgrace everything Ronald Reagan stood for. You are just giving the Democfats opposition research talking points for the coming election. You would rather have apuppet and stooge like Obama anyday over a great conservative like Ron Paul.
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 7:26AM
Reagan made it his mission to bring down the "evil empire". Ron Paul, going by his present day policy statements, would just say that the USSR has every right to exist in any state they wish.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:29AM
"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
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 9:46PM
Clint always pulls that quote from 1976 out.
chuck| 8.25.11 @ 7:16AM
Cut him a break, it's all he's got.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:22PM
I'll think about it.
..Ok, I thought about it.
Nah.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:30AM
The Evil empire has been gone for 20 years. You neocon scum want endless war for Israel, nothing else.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:27AM
The new problem is the Caliphate, moron.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 12:48PM
WTf ?
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:39PM
Hey, bet's still on. I will stop posting if Clint and Jack will stop posting if conditions are met. My condition: Paul wins no primaries or caucuses before bowing out, and you assclowns stop posting. Your condition for winning: Paul wins ANYTHING in the primary season. I've offered this a hundred times now, and you guys are too poultry-like to pick up. Mr. Lord, you are my witness. I've got so much faith in the American people I'll put this up. I'll also note that neither Jack nor Clint will pick up.
Ted| 8.25.11 @ 1:24PM
Actually, the Caliphate is a new "old" problem... It faded into the background for a while as the USSR and USA stood eyeballing each other. Then burst back on the scene with Iran in 1979.... And we go onward from there.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:46AM
Shia and Shitte are at loggerheads in Iraq.The Saudis hate the Iranians. Eqypt and Syria are in turmoil, Lebanon is a nation in name only and you think all these people are going to unite under a caliphate? Talk to the ghost of T.E. Lawrence who walked away from the Peace talks in 1917, a broken man.
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 7:56AM
Reagan did nothing to collapse the USSR. The market pressures did it. He did not outspend them, he did not out maneuver them. They collapsed due to some very complex problems inherent in their supply chain. You can build guns without feeding your workers.
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 7:57AM
But it doesn't work well
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:28AM
Au contraire, Jason.
Reagan had a very specific, five point plan that was designed to deprive the Soviet Union of hard cash so that they could not continue their armaments build up, to defeat them, and he did all these things. His plan included:
Giving AWACs to the Saudis so that they would continue pumping a lot of oil to keep the price low,
Denying the Soviets access to US natural gas pumping technology,
Strong responses to Soviet client states in the world to make it more costly and difficult to expand their influence, (Remember the Grenada thing - it wasn't about medical students, it was about the heavy aircraft capable runway they were building.)
Placing the missiles in Europe,
And the lynchpin, Star Wars, the missile defense system, not the movie.
So, no way that Ronald Reagan was just lucky that the Soviets fell just a few years after he left office.
Get your facts straight.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:32AM
Need to augment a point:
The natural gas pumping technology was sought by the Soviets because they were trying to become the sole source for northern European natural gas, but they needed our technology to do it. This would have given them a lot of hard currency and would have given them a lot of control of northern Europe because they could arbitrarily shut down gas supplies in the winter. (They were denied for the entirety of Reagan's Presidency, but it has since come to pass.)
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 10:01PM
Dan, that was brilliance. You are a man of truth and great education.
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 10:00PM
Jason, you are the perfect example of a liberal moron troll who spouts off from his armchair in the basement of his parents house that does not have a clue about what he is vomiting out on the keyboard. But it is always delivered with such vehemence, arrogance, and smarminess.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:43PM
It's so nice to see such a cordial discussion.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:18AM
Really? Because Ron says Reagan handled Russia correctly, and that's how we should handle the Middle East. Which is it - was Reagan wrong to not to invade the USSR, or is Ron Paul right?
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:24AM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit.
"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.]
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.
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.
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."
chuck| 8.24.11 @ 7:27AM
Another cut and paste post from Clint...........
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 9:22AM
Reagan did not bring down the Evil Empire. They went broke fighting an interventionist war in Afganistan- Sound familiar? Reagan did have the good sense to get the Marines out of Lebanon after realizing he made a mistake putting them in
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:28AM
Scheurer MISSED Bin Laden. Loser calls to Loser....bellowing across the swamp of imbecility.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:02AM
Try to sell your Israel Firster Propaganda to General Tommy Franks, Screwball Tool Job.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 4:32PM
Golly gee, seems to just about everyone here that YOU are the constant liar and screwball.
Your anti-semitic pal, Scheuer had this to say about Israel recently:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co.....tes-video/
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:19AM
He didn't miss Bin Laden. The administration, who brought us the idiot-experts that you're still putting all your faith in, refused to act on his advice.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:35AM
joe,
You are wrong! See my post above responding to Jason with the same misinformation about Reagan's plans and actions to bring down the Soviets.
The fact that you identify yourself as "professor" clued me into the fact that you might be fact-challenged...
Get your facts right!
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 11:33PM
Why do you find it necessary to insult eneryone you disagree with? Isn't it possible to present your opinions without name calling. Are You that insecure.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:51AM
Yes, I looked at your post and want to hang you on your own rope: You say we made it more "Costly" for the Russians fighting these little wars everywhere. Isn't that what China is now doing. Watching us go broke fighting in Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya et al..
Sploithunter| 8.25.11 @ 2:39PM
Cut and paste does not negate the point. Though I believe Clint may be a plant, lol
Robert Pinkerton| 8.24.11 @ 7:31AM
My understanding is that Rep. Paul wishes to end all foreign aid, full stop. NOT -- discriminatorily -- merely end aid to Israel. My perception, and if I am herein mistaken I welcome correction that is not histrionic, is that the question of continuing aid and ties to Israel, is the invisible elephant in the room. Unfortunately, the United States is broke.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 11:07AM
However, ending aid to Arab countries would simply take money away from their kleptocratic leaders. Stopping aid to Israel would cut off a stream of income to our arms manufacturers as it is essentially part of our defense budget. Further, Ron Paul supported aid to Hamas recently. Do check his THOMAS votes.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 12:20PM
Ahhhhh,we get it.
Big Government hands over our force confiscated American Taxpayers' Momey to pay for Israel's defense.
How many IDF Israeli Troops were WIA & WIa in Afghanistan & Iraq,in Our war On Terror?
You're Up.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:42PM
How much data on MIGs did the US get from Israeli sources, Clint? And did the US want Israeli troops in Af-Pak or Iraq?
You're up. Coward. Didn't pick up bet yet, I see.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 4:15PM
Once again Screwball Neo-Chickenhawak Israel Firster Coward,Tool Job, How many IDF Israeli Troops were WIA & WIa in Afghanistan & Iraq,in Our War On Terror?
We All Know The Answer.
Go Sit With The Girls.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:21AM
That's the silliest thing I've read on the internet. It's well documented that the money we sent to the Arab world directly funds terrorism.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:31AM
Another Answer To You Israel Firster Neo-Con Agendists
Anthony| 8.24.11 @ 7:38AM
It's funny how one side takes an opposite extreme or another. The fact is that Ron Paul would allow troops to be sent out in the examples, but he would allow congress to declare war and he would question them if need be to be sure it was well thought out. If we didn't have bases all over the world set up and a history of occupying other countries, Paul's criticism wouldn't be so scathing. But as is, our countries foreign policy is extremely liberal and has been since the 50's in an extreme response to the two big wars. It is now time to at very least become more conservative with our troops especially now that we have run out of money. Ron Paul is the only one that has this aspiration, though I don't agree completely with him on this, he is still the best of the pack.
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 7:52AM
The best policy for the government is to shut down the world wide force and open bases across America.
This would decrease costs while pumping a huge amount of money into the local economies in the States.
Use the military to rebuild roads, damns, etc. Use them to build a power infastructure based on green energy.
Do anything that actually is an investment in the US but no more war for hire for the Saudis, Israelis and Brits.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 11:08AM
The Iraq war was not supported by the Israelis. They were neutral, voting as we told them to vote in the UN.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:49PM
Agreed. And as Paul has stated, we should take care of our own borders before worrying about borders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I think its a wise move given the position we're in right now thanks to the corruption in DC.
Butler Reynolds| 8.24.11 @ 7:50AM
Jeffrey Lord just got pwned.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:22AM
More than that, he owned himself in the rebuttal.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:56AM
I agree. He makes Hunter's point for him, and his amalysis of Lincoln and Reagan are both wrong.
Jeff| 8.24.11 @ 7:51AM
I am also a conservative, voted Republican, small businessman, husband, father (of 5), and Christian. I agree with Paul as far as fiscal policy, but that is where it stops. As illustrated above, there are a myriad of examples where use of force was needed in order to protect our interests and security. Such is the case now.
The one big elephant in the room that nobody is talking about is his age. This is not to say he isn't coherent now or capable of the job at this time, but we are talking about a year and a half til he would presumably take office. My in-laws are the same age as Dr. Paul, and I have seen their their physical deterioration from year to year. What would the physical toll of the presidency do to a person of that age? At this point, he hasn't stated who he would have as a running mate, so I have nobody to consider along with him.
Undoubtedly some are going to take offense. Can an 80 year old be a contributing member of society? Yes. However, I do not want to put my country's (of for that matter my children's futures) in the hands of someone who based on the odds will not make it through a 4 year term of office, much less 8.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 7:57AM
The answer to the age question is this ticket. Ron Paul for President. Rand Paul for Vice President. Jack Hunter we need such a ticket announcment soon. because that is the issue they have left.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 10:36AM
Talk about Empire building. Why don't you make them the US Royal family while you are at it? At least the Bushes ran and won elections. You simply want to hand over the job.
Tim A| 8.25.11 @ 11:42AM
They would have to win such an election to be President and Vice President.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 7:58AM
Dr.Ron Paul,
“Anytime any of the other candidates wants to come to Houston at 12 o’clock noon when the temperature is 100 and humidity is 102. I will ride 20 miles with them on a bicycle…"
Jeff| 8.24.11 @ 8:03AM
If you read my comment, you will see that his quote has absolutely nothing to do with my concern. I have seen how the ravages of aging can take a vibrant person to an invalid in 2 years......
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 8:05AM
Like Obama .
He looks like Uncle Remus Now.
PaleRider1861| 8.25.11 @ 2:55PM
Hey, I 've seen Song of the South ...
your comment has Uncle Remus a'flippin in his grave!
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 10:29AM
Yup. Been there---all that heat and humidity have rotted his brain...
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:04AM
Dr. Ron Paul can ride circles around you, both physically & intellectually,Tool Job.
Ted| 8.24.11 @ 3:00PM
Are you on Drugs, by chance?
weaverofdreams_2000| 8.24.11 @ 5:01PM
I think the question to be asking of Clint/Tim* is:
Are you on drugs, BY CHOICE?
Jason| 8.24.11 @ 8:10AM
I would rather have an honest President for anytime over a dishonest one for a full 4 years.
We have had four assassinated Presidents, one dead of a heart attack, many hospitalized.
I would honestly have a fear that he would be assassinated over death of old age as the Saudis, Israelis, and Brits hate his policies.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:52PM
I agree that sometimes force has been necessary, but you have to qualify that statement. Paul does believe in using force when necessary. He simply wants Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duty and actually declare war if it deems it necessary. What is wrong with that position? It honors both the Constitution and our need to wage war when needed.
Tim A| 8.25.11 @ 11:40AM
As a Christian I suggest you investigate Ron Paul's belief in "Just War". I think you will find Ron Paul is the most Christ like of ANY candidate running.
Texas Chris| 8.25.11 @ 11:58AM
Very true.
Even Jesus used force to defend his "home", the synagog, from the moneychangers.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 10:53AM
Yes but he didn't KILL the money changers
Red Phillips | 8.24.11 @ 7:52AM
Mr. Lord, if the question under discussion is whether non-interventionism is or is not the conservative position, you can't just say Paul is "liberal" on foreign policy because he is a non-interventionist. That's the issue and simple repetitive assertions don't make it so. I can say the sky is green 1000 times but that won't make it so. You have to demonstrate, starting from conservative first principles, that interventionism is the conservative position.
Look at the discussion I have with "Solo" in the other thread. Look at the Kagan article we discuss. Interventionism, by the admission of a neoconservative guru, is not a conservative policy.
You may think interventionism is a necessary and proper policy. You may think non-interventionism is dangerous. So be it. But that is ancillary to the discussion here. The issue is whether or not non-interventionism is the conservative policy. It so clearly is that I’m really embarrassed for you, but if you want to try to make the case that interventionism is the conservative foreign policy then have at it. But you can’t just assert it. You have to attempt to demonstrate it.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 8:00AM
Red: Thanks for coming over and straightening this bird out. I have read and admired your stuff for years.
Red Phillips | 8.24.11 @ 3:10PM
Thanks!
Shill Watch| 8.24.11 @ 9:29AM
You need to embarrassed for yourself, sissy boy. You can't even read. You just assert. Projecting is what libs do. Oh yeah, you are a neo lib. By the way, Solo kicked your butt. That is another Black Knight quality associated with libs, make that neo libs. Are you and Clint brothers?
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:56PM
People like you should be banned from this website. Nothing you say adds anything to any debate. You're just calling names. You should be ashamed!
Red Phillips | 8.25.11 @ 8:44AM
I'm not 100% sure, but I think Shill Watch may be spoofing an unhinged interventionist, and is not serious. The post appears to be an intentional caricature. If he is serious, he isn't helping his case.
George S| 8.24.11 @ 9:48AM
You just don't get it. It is not a theoretical argument between interventionism and isolationism, nor is it about whether one is more of a conservative policy or a liberal policy. It is about taking the oath of office and swearing to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
Any person who, ahead of time, states that we are not going to become militarily involved unless we are directly attacked is sending a message that the United States will sit back and watch other actors do as they please -- whether it is with oil fields or treaty signatories. If you think that is in our national interest...
Our interests lie beyond pure defense. Would you expect your police department to respond only during the commission of a crime? That would be isolationism. If you want the cops to go undercover and stop the bad guys before they act, that would be interventionism. Both are very important. But... we expect the cops to abide by the Constitution. That is the key point -- they can employ both without violating our rights.
Military action has been carried out for political purposes, true. But to expect a politician (yes, Paul is one first and foremost) not to use every available tool to defend his presidency (or reelection) is pure fantasy. As Mr. Obama's supporters found to their great dismay. But at least they don't organize into flash mobs when they don't get their way. We hope. Yet you Paul followers seem to have a penchant for that sort of thing. Like I said, way more than a policy debate going on here.
Have you considered| 8.24.11 @ 10:58AM
George S, The police are only supposed to respond once a crime has been committed. The barrier to preemptive action is the 4th Amendment requirement that a warrant be obtained, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause. I believe even undercover officers must obtain warrants prior to arrest so as to not poison the fruit.
I believe that some states have made stalking a crime, but it has been a long slog to get stalking qualified as a crime because no "crime" has yet been committed. Most persons being stalked are reduced to getting restraining orders.
Red Phillips | 8.24.11 @ 1:17PM
Have you considered and George, there is also this thing called Christian Just War theory which Christians, presumably, should pay some attention to. As a general rule, non-interventionists hold Christian Just War theory in high regard. Interventionists ignore it. Much of what interventionists advocate falls into the preventative war category (such as Iran) which is expressly condemned by Christian Just War theory. All the evangelicals clamoring for war would not admit this, but interventionism is the foreign policy of pagans. So do I want my President to be guided by the accumulated ancient wisdom of the Fathers of the Faith or by a bunch of keyboard yahoos whose idea of cogent foreign policy analysis is making simple-minded analogies to playground bullies. I’ll take the former.
George S| 8.24.11 @ 2:17PM
Can the Christian Just War theory agree with why were we in Tunisia during WWII? They never attacked us, so why was American blood spilled at the Kasserine Pass? (It is intellectually impossible to answer this without stating WWII was an unjust war).
Would Islamic Fundamentalists abide by the Christian Just War theory? What would we do about defending ourselves when the possibility of success is not good, considering all the Muslim countries around the world. By success I mean there can never be a formal surrender. Without that possibility, defense against Islamic fundamentalists violates the CJWT.
Can Ron Paul deal with that dilemma -- defend us or abide by the CCJWT?
The success of battle is solely determined by the leadership of men (Washington, Grant, Sherman, Patton, Eisenhower... Rumsfeld, Bush) who take chances and are resolute about the objective -- winning. Only the simple-minded cling to theories or chant at the lunar eclipse to vanquish their enemies.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 4:37PM
"Christians" as referred to by Red Phillips doesn't really mean Christians.
It's a Catholic doctrine.
android| 8.24.11 @ 5:29PM
Catholic Hater Margie Rears Her "Ugly" Head Again.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 6:01PM
Try selling your bilge elsewhere because you're not going to shut me up.
What I said id the truth. You may not like it, but that's just too awful bad now, isn't it?
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 9:14PM
That is to say, Christian doctrine is biblically based, and it would be based on Christ's teachings.
Just war theory is Catholic Theology and theology is made up by men and not Christ.
For example, check out this line of theirs:
"the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."
OK~ how, praytell is this supposed to be carried out? And who gets to judge? The Pope?
And, most importantly~ who the blank is the Catholic church to tell us how to run a war?
Now, troll~ if you want to call that hate, feel free, because it's a bunch of junk, and I reject it outright!
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 10:06PM
Blessed are the peacemakers Margie. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. The Just War doctrine was developed to try to apply these great words of Jesus to life. I remind you again that you endanger your immortal soul with all your calls for hate and violence toward your neighbors. The Just War doctrine has always been one of the main foundations of International law and a conservative foreign policy.
Red Phillips | 8.25.11 @ 8:42AM
For the record Margie, I'm not Catholic. I'm Baptist. But it would be hard to deny that Christian Just War Theory is not a serious attempt by serious people to incorporate the Bible and Christian ethics into a workable doctrine. While a Protestant would not consider it binding doctrine, (I don’t even think it is “binding” doctrine for Catholics) it would be irresponsible to cast it aside altogether.
According to CJWT you can't go to war "just to be on the safe side." The strikes against Iran that many interventionists are advocating clearly fall into the category of preventative war which is prohibited.
Perhaps you would like to make an attempt to wrestle with that fact.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 2:21PM
Red,
I have no need to wrestle with anything, since I agree with God.
Do you?
As always, and is always the way of the Paleos and Paulios, you present false premises and false accusations.
First, anyone's Religion matters not a whit to me. Religion is Man's way to God. Christ is THE WAY to God.
Every Religion has its own "belief system."
Jesus Christ IS the Truth.
Faith in a Religion can't save us, faith in God and in His Son is the only thing that justifies us.
But I digress!
Just War Theory is not a Christian teaching~ it is a Catholic Theology.
It's gobilty-gook.
For example:
"Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Who's to judge here?
Yes, I'd say the Catholic's creation of this theory fits in ever so perfectly with the Paleo/Paul-bot philosophies.
Then you say the strikes on Iran that many "interventionists" are advocating.. but what are interventionists in YOUR mind? And secondly, the "advocating" of bombing Iran who are sponsors of terrorism? That Iran? Hmm.
Not that I am personally advocating anything, I'll let the good Military Hawks decide on that. That is, as soon as we elect them to office.
So, to prove my point~ just who gets to be the judges in the Catholic Just War teaching?? Someone who perhaps despises Israel? Someone who perhaps believes the terrorists are to be pitied instead of killed before they kill us?
Yes, the Murray Rothbards and Lew Rockwells and Ron Pauls of the world probably love it. Would I be guessing right?
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 11:49PM
I'm going out on a limb without fact checking first but I believe that ST Thomas Aquinas wrote before the Reformation , if so then there were no other Christians around they were all Catholic then.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:45AM
No other Christians around? Better tell that to the Apostles and the thousands they led to Christ. That is, all those that survived the Papal Inquisitions.
professorjoe| 8.26.11 @ 11:30AM
Get your history straight There was ONE Christian Church directly descended from the Apostles until the eleventh Century when the great schism occured between East and West creating the Greek OrthodoxChurch in Istanbul and the Church in Rome. The Protestant Reformation DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE 15 Century. This was long after the Apostles died. When Thomas Aquinas wrote there no Protestant Churches yet Christians were pretty much divided into the East or Western Churches. Aquinas is recognized as a prime theologian note only by most Christian Churches but as a philosopher by non- believers.The Inquistian did not start until the time of the Reformation. No Apostles "SURVIVED " the Inquistion because they weren't even there, they were long dead.READ the history of the Church and perhaps you won't engage in knee jerk bigotry.By the way the Protestant Churches soon engaged in their own inquisition killing such notables as Thomas Moore. It's always amazed me how folks who profess belief in the same God can hate and kill one another with such abandon.
Jack in Wi.| 8.25.11 @ 6:05AM
The Just War Doctrine goes back to St. Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century. That was about the time that the Catholic church gave the world the Holy Bible. The first 50 copies of the Bible which were paid for by the Roman Emperor. The Bible was faithfully copied and used for 1100 years, by the Catholic Church before Luther was even born.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:46PM
God gave us the Bible. Men put it together. The Words written in the Bible are God's Words spoken through godly men that He chose out of the world. Most of them the worst of sinners, especially the Apostle Paul~ as he himself said.
What the 'Catholic" church has done, is added their own false teachings to it~ teachings that God never taught~ which they thereby used in order to torture and kill millions of Bible believing Christians, calling them "heretics" (which they still do).
They put to death anyone who even dared read the Bible on their own. It's history. The original languages of Hebrew and Greek that it was written in? The "Catholics" translated to Latin and disallowed anyone but them to have.
They are still just as corrupt~ they have never repented of these same exact false teachings, they still teach them~ the ones that they used to kill Christians.
The teachings such as infant baptism, Mary as mother of God, Transubstantiation, prayer to the dead, sacraments, solemn assembly, prayer by rote, burning of incense, etc.
Oh, and the biggest and most horrifying? The entire hierarchy of the "church". Meaning the Papacy.
God never intended it. It is wrong, it is not God's will. All throughout the New Testament, even the Angels of God admonished the saints (those that follow Jesus while they're living), not to bow down before them or worship them.
God also warned us in the New Testament not to listen to or follow anyone who teaches another gospel~ which is what Catholicism is. They warned Christians to to listen to or follow anyone who taught anything contrary to what they taught~ which they were appointed to teach by God.
The gospel started being perverted even during the time of the Apostles, and the warnings were given at that time, as it was going on then as well. Ever read Galations?
The men that came after the Apsotles began bringing in the above mentioned false teaching very early on. They aren't in the Bible, yet this Religion has been practicing and teaching them for decades.
There. That's the truth. You can choose to believe it or reject it~ but it is the truth.
I pray God opens your eyes.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 2:02PM
Correction: "They warned Christians to to listen to.."
Should read, "They warned Christians NOT to listen to.."
And the "(which they still do)" meaning call us heretics. They stopped the killing because they could not literally still exist if they kept that up!
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:57PM
Oh, and p.s. The whole Just War Theory makes the Catholic church the authority once again. They get to decide what's just and what's not.
The truth is~ they are no authority~ they are not the authority over anyone or any country or anyone's soul. Especially since they are an entirely false Religion.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 11:00PM
First, you are trying to shape your argument by using the inflammatory and nonsensical term "isolationism." No one is proposing that idea. Paul has said this over and over.
Second, your analogy of the police is exactly what Paul opposes. Our military has been engaged as a global police force for far too long. This is the crux of the problem. Policing the world has contributed to the situation we are in now.
Stavros| 8.26.11 @ 12:05AM
What problem is that? The US mainland hasn't been attacked in about 2 centuries. It is called forward defense.
maxpower| 8.26.11 @ 11:42AM
There are many problems, but the biggest is that we are bankrupt and taking out enormous loans from foreign nations to support this interventionism. This is also ironically threatening our national security.
David in Louisiana| 8.24.11 @ 8:13AM
It's not an "exchange" if Lord is allowed to have the last word. He made his case. Let him now take his hits.
Vern Crisler | 8.24.11 @ 8:13AM
Obviously, the choice is not between dimwitted Karl Rove foreign policy on the one hand, or loony libertarian, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell foreign policy on the other. We need a Reaganesque foreign policy, realistic and looking out for our national interests, while fulfilling our responsibilities as a world power.
William R| 8.24.11 @ 8:52AM
Neutrality in the Middle East---Ronald Reagan.
Jeff| 8.24.11 @ 9:12AM
Yes, but that was before World Trade Center (93), US Embassies (98), USS Cole (2000), and 9/11. I do not think he would have taken a neutral stance on those.
Dan Hirsch| 8.24.11 @ 10:49AM
Wrong.
The day Reagan was sworn in for his first term, the Iranians hand delivered our hostages to the US which they had been holding for a year and a half under Jimmuh Carter. They knew Reagan was not going to take their crap for an instant.
If you think he was neutral, you are wrong.
He was also a big supporter of Israel and it's right to self-defense and it's right to exist.
Are you?
Does this make me an evil neo-con? I was conservative before Nixon won. So I am not a neo-anything. Stow it!
William R| 8.24.11 @ 8:21AM
Good Gravy. Back in 1965, yes 1965 in the pages of National Review the great Frank Meyer wrote a piece calling Abraham Lincoln the worst President we've ever had an a tyrant. What's the big deal Lord??
As far as a conservative foreign policy well lets just look at what President Reagan did after 241 Marines died in Lebanon. He got the hell out and stayed out of the Middle East.
Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East: LEAVE
http://orangepunch.ocregister......leave/619/
As for Ron Paul being anti-semitic lets just look at that.
Ron Paul wrote a book with Lewis Lehrman. Had a decades long friendship with Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. The great Henry Hazlitt author of the biggest selling economics book in history and still in publication after six decades, "Economics in one Lesson" wrote the forward to one of Ron Paul's books and Murray Rothbard the preface. In his office Ron Paul has a picture of Ludwig von Mises on the wall.
What do all these men have in common? They're all Jews. So if Ron Paul is an anti-semite as Mr Lord suggest then why on earth would he spend much of his adult life associating with all these Jewish economists??
Botton line, Lord's piece was nothing but a hit job. Ever since the last debate and his second place finish in Ames the word has gone out, stop Ron Paul. Smear him . Make him radioactive. Why?? Because Ron Paul thinks we should be talking to Iran instead of bombing them. Well to the NeoCons this is not acceptable.
Since 9/11 the foreign policy of the Republican party has been anything but conservative. It has been radical. A traditional conservative foreign policy would be very cautious, restrained, and prudent. We got non of that with Bush Cheney.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 8:35AM
Dr.Ron Paul is well versed in Dr. Milton Friedman's Chicago School Economics & Ludwig von Mises' Austrian School Economics.
Bruno| 8.24.11 @ 9:23AM
I taught the good Dr. everything he knows about Austrian economics is a hotel room.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:24AM
Good, then you can teach American Spectator Readers The Austrian School's Business Cycle Theory.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:45PM
Yes, and FDR had a lot of Jews in his Cabinet and still said that we were in the US by sufference.
The old "A lot of my friends are Jewish" defence. And a lot of his friends are White Power racists, too, who donate to his campaign.
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 10:34PM
It is not Ron Paul that we believe is anti-semitic per se, it is the jackboots out here on this blog and many of his followers that are jew haters.
Furthermore, because we do not agree with ALL his positions on foreign policy we are labeled neo-cons and warmongers, terms defined and used by liberals against conservatives.
We also do not appreciate your discourse and style which are very close to liberals in the way you name call (Clint), attack, skirt central issues, intimidate, and avoid any criticism whether it is solid or weak.
Many if not most of your positions ARE not conservative at all. You mock people of faith, pull the liberal seperation of church and state bullshit to smash religion, mock traditional familiy values, demand unfettered legalization of all drugs, hold some (not all) foreign policy and naional security views that appear wreckless and irrational. Conservatives want an end to these occupations and more cautious and prudent approach to war as well. So, stop the bullshit.
Then there is the thuggery that some of your followers have displayed like that against Sean Hannity and the smearing that you do with such vehemence against EVERYONE that does not fall down to worship THE DR. Paul. You create this LIST like little jackboot Nazi's of who is acceptable and who is not. And finally, you have the same arrogance and inability to move one inch even after the facts are presented just like a progressive liberal.
So, go ahead and prove me correct. I expect the same idiotic response that we have seen the last two days. I got news for you. You are not going to bully anyone nor are you going to push the conservative majority out of the way by calling us neo-cons and stamping your feet.
Sami| 8.25.11 @ 10:56PM
You've certainly proved that you're a moron and a coward, but nothing else.
Stavros| 8.26.11 @ 12:30AM
And there we have it, the idiotic response.
Dr. Marshall DeRosa| 8.24.11 @ 8:22AM
Mr. Lord's comment that "the fact that the Confederate Constitution completely eliminated 100% of civil liberties for its own citizens of a certain color" is pathetically ahistorical. Ideologues of Mr. Lord's ilk are not interested in facts, but rather ignoble lies to prop up their own careers, e.g., his hack article about Ron Paul. For anyone interested in historical truth regarding the CSA Constitution, see my REDEEMING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: LESSONS FROM THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION.
Red Phillips | 8.24.11 @ 1:24PM
Holy cow! Mr. Lord's two pieces have now draw rebukes from Kevin Gutzman and Marshall DeRosa, both people who know a little something about the subject at hand. Perhaps Mr. Lord should keep quiet and get his facts straight before he ventures another foray into this mess.
For those who don’t know who Dr. DeRosa is, I suggest you plug his name in Amazon.
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 3:25PM
Holy cow Batman! Like the Obots, we too know something of the cult of personality! Another "Dr.", like "Dr. Ron Paul"!
Why bother, is he too related to Jim Jones of Guyana infamy?
Vern Crisler | 8.24.11 @ 4:39PM
Whenever the Paulbots slither into these discussions, it's not long before neo-confederates pop in. Robert Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Get over it already.
George S| 8.24.11 @ 6:02PM
Instead of seeing your article how about direct quotes from the Confederate constitution:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired."
"No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in [one State] any State or Territory of the Confederate Slates under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed. "
Please feel free to argue with the written words instead of me.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 8:24AM
It is not United States National Interests to use our warriors, as cannon fodder, to force feed democracy around the globe & act as the global police.
GW| 8.24.11 @ 12:44PM
This is too direct a position to take. Japan and Germany became strong allies with excellent economies following WWII, in no small part due to American leadership following the war. No one can argue former SSRs are much better today than they were while in Communism. Yet American foreign policy helped bring about the demise of the Soviet Union.
However, much of our actions in the Middle East today are counterproductive. Afghanistan will never develop past its 7th century mindset, the post-Sadaam Iraqis have shown signs of liberalization (economically and in government) at the expense of others (the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities).
Ron Paul is right about some things in foreign policy. However, his philosophy is just as sophomoric as the "neo-cons" he despises. "Neo-cons" are those who haven't seen a military campaign they don't like. Paul is one who can't imagine, even hypothetically, a preemptive strike being justifiable. Both philosophies are dangerous because they don't take into account the complex nature of foreign relations--and the acute differences countries have. A solid foreign policy is one that is flexible, possible, and most importantly--recognizes AMERICA'S interests, not the interests of foreigners.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 9:19PM
Please. I know you're so much more intellectually superior than I, but can you please quit with the following lie:
"Neo-cons" are those who haven't seen a military campaign they don't like."
I already know the answer to that, and it is of course you can't.
Because you are entirely disingenuous.
GW| 8.25.11 @ 12:00PM
Wasn't talking to you. And why was it a good idea to get into Libya?
chuck| 8.26.11 @ 9:40PM
It wasn't, and most people are against it. Congress should have pulled the plug.
axbucxdu| 8.24.11 @ 10:06PM
"...A solid foreign policy is one that is flexible, possible, and most importantly--recognizes AMERICA'S interests, not the interests of foreigners.
Post of the day for this lot. I would clarify just one more thing from the possible category: MILITARY ADVENTURES COST MONEY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE! That is all.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:49AM
It's still bologna and spoken like the true Paul-bot because a solid foreign policy must recognize and does recognize both America's interests and that of our allies.
GW| 8.25.11 @ 12:05PM
You are unbelievable. Not only am I not a Paul-bot, I am speaking in criticism toward their outlandish, inflexible positions. But I guess the same could be said for you. Apparently You must think Afghanistan is going swimingly. Iraq's Christian population diminshing? Why how wonderful! Everything George Bush did was just fantastic!
Although you might not recognize it, you are no different from Paul's most rabid supporters. Even a sobering look at the negative effects of an American military campaign is to be rejected.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:32PM
Your personal attacks aside~ oh and this is an open forum, and I am free to comment to your comment to someone else. Unless of course you want to create a new rule?
The line about foreign policy excluding the interest of any foreign nation, how is that realistic?
So, are we supposed to not back our allies then and not care an iota what happens to them? For example is not the freedom of Israel of concern to us and is it not in our best interest to support them?
Is not the interest of that free nation our interest?
Your painting with a broad brush of me and what I think and believe is oh so typical Paul-bot.
Oh yeah baby~ I'm no different than a rabid Paul-bot.
To the brain dead I am.
No, what I truly am is a rabid defender of the truth.
axbucxdu| 8.26.11 @ 12:11AM
There are foreigners and some of them are supposed to be allies. It's long past time that THESE UNITED STATES decide which is which. We can no longer afford freeloaders nor should we continue to sell ourselves short when it comes to trade. Now I don't mind mutual cooperation with a country that pulls its own weight nor any honest competition, but looking down the pathetic list of so called "allies" yields nothing but supplicants. Trouble is, we're broke, and can no longer supplicate them.
Ed Ward II| 8.24.11 @ 8:56AM
This scene is swarming with angry Trotskyite hornets.
Sean| 8.24.11 @ 9:08AM
Mr. Lord is still wrong about all his points. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bush and Obama all were liberal and had aggressive foreign policies.
Ron Paul has voted to invade another country with the example of Afghanistan. Lord does not address this point. Ron Paul will defend our country when we are attacked.
Lord's foreign policy is the same as Bush and Obama's. Ron Paul sees distinctions in who is a threat and who isn't. A threat Afghanistan harboring Bin Laden. Not a threat Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Also with Afghanistan he saw our mission was to go in there and kill Bin Laden and get out.
William R| 8.24.11 @ 9:13AM
Ron Paul Challenges GOP's Foreign Policy Agenda
by Doug Bandow
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11709
Red Phillips | 8.24.11 @ 1:26PM
Doug Bandow? Where have I seen that name before? Oh yeah ... he blogs here. Does Lord think Bandow is a lib?
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:45PM
Yes, and FDR had a lot of Jews in his Cabinet and still said that we were in the US by sufference.
The old "A lot of my friends are Jewish" defence. And a lot of his friends are White Power racists, too, who donate to his campaign.
Occam's Tool| 8.24.11 @ 2:45PM
Yes, and FDR had a lot of Jews in his Cabinet and still said that we were in the US by sufference.
The old "A lot of my friends are Jewish" defence. And a lot of his friends are White Power racists, too, who donate to his campaign.
Santiago| 8.24.11 @ 9:24AM
In three pages, you cannot have a historical debate on the meaning of conservatism. Both sides points can be debunked easily enough. To begin: George Washington entered the United States into no wars as President of the United States of America, and to his credit issued a statement of neutrality concerning the war between Britain and France sparked by the French Revolution. John Adams is the first failed president, reviled by the 'conservatives' of his day (they were known as anti-federalists and led by Thomas Jefferson), any example of Adams that doesn't include the fact that people like Thomas Paine (writer of common sense) went so far as to call the Adams Presidency the "Reign of Terror" in America fails to do history any justice. Both sides should stop using Adams, the president that made it illegal to be French in the united states via the alien and sedition acts as an example of anything but a failed presidency that should never be followed, they are free to use the Continental Congress Adams, who is a laudable figure. No argument with Jefferson, he refused to pay a bribe, the United States was not the agressor in the Barbary war, and we fought a war of defense against a state sponsor of piracy (not unlike the motives for Afghanistan). Of course, he also signed the Embargo Act, which was a disaster, as trade wars generally are. Note that of the starting three, Jefferson was the most conservative of his day, and yet his Embargo act is generally accepted as one of the reasons for the war of 1812, which nearly cost us our independence. Again, no disagreement on Madison, although the invasion of Canada did not end well for us, and was a mistake, his Algerian war did finally end the need to pay tribute to the Barbary states. The Monroe Doctorine, for what its worth, was Sponsored by the British. We can now skip ahead to James Polk, who picked a fight with Mexico and won California....and onward to Reagan. There is no denying that Reagan is the most Conservative President since Dwight Eisenhower. IKE, for his part, got the USA involved in the middle east for the first time (in order to protect trade through the Suez canal), involved the USA in the first Indochina war (Vietnam), and to counterbalance, ended the Korean War (in a stalemate). Reagan ended the cold war without having to attack the USSR. His biggest war was Grenada. His successor followed the same policy during the first Iraq war and was also largely successful. These two did not fight the Same style of war as George W. Bush. I would posit that the younger Bush's style of war is not a conservative approach to war. The Bush doctrine is in fact decidedly Wilsonian.
So where does this leave the candidate in question? Peace doves exist in both the liberal and conservative camps, though peace absolutists exist only in the liberal camp. The question both authors need to ask is whether Ron Paul would enter the United States into a war if we were provoked, and if so, whether Ron Paul would enter into Nation Building after said war was over. If the answers are Yes and then No, he is conservative on foreign policy much like Reagan, and Ike. If the answers are No and No or Yes and Yes, he is Liberal on foreign policy. No one ever seems to ask this question, and if they have, I have never seen the answer.
But people, please stop the name calling.
Sean| 8.24.11 @ 9:33AM
I have asked Lord to explain Ron Paul voting to go into Afghanistan. Ron Paul clearly is willing to use military force from this example when we are attacked. From his criticism of nation building he is not willing to use troops to build nations.
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 10:10AM
To further that point, one simply needs to look at his voting record on cold war issues. He was firmly against nonproliferation treaties, because he new the Soviets would just violate the agreement, leaving the USA at a disadvantage. He was a strong supporter of the SDI, because, it was about national DEFENSE. Somehow many have been made to believe that attacking other countries is defensive. Up is down, political left is political right. Time to pull our collective heads out and make that popping sound.
Sean| 8.24.11 @ 10:50AM
I agree. To me Ron Paul is very strong on defense. Defense is making sure our citizens are not killed needlessly including in war. So when we have thousands of casualties in Iraq for nothing that isn't being strong on defense. Ron Paul is not afraid to go to war when needed and he will not push us into needless wars.
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 10:58AM
Personally, I love the idea of bringing home the troops and using them to strengthen the southern border. As far as actually securing the border, I don't really get too concerned, as our constantly shrinking standard of living will eventually end the problem, unless somehow the Federal Reserve was abolished, but the economic boon of all those soldiers spending their money in those southern states would be very beneficial to a lot of communities. Plus, we wouldn't be constantly making new generations of Middle Easterners who want to kill Americans.
professorjoe| 8.24.11 @ 9:35AM
Sean Hannity is no Conservative. In 2008 he backed Rudy Giuliani, a pro choice, anti 2nd amendment, interventionist neo con for President. He sabotaged his buddy Hucklebe by coming out with a story about a pardon Huck once signed the week before the make or break SC primary. Huck lost by less than 3%.His little plan didn't work however. Rudy didn't win a single primary and we got McCain.
Cpm| 8.24.11 @ 9:46AM
The Paulbot insanity on display here is exactly why Ron Paul will always be a fringe candidate. His followers are like Stepford Wives, little robots spewing their indoctrination indescriminately in any and all directions, always on the attack, not trying to change anybody's mind but rather beat any opposition into submission with constant blather and accusation. I hate to break it to you guys, but it will never happen and then you'll have to move on to your next obsession.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:15AM
Harris Poll: If Ron Paul Won GOP Nomination, He Would Split Vote With Obama
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.
Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012.
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 10:23AM
That's why their next obsession is building oil-rig-type cities in international waters to get away from the Constitution. How do spell Lord Of The Flies...
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:29AM
Dr.Ron Paul's supporters will next focus on Austrian School Economics, Constitutionalism, States Rights & Stopping Big Government's Suicidal Deficit Spending.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:29PM
Who cares?
JohnS| 8.25.11 @ 10:47PM
Who cares?
Anyone with a brain that works. Which would exclude you.
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 9:52AM
Did this guy really just say that the Iraq invasion was morally equivalent to fighting the Revolutionary War? Must be smoking the good stuff.
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 10:21AM
Perhaps most telling in this exchange is that the Paulbot, Hunter, intentionally stayed far away from the social insanity and moral relativism that he shares with the Liberals. Both Liberals and Libertarians generally agree on Social and National Security issues. The only difference is that the Liberal will reach for totalitarianism and the Libertarian, anarchy. As such, a Liber-tarian is a Liber-al that loves money.
g wayne| 8.24.11 @ 10:37AM
9thid, You said it better than I could have. In the end for me, it is about Paul's libertarianism. It is his domestic policy that frightens me the most. With that being said, I agree that we need out of Afghanistan and Iraq asap, but not for the same reasons. As long as we have a politicaly correct military with it's current rules of engagement then we put them all at risk. That seal team did not have to die. Who in there right mind sends a chopper of that size into battle? We have won our last war. Our leadership does not have the resolve, and the American people do not have the commitment to do what it takes to win outright. Therefore, we should not easily entagle ourselves in overseas operations. At the debates Paul came across as one w/his head in the sand, but Santorum came across as one who would fight anybody, anywhere. The conservative approach is whatever is the most reasoned approach for the situation at hand. Clearly, our involvement in WWII was necassary. Can we say the same for Vietnam, Korea, or Iraq?
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 12:58PM
Unfortunately, the Vietnam war wasn't fought as a war. However, we do know that the Jane Fonda/Ron Paul types helped bring about the slaughter of millions when the Vietcong took over the South, slaughtered their enemies in Laos, and sponsored the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Same would have been true in South Korea and it will happen again if Obama has his way. Same for China and Taiwan. For the Paulbots it is the money..
aware| 8.25.11 @ 5:52AM
So now Paul was right there with Jane. Pathetic. What next? Proof that Ron Paul was really Tokyo Rose. Then on to air brushing inconvenient photographic evidence.
Neo cons are not only economic dunces but historical revisionists.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 10:32AM
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 traveling the same path."
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 10:37AM
In rereading Liberty & Tyranny this weekend I realized the Paulbot Libertarians do not want a return to the constitutional vision of our Founders -- they want a return to the Articles of Confederation. It was that states' rights anarchy after the Revolutionary War that brought them together to pen our Constitution. Ron Paul is a clear and present danger to our constitutional republic and he must be turned out of the GOP like the Birchers...
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:05AM
That's A Lie & You're A Liar.
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 12:49PM
And you are a cult of personality moron who can't post any facts. Liber-als worship Obama, Liber-tarian Paulbots worship "Dr." Paul...
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 2:10PM
Your posts are admired by some of us because they are truthful. Thanks, 9thID.
Poke a Paul-bot by speaking the truth in such a near perfect manner and you will get the most of their vehemency directed at you.
The better you say it~ the more snake venom you will get!
android| 8.24.11 @ 5:33PM
Yes, It's Like Poking A Margie With The Truth oF Christ. It Provokes Vampire Like Anguish And Cries Of Pain.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 6:06PM
Really Clint/Tim*?
I speak the truth of Christ everyday here and elsewhere.
Like this for instance:
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Is. 5:20.
Vern Crisler | 8.24.11 @ 4:48PM
Yes, the Paulbots are usually in bed with neo-confederates, Lincoln-haters, Reagan-haters, Irael-haters, Sarah-haters, and on and on.
aware| 8.25.11 @ 5:55AM
Don't know who "Irael" is but I hate him.
Dave| 8.24.11 @ 10:44AM
So the plan is to build up Paul by attacking Bush and try to get some liberals to think Paul isn't another Bush and get some votes.
Ok.
I'm still not voting for the criminal.
Michael Tomlinson| 8.24.11 @ 10:46AM
How is RINO Ron Paul's apathy to Iran getting the nuclear bomb different from Barack Obama's approach? How is his calling for trade with Cuba any different from the late Ted Kennedy's or other liberal's position? How does receiving a "money bomb" via Russian TV a Moscow backed enterprise make RINO Ron Paul free of foreign influence -- doesn't this make him the paid agent of a foreign power?
Does RINO Ron Paul actually believe America is becoming a police state? Did RINO Ron Paul actually say he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Since RINO Ron Paul has taken hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for his district how does that make him different than the late liberal Sen. Robert Byrd (D)?
Why was RINO Ron Paul so careless as to allow a racist to write in his newsletter as him? Is Ron Paul so out of touch or disinterested in projects he's allegedly involved in that he doesn't pay attention to little details like people spreading racism in his name? How can we trust such a lazy person in the White House. By the who was the alleged ghostwriter of the blatantly racist comments?
During his failed 1988 Liberterian candidacy for President did RINO Ron Paul criticize Ronald Reagan as a "failure?"
Since RINO Ron Paul likes to cloak himself in Ronald Reagan why did he call his actions to save American hostages in Grenada "evil?"
"I personally believe that the most evil thing President Reagan did as president was to order the invasion of the tiny island of Grenada. Prior to the great U.S. military victory over Grenadian forces, which consisted of not much more than mowing down three men with fishing spears, the United States populace, because of Vietnam, was sick of war. The great "victory" in Grenada caused the taste for blood and pride in national military superiority to be reignited in the bowels of the American boobsie set..." RINO Ron Paul
"The American people, unfortunately, could not see that both actions were the result of the same flawed policy.... The Grenada invasion was heralded as a great triumph and applauded by the vast majority of American people.... Worst of all, and typical of our tragic foreign policy - in the midst of the Grenada invasion designed to make the world safe for democracy by stopping the spread of communism - President Reagan, behind the scenes, was forcefully lobbying for specific aid to 'Communist-dictators' through additional IMF funding. The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe." RINO Ron Paul
Politically isn't it true that RINO Ron Paul consistently opposed President Reagan's muscular and pro-American foreign policy? Going so far as to attack him for responding to terrorist attacks against American by Libya?
"The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration...." RINO Ron Paul
Why did RINO Ron Paul equate Reagan's actions in Grenada to save American hostages to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Why did he gullibly parrot the liberal Democrat line that it was an October surprise?
"One discouraging aspect of Reagan's October Surprise is the huzzahing by which the American public greeted the war in Grenada. It is over-optimistic to believe that the public is opposed to war; as was the case in Vietnam, the American masses are only opposed to a war that the U.S. has difficulty in winning. Give them a quick victory, with small loss of American life, and they love it. As one Pennsylvanian said after the invasion, "I'm glad our President is a man!" Americans seem to have little interest in the immorality or illegality of the invasion, in the principle of non-intervention, or in the fact that the closest modern analogy to the US. assault on Grenada was the much-reviled Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the Soviets invaded a country whose Commie ruler was too Commie for the Soviets to handle. No, the average Americano seems to glory in the vicarious macho thrill of war, provided victory is swift, and the resistance of the foreign victim disappears quickly. RINO Ron Paul
While Ron Paul postures now as a supporter of Ronald Reagan isn't the truth that he fought against the Reagan agenda? Here is what RINO Paul's former chief of staff wrote demeaning and belittling President Reagan http://www.lewrockwell.com/pol.....epublican/
Why should Republicans vote for a man whohas either run against the Republcan nominee or endorsed non-GOP third party candidates for President? Loyalty is obviously not a priority of RINO Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is outside the mainstream of Republican politics. He is in fact a liberalterian. Some might go so far as to say he is a "stalking horse" for Barack Obama and liberal Democrats.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:21AM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer,Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
"On Iran, The President should:
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner."
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:31AM
Ronald Reagan endorsed Dr.Ron Paul & Dr.Ron Paul was one of only four republicans,who endorsed Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford.
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:37PM
'......The balloting for president was still close, however, as Ford won the nomination with 1187 votes to 1070 votes for Reagan (and one for Elliot L. Richardson of Massachusetts)......'
SWLMA| 8.24.11 @ 10:50AM
A mocking gesture from Lord towards Paul & Mr. Hunter: "had we not antagonized the British, the French, the Barbary pirates, the Canadians and all of the Western Hemisphere, Americans would not have died and we could have saved a bunch of money"
As far as the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence had within its contents a declaration of war; The French Indian War? The Philadelphia Convention didn't even take place yet, America was a set of developing British colonies; The American Revolution had not even taken place yet, and the Constitution would not be written for another 24 years. Barbary pirates off the coast of Africa? The Barbary pirates were a group of self-interests sponsored by rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. I do agree that Jefferson did not have a declaration of war, and should have, given that the pirates were the aggressors. But are you saying that had Jefferson not responded quickly without a declaration of war, the conditions would have been much worse? These were pirates that were attacking commerce ships (unless payed a bribe) well outside the sovereignty of the US, and were no true immediate threat to its borders.; And the quick military response of Jefferson was a complete failure. It proves the harsh lesson that no aggression should be conducted without a declaration of war; and that includes foreign interventionism- the secret aggression that goes unnoticed. Whether our forefathers and previous presidents had adhered to this or not, this is our stance. And I can tell you in comparison, our forefathers were much more cautious in their foreign policy than these last few administrations. Ron Paul states that we should not engage in war without a declaration of war. We should not be policing the world, because it is not economically feasibly- we are, and have been for sometime, bankrupt. Also, foreign interventionism has produced blowback and created more enemies than you can fathom. The desire to trade and conduct relations with other countries, while refraining from political intervention is not "isolationist", rather it's the complete opposite. An isolationist policy would be more along the lines of -forcing sanctions on countries in the absence of diplomacy , like we're doing, and have been doing for at least the last decade.
Wayne | 8.24.11 @ 10:51AM
Funny how many people miss the main point of the author, to just engage in some ad-hominem attack on Ron Paul.
What is true is that for the most part in the GOP, political party TRUMPS personal convictions. Therefore when a Republican George Bush proposes socialistic legislation like "no child left behind", GOP conservatives vote for it. This is why I never became a Republican and never bought the lesser of two evils argument. I saw Republicans doing the dirty work that the Democrats could not do alone.
As a Vietnam vet, I find the neo-con indoctrination of Republicans disconcerting. It is a different course to the same end as foisted on us by the Left. It is Globalism. The idea is to use US resources (military might, money, blood) to make the world free for large multi-national corporations. The Left is now just extending the infrastructure to turn it into its own form of globalism, which of course is Marxism.
We have learned NOTHING from Vietnam. I thank the author for making some choices clear.
Dan | 8.24.11 @ 11:14AM
Jeff Lord will forever whore out his low-level work for Reagan to establish his credibility. But he doesn't mention that he also served as a legislative director for the king of pork Bud Schuster and press secretary for liberal Republican Senator John Heinz. What gave a guy who has made his living working for big-government Republicans the idea that he has become pope of legitmate conservatives and has the authority to issue excommunications?
Cato | 8.24.11 @ 11:24AM
The only reason smear merchants like Lord and the American Spectator can spew this crap is because our citizenry has been dumbed down so much they do not know logic and cannot recognize specious arguments and fallacies!
Joe D.| 8.24.11 @ 11:37AM
Most of us, conservatives know that Bush, Sr. and Jr. were no more conservative than Paul. They were moderates. And moderates make it up as they go along to get along.
As for Iraq and Afgan. he started out as a conservative then changed to Wilson to get along again. Check the democrats and media at the time. He changed with the static going on at the time. When you destroy a power through war you need to help them back on there feet with a correct government. See Germany and Japan for evidence. Enough Said!
Paul is a libertatian. Some of the things he says are right on target and conservative and others are out in leftfield. He is not the man for us.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 11:46AM
77% of Democrats (and Ron Paul) Voted Against Rules Of Engagement That Protect Our Troops
Sounds odd, can any Ron Paul supporter explain why he did this?
http://www.americanthinker.com.....roops.html
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 12:43PM
If you have not seen the attacks upon our military by the Paulbots, as "terrorists" then glad to see you woke up. Paulbots are classic Liber-als...
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 12:45PM
Oh I have seen the attacks. Just wondering how they would try to explain this.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 1:24PM
"Today, it was confirmed that the campaign of 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has raised more than any other current presidential candidate in donations from members of the military. Of those donors who indicated their occupation and employer, Paul topped the other contenders, a distinction he also achieved during his 2008 presidential run.
“Our fighting men and women take an oath to protect America, defend our Constitution and defend our borders,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman, Jesse Benton. “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously, and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 1:46PM
So your answer is, no you can't explain why he voted against it?
9thID| 8.24.11 @ 3:15PM
Yeah, that's the usual response, obfuscation and BS...
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 1:45PM
"However, Ron Paul is right that more consistent rules of military engagement around the globe are badly needed to be announced by America. The US should not be in a war unless a war is declared, as the Constitution requires. Doctrines like Bush’s ‘preemptive war’ idea or Obama’s ‘responsibility to protect with kinetic action’ logical fiasco make as much sense as the predictions of a future-watching gypsy reading the coffee cup in a dopey smoke parlor."
Joe| 8.24.11 @ 11:49AM
Uh this is not neo-liberal. Ron Paul follows classical liberalism which turned into the conservative party in the late 1800 and early 1900. Today's liberals and conservatives are a bastardization of old values. Parties are no longer recognized by their principles but by individual issues which is why we have so many problems.
GW| 8.24.11 @ 1:12PM
Thomas Jefferson, the paradigm of a classical liberal, was for increased military action off the coast of N. Africa. Last time I checked N. Africa had nothing to do with the US, so it would follow Ron Paul would have been against Jefferson's actions. Much of Paul's philosophy is classical liberalism. His approach to foreign policy is not. It's cowardice.
Sean| 8.24.11 @ 2:36PM
Ron Paul voted for action in Afghanistan.
USS Constitution.| 8.24.11 @ 11:50AM
The intellectual differences between the original and the reply are astounding.
The article starts out and I was meet with facts, a bit of history, philosophical differences and similarities and so on.
And the reply amounted to basically a bunch of spin and name calling.
Keep it up!
W| 8.24.11 @ 12:23PM
Most of this argument is irrelevant.
Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. It will be Bachman, Perry, or Romney.
The overwhelming majority of Paul supporters, the ones who are true conservative and/or libertarians are not anti-semitic, will vote for the Republican.
Any who are anti-Semitic will vote as they please regardless of our reasons and arguments about the terrorrist threat if they believe that the Republican nominee is overly supportive of Israel.
In my discussions I have never heard anyone say that they vote based on support for Israel, it is always taxes, the economy, the looks of the candidate, and plain inertia, they vote Dem or Rep because that is how they always vote.
If support for Israel was the determinative factor, then the Reps should get more thatn 10% of the Jewish vote. The Rep presidents, especially Nixon,Reagan, and Bush were all strong supporters of Israel, most notably Nixon during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Now that we have had this discussion for the past two days, why not an examination of the anti-semitism in the left wing of the Dem party, and the conncections to Obama. Look at the statements of Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Reverend Wright, and others. Look at the conduct of Jimmy Carter in constantly criticizing Israel, and during his presidency, his brother Billy Carter was a paid lobbyist for Gaddafi/Quadaffi.
Last year Wright said that Obama was controlled by the "Jewboys" in the White House.
Senatory Lieberman, an old fashioned Scoop Jackson Democrat, was forced out of the Dem party because of his strong suppport for the war on terrorrism.
Nick| 8.24.11 @ 1:51PM
W,
Excellent points, especially the first one.
Ron Paul will never be president. End of story.
W| 8.24.11 @ 12:24PM
Most of this argument is irrelevant.
Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee. It will be Bachman, Perry, or Romney.
The overwhelming majority of Paul supporters, the ones who are true conservative and/or libertarians are not anti-semitic, will vote for the Republican.
Any who are anti-Semitic will vote as they please regardless of our reasons and arguments about the terrorrist threat if they believe that the Republican nominee is overly supportive of Israel.
In my discussions I have never heard anyone say that they vote based on support for Israel, it is always taxes, the economy, the looks of the candidate, and plain inertia, they vote Dem or Rep because that is how they always vote.
If support for Israel was the determinative factor, then the Reps should get more thatn 10% of the Jewish vote. The Rep presidents, especially Nixon,Reagan, and Bush were all strong supporters of Israel, most notably Nixon during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Now that we have had this discussion for the past two days, why not an examination of the anti-semitism in the left wing of the Dem party, and the conncections to Obama. Look at the statements of Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Reverend Wright, and others. Look at the conduct of Jimmy Carter in constantly criticizing Israel, and during his presidency, his brother Billy Carter was a paid lobbyist for Gaddafi/Quadaffi.
Last year Wright said that Obama was controlled by the "Jewboys" in the White House.
Senatory Lieberman, an old fashioned Scoop Jackson Democrat, was forced out of the Dem party because of his strong suppport for the war on terrorrism.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 12:53PM
Harris Poll: If Ron Paul Won GOP Nomination, He Would Split Vote With Obama
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), an official candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has performed well in several polls throughout his campaign. In may, Paul took second place in a CNN/WMUR poll of likely Republican voters. In June, Paul won a Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. At the beginning of July, Paul came in first in a Texas GOP poll, conducted by the Azimuth Research Group.
Perhaps the best indication of Paul’s candidacy so far is a Harris poll released today by Harris Interactive. According to the Harris poll, Obama and Paul would split the vote right down the middle if they were to run against each other in 2012.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 4:43PM
"IF"
If monkeys with wings were Paul-bots we could fly them to the moon and claim they were abducted by aliens.
"IF"
Ron Paul won the nomination, he could fly them all back.
android| 8.24.11 @ 5:39PM
"IF"
Margie Were Nice She Would Be More Respectful.
"IF"
Margie Were Christian She Would Not Be So Hateful.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 6:08PM
Respect what?
And you better watch out~ God hates liars, and throws them into Hell, Troll.
GOD| 8.25.11 @ 10:53PM
Margie,
Hell is where I'm throwing you when you croak, so YOU better watch out dumb-ass!
chuck| 8.26.11 @ 9:46PM
I hope the Lord forgives you for thinking you can speak for His judgment.
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 12:59PM
Claiming political affiliation should ban you from public service. We need some sort of reform that will allow politicians to be elected based on their individual merits, not because they have a (D) or an (R) next to their name. The two party monopoly has pretty well wrecked the Republic.
BHatch| 8.24.11 @ 1:02PM
"Conservatives" WAKE UP!!! The Republican establishment (like Mr. Lord) IS Big Government. Simply ask yourself, which candidate understands liberty? Ron Paul is the only Republican who (like our Founders) fears our own government the most as he understands it is the biggest threat to our liberties. The Establishment has us debating Iran so we are not asking, "Why, almost 70 years after FDR, are the fruits of my own labor coercively confiscated from me through the threat of force by my own government?" Whether it is the War Powers Act, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., Ron Paul is the only "Republican" who seems to have read our Constitution and The Federalist Papers. We need a "reeducation" of America so we can restore what we once were... a free, liberty-loving people.
GW| 8.24.11 @ 1:09PM
Much like the "neo-cons" he despises, Ron Paul's foreign policy is much too inflexible and dangerously naive. I, for one, am tired of nearly a decade-long war that has seen the Christian population diminish in Iraq, corrupt Afghani leaders with no respect for the sacrafice American troops have given becoming rich through our financial aid, and a Libyan war that cost over $1 billion and is now a chaotic mess. But this doesn't make Paul right!
Before I'm accused of cognative dissonance, we must remember Paul's stances. Paul is not only against these engangements, but any other *potential* engagement as well. This is too short-sighted. One can be for removing troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Germany, Korea, Japan, etc. but it does not follow they cannot be deployed elsewhere--if it is in our national interests. If the "neo-cons" are at fault for supporting almost any military engagement (which they are), then it follows Paul is at fault for not supporting any military action short of a response to an outright invasion of American soil.
What is needed is a flexible, sane, foreign policy approach to the complex and ever changing world. Iran--from its rhetoric, its leadership, and its history; is "not Iceland, Ron." But I for one don't think uniformed Iranian soldiers pose much of a threat to the US. No one else does either. Hawks who are opposed to Iran do so for justifiable reasons, Ahmadenijad being one. If Iran did (or has) developed the bomb, would it send a jet to New York and drop it on Time's Square? Probably not, and it probably could not. But could Iran leverage the bomb for increased power in the MidEast? Yes. Could Iran give the bomb to suicidal jihadists? Yes. Would it have more political clout when dealing in the UN? Yes. In Opec? Yes.
These are things Ron Paul does not consider. When pressed, he expresses that it is the US's fault--even due to policies going back to the 50s or further--that Islamic countries aren't playing nice. He ascribes the mindset of Iran to his 21st century, liberalized Judeo-Christian American mindset--honest negotiation, mutual respect, the right to be left alone, political independence--and feels that Islam feels the same way. It doesn't. Ironically, President Paul would signal an increased aggression by Islamic and terrorist groups. They would sense weakness.
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 1:19PM
Support for Israel (such as giving them a nuclear arsenal), covert actions to overthrow governments in our 'national interest' (read 'corporate interest'), and our recent forays into nation building are the only reasons people in the Middle East hate us. If it weren't for these failed policies, their concern for the USA would be limited to how much money they could make off us by selling their oil.
Vern Crisler | 8.24.11 @ 4:55PM
Jesse, they don't hate us for those reasons. Corporate interest? Are Paulbots Naderites?
They hate us because we believe in, for the most part, classical liberal government. They, on the other hand, believe in Islamic theocracy and death to Israel. Ron Paul doesn't understand that, which is why he is not a conservative.
Drunken Sailor| 8.24.11 @ 1:50PM
Nicel Put GW.
Oldefarte| 8.24.11 @ 1:48PM
Paul's general principles concerning our foreign policy overreach is warranted, even if he extends same to far. Our eventual involvement in WWII was obviously necessary, as no doubt the entire western world would have possibly become emersed under Nazi domination if this country had not stopped Hitler and the Axis. The Jewish extermination also necessitated our envolvement. However, I'm slightly hesitant over our wars ever since, as none possibly threatened our national security. In the first Gulf War, Powell warned GHWB [concerning the possibly of invading Iraq and removing Sadaam] of the BREAK IT/OWN IT military axiom, and no doubt his prediction has come true. Retaliation after 9/11 was obviously necessary, but IMHO the re-implication of Nagasaki/Hiroshima agenda was instead warranted and preferable. What is dispicable is the possibility of Paul and his followers anti-Semitic tendencies if true [and additionally the video yesterday of his supporters chasing Hannity is asinine and acting STUPIDLY]!!!!!!!
Jesse| 8.24.11 @ 2:44PM
I'd say pretty well every war fought since WWII has weakened our national security, as we have made enemies where there were none. People don't just forgive and forget when you invade their countries and kill their relatives. As far as the anti-semitic charges, I sure am sick of the term. Did you know every time someone denigrates an Iraqi muslim, that is anti-semitic? Don't see people falling over themselves to defend the Iraqi though.
Paul believes that Israel can stand on it's own two feet. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. It's not a state of the US. We have no good reason to give them money and weapons when our country is in the it's in. If they request our help in a war that they did not start, I have no problems with aiding them. If they start a war through their own belligerence, they should be own their own.
Oldefarte| 8.25.11 @ 4:41PM
Your statement that 'As far as the anti-semitic charges, I sure am sick of the term. Did you know every time someone denigrates an Iraqi muslim, that is anti-semitic? ....'; nice try but you're incorrect and inaccurate according to the following from Wiki: '.....Despite the use of the prefix anti-, the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other. Antisemitism refers specifically to prejudice against Jews alone and in general,[4][5] despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.[6][7]Both terms anti-Semitism and antisemitism are in common use. Some scholars favor the unhyphenated form antisemitism to avoid possible confusion involving whether the term refers specifically to Jews, or to Semitic-language speakers as a whole.[8][9][10][11] For example, Emil Fackenheim supported the unhyphenated spelling, in order to "dispel[] the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes."[12].......' As to your typical Paulisms, I'll agree with same in a general sense, IMO Israel no longer needs our foreign/military aid, since they are entirely capable of adequately defending themselves against their Arab aggressor neighbors [and should be diplomatically allowed to do so in Nagasaki fashion if they so desire]. As to your '...Don't see people falling over themselves to defend the Iraqi though...'; hopefully you'll never see THAT, since the relitives and associates of these Arabs murdered 3000+ innocent Americans on 9/11/01 and previously from their embassy bombings, first trade center bombing and that of the USS Cole in Yemen [and if you or any other sympathizers of these terrorist killers are so inclined to compare Israelies to these murdering Arabs, then hopefully I don't need to inform you as to where you might go forth to]!!!
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 2:10PM
Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.
Paul Hankle| 8.24.11 @ 2:14PM
What is in the best interests of the United States? To bend over, and take it? Or to kick ass when ass needs to be kicked?
If one could take the willingness to use the military to protect our interests, or what was conservative about President Bush, with more rational domestic policy, or what is conservative about Ron Paul, one would have a strong candidate likely to beat President Obama.
If the Southern Agitator hates Lincoln so much, presumably because of Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus and his "aggression" and invasion of the south, why does he not hate Jefferson Davis for doing the same (as Mr. Lord points out), and invading the north? Gettysburg, Mr. Hunter?
BHatch| 8.24.11 @ 3:06PM
Lincoln- trying to prevent the people's right to self-determination.
Davis- trying to uphold his people's right to self-determination (by defeating the invader through taking the war to their homefront).
Just a small difference there.
Vern Crisler | 8.24.11 @ 4:57PM
Davis was trying to uphold WHOSE right to self-determination?
George S| 8.24.11 @ 6:08PM
The right of a man not to be enslaved trumps the right of another man's self-determination.
Mike| 8.25.11 @ 3:04PM
Just for fun, everyone does know that slaves were held in the NORTH right up until the 13th amd. was ratified(particularly in the Northern slave-state of Maryland), after Lincoln was dead, right?
Fly| 8.24.11 @ 2:31PM
No,Israel Firster.
You sound like Tokyo Rose.
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 2:58PM
Apparently, Dr.Reich's In The Building
Gene Callahan| 8.24.11 @ 3:27PM
"Newsflash: Ron Paul believes Ronald Reagan was a fascist?"
WTF? His OPPONENT said this, not Paul!
Solo| 8.24.11 @ 3:39PM
He calls this a "response" to Lord's piece?
Pure tripe! Typical PaulBot!
He cherry picks, misconstrues, attempts to use history as foresight, he conflates self-defense with "nation-building" and attempts to equate bad tactics to bad strategy.
I say...if the PaulBots are so damned unhappy with the republican party, then leave it and go off on your own! Why would they stick around if they think that the entire party is made up of "nation-building" liberals?
Oh...no wait! That's right! They DO have their own party; Libertarian--the 2% solution!
Do you know what Liberatarianism is?
It's a pathetic attempt to lend the appearance of objectivity to "I like this, but I don't like that."
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 4:23PM
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 traveling the same path."
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 4:48PM
"say...if the PaulBots are so damned unhappy with the republican party, then leave it and go off on your own!"
Bingo! You get the prize of the day, solo!
It is PRECISELY why they are not forming a party of their own~ they have it and it's a failure (Libertarian Party).
Clint/Tim* just posted it the other day~ their intent is to take over the GOP. It's where they can try and deceive others (like TEA partiers who don't know any better), to join them, as they come off as "Fiscally Responsible Conservatives."
They operate exactly how the Left does.
Yet they are NO conservatives.
And now~ finally~ some authors here are speaking the truth about them.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 5:27PM
Uh Oh !
The Big Badmen fromThe Tea Party are purging The GOPRuling Elite RINO-CINo's.
Shocking !
And there's gambling goin' on in Rick's Cafe.
Shocking !
Absolutely, Shocking !
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 6:12PM
Clint/Tim*/android:
You DID post what I said you posted.
But, since you're a lying punk you are willing to deny even what every single day either what you say, have said, or what others have proven about you and your cult leader, Ron Paul.
Shocking! Absolutely shocking!
LOL.
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 8:00PM
Ha,Ha,Ha
The Joisey Bigot Margie Also Calls We,Who Are Catholics,"A Cult" , As Well.
It's Part Of Her Culture Of Hate.
Margie's American Spectator's Resident Fanatic Bigot Nut Bag.
Margie| 8.24.11 @ 9:25PM
It is a cult, Pope Clint. And you are one of its best members!
I absolutely hate its false and unbiblical doctrines. However as you always do~ you lie about everyone and anyone who isn't one of your own.
I am free to hate and despise false teachings, and those who teach them. In fact~ God hates false doctrine as well, and will throw them into Hell for knowingly teaching them.
So, I'm in good company.
Oldefarte| 8.25.11 @ 5:03PM
'...It was Protestantism that removed these "deuterocanonical" books from the Bible, many centuries later. And contrary to the myth, the early Church did indeed accept these books as Scripture.The seven disputed books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include an additional six chapters (107 verses) in Esther and three chapters (174 verses) in Daniel. According to major Protestant scholars and historians, in the first four centuries Church leaders (e.g. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, St. Irenaeus) generally recognized these seven books as canonical and scriptural, following the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, following the Council of Rome (382), and general consensus, finalized the New Testament canon while also including the deutercanon, in lists that were identical to that of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). There's a scholarly consensus that this canon was pretty much accepted from the fourth century to the sixteenth, and indeed, the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament: the Codes Sinaiticus (fourth century) and Codex Alexandrinus (c. 450) include the (unseparated) deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran did not contain Esther, but did contain Tobit. According to Douglas and Geisler, Jamnia (first century Jewish council) was not an authoritative council, but simply a gathering of scholars, and similar events occurred afterward. In fact, at Jamnia the canonicity of books such as Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon was also disputed. Since both Protestants and Catholics accept these books today, this shows that Jamnia did not "settle" anything. The Jews were still arguing about the canonicity of the books mentioned earlier and also Proverbs into the early second century. And St. Jerome's sometimes critical views on these books are not a clear-cut as Protestants often make them out to be. In his Apology Against Rufinus (402) for example, he wrote: When I repeat what the Jews say against the story of Susanna and the the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us (Apology Against Rufinus, book II, 33) Significantly, St. Jerome included the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate, his Latin translation of the Bible, (And he defended the inspiration of Judith in a preface to it.) All in all, there is no clear evidence that St. Jerome rejected these seven books, and much to suggest that he accepted them as inspired Scripture, as the Catholic Church does today. But St. Jerome (like any Church father) does not have the final authority in the Church. He's not infallible. The historical evidence, all things considered, strongly supports the Catholic belief that these books are inspired and thus indeed part of Holy Scripture....'
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:42PM
Oldefarte,
The books were rejected and not included by Christians because they weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit.
And the men you call saints~ mostt of them were ungodly because they taught false teachings, and indeed as a matter of fact it is through them that we have most of the creations of Catholicsm beginning from the first centuries A.D.
Most of these so-called saints and early church fathers were off into their own pompous thoughts and fantasies.
For example, the false (unbiblical) teachings of Transubstantiation, prayer to the dead, church hierarchy (Popes), etc.
None of these things were taught by either the Apostles or Jesus.
And the Bible believing Christians who rightfully rejected them were Martyred for standing on God's own Words and rejecting them.
By the way, the Bible's (God's own Words) definition of a saint?
It's a living Christian, one who does the will of God. One who rejects all false teachings and obeys Jesus Christ and His Words only.
It isn't what Catholicism teaches~ that is a fraud, and made up utterly by guess who? Themselves!
NadePaulKuciGravMcKi| 8.24.11 @ 3:48PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
There is room at the top they are telling you still
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
The Gaffer| 8.24.11 @ 4:52PM
Ron Paul and his followers are insane. No if, and, or butts, about it. At least Paul can now enjoy his generous federal retirement benefits courtesy of the US taxpayer. So much for Libertarianism.
Jack in Wi.| 8.24.11 @ 6:01PM
Ron Paul has never taken part in the lucrative Federal Pension plan. He does not believe in it and wants it abolished. ron Paul is tied with Obama in 2 polls the last 2 days. Rassmussen and Gallup. he is in third place in the Republican field for the nomination. ahead of Bachman and beathing down romney's neck. the dimwitted Perr leads right now because of media puff. I give him another month. thelatest polls show that huge majorities back Dr. Paul on ending the wars now, ending foreign aid, and auditing the Fed. I am proud to presnt the next President of the United States Dr. Ron Paul. The soldiers best friend. Send Them a mesage. Vote Ron Paul for peace and prosperity
Jedipastor1| 8.24.11 @ 5:10PM
Occam's Tool writes:
“OK, enough ad hominem for now. Let's state these disagreements accurately.......The domestic issues, except for Paul's whacko views on Cannabis (I'm a psychiatrist for 3 Native tribes---I strongly disagree with Paul on this Professionally, and there is really not a one of you fit to debate me on this on level ground.), are essentially a wash between Paul and Bachmann. Foreign Policy is the difference. And it is significant.”
----
William, I thank you for avoiding the ad hominem while applying your razor so that we all can focus on what the disputable issues with Ron Paul really are.
Funny, but I think you are kinder on Ron Paul regarding domestic issues than I am, and I’m currently leaning towards Ron Paul despite that, as the potential societal problems will arguably be much smaller than the ones being caused now by the statists of both parties.
On foreign policy, I agree with your concern that it is the government’s job to defend the nation from aggressors both foreign and domestic. You might prefer to use the term “threat” more than I would, which, after all, has readily been used to legitimize a pre-emptive, interventionist if not king-making/nation-building foreign policy. We would disagree on whether such is really about maintaining our national DEFENSE or is rather about going on a national OFFENSE which amounts to an unconstitutional foreign imperialism, one which really is not serving the interests or of ultimate benefit of the common, everyday Middle-class American other than the hypothetical suggestion that eliminating such and such rattlesnakes out in the desert was crucial to our safety since one of them might have eventually crawled into our house. (Funny though, given our apparent open-border policy with Mexico, at least in actual practice, for all the snake-hunting we spend out time doing abroad, just how many snakes have already slithered in through the open garage door?) Hence, for all this talk of going on the offense in foreign policy, sort of like “the best defense is a good offense” mentality, which has proven just as ineffective overall in real life as it has in the game of football! For example, I could much easier accept, or at least stomach, the invasion of WMD-less Iraq for example if it could be shown how it has benefited not only all the peoples of that country, but our own people as well. (Oh yeah, just ask Christians in Iraq if they feel any safer now under an Islamic government as they did under their former secular dictator. Far from it! A lateral move at best. But who cares about them anymore than the Copts in Egypt?) The same for Libya, which, after all, supplies its oil to Europe, not to the US. We see the expense, but where is the benefit? The only benefit I can see is that we gain a couple more airstrips to fly our B52’s out of. I mean, after all, our 800+ military bases throughout the world is simply not enough! Is it on to Iran now, all in the name of “national defense”? Just to benefit an ally (Israel), with nothing but expense to ourselves, added on to the ongoing and endless nation-securing , rattlesnake hunting work in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc., etc. Rome anyone? England Anyone? But of course to mention the truth that the only potential benefactors may be Israel and our Military Industrial Complex somehow automatically makes me a raving, anti-semite if not a security risk I guess.
The point is, the accusation made against Ron Paul is that he is not for national defense. Prove it! If his critics were honest, they would rather state things truthfully: He is against national "offense" in foreign policy. Indeed, a case could just as well be made that it is the NeoCon establishment that has replaced national defense within and up to our borders with a national offense which the US Constitution does not support. I am very concerned about maintaining our national defense, as is Ron Paul. It is precisely why I am turning to him, and away from the NeoCon establishment with their pre-emptive, offensive strategy which only is making us less safe, opting for offense at the expense of defense, not to mention contributing to why we are broke economically---eventually the money will run out for your national offense strategy as well.
I hardly agree totally with all of Ron Paul’s views. I can’t say that about any politician of any party for that matter. Nevertheless, the recurrent and growing problems in our country have been addressed time and time again in a merely cosmetic, superficial manner by both parties, albeit in different ways. No doubt, a Republican president would lead to a slower death of our Republic (that is, inasmuch as we can still really call it a “Constitutional Republic”), nevertheless, death would still be inevitable without real, systemic, foundational change. By “change”, I don’t mean something completely new. By “change”, I mean reform, revolution, or perhaps the best words are simply “renewal” and “return”, that is, to the wisdom of the founding fathers and consistent adherence to the Constitution in actual policy/decisions, rather than the mere “lip speaking” that we hear from Republican politicians year after year while campaigning in an election year. To do such nowadays, as Ron Paul no doubt would strive to do, is indeed “radical”, which is why I am not so surprised when both liberal and conservative media deem him a “kook” and/or try to marginalize him and his views. Like the good doctor that he is, he would do the harder work of treating the root disease rather than merely treating the symptoms. One disease is the fed, which he diagnosed years before the likes of Bachmann , Romney, Gingrich, or Perry got on the scene, let alone any other establishment Republican.
No doubt I will be labeled a blind, spoon-fed Paulbot. Understandably. But I simply would ask the NeoCon establishment to consider the recent “debt bill” headed by leader Boehner and ilk. Who is the blind one here? You want to know why so many of us Republicans are increasingly turning to Ron Paul? You want to know why he is polling so well, much in contradiction to your predictions that he is nothing more than a fringe candidate? Precisely because of things like this recent debt bill. Middle-class Republicans and Independents are not all pot-smoking idiots. We’re middle-class people headed quickly to lower-middle class if not poverty level. We’re seeing no economic hope for the future, no reason for investment, of which it is not merely the devaluation of the dollar by the Fed to serve Wall Street and International Banking ( and yes, Bilderberg is no mere crazy conspiracy theory!), and no doubt Ron Paul agrees that Obamacare has to go (on Constitutional grounds, not merely in order to serve the interests of big business pharmaceutical and such, which can be an unspoken menace on sound medicine in their own right). But also part of the reason is spending on foreign imperialism (national defense is the 2nd largest expenditure of the federal budget, at roughly 18% right behind social security at 19%. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....tegory.jpg ) Even then I have no problem with such an expenditure on national DEFENSE, especially with regard to safeguarding our southern and northern borders, but where is the money going? Certainly not to defending the nation here, but rather to nation-building abroad, to the benefit of foreign interests at the expence of the common, everyday Middle-class private-sector taxpaying American. Who is profiting from all this? Are we more safer today? Really? More Prosperous? Really? No doubt, socialist dems are largely to blame, but to acquit the NeoCon Republican establishment of any part in this, well, who is blind? Who is really a “bot”?
Sorry William, but I’ve got a razor too. It cuts well through the bull, through the “best defense is offense” rhetorical logic. Ron Paul is undoubtedly “radical”, since he advocates constitutional renewal in policy-making, both foreign and domestic. And no doubt that is dangerous to the establishments of both parties. But to the common, everyday working American who foots the bill, he is the best, most trust-worthy friend we have. I may not agree with everything he thinks or does, but at least I know what he will do, given he resolutely will follow the US Constitution as his guide, rather than merely lip-speak to it.
Kenneth waldron| 8.24.11 @ 10:27PM
I'm fit to argue with you about cannabis. Quite simply, it is not your place to make decisions regarding my personal life. Despite your lofty credentials and any harmful consequences associated with the use of cannabis notwithstanding, it's none of your damn business DOCTOR.
Kenneth waldron| 8.24.11 @ 10:29PM
But otherwise, good comment. RP 2012
Le Cracquere| 8.24.11 @ 6:18PM
If Ron Paul is the yardstick of real conservatism, then drop me in a Prius and hand me my NPR tote bag.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.25.11 @ 9:43PM
If Republicrats continue to "rule," we become Greece.
Mark MacDonald| 8.24.11 @ 6:21PM
Arguing over who is and who isn't a conservative is a waste of time, especially regarding foreign policy. Events that occurred two centuries ago are not precise guides as to what are policies regarding foreign affairs should be today. Sometimes it is necessary to go to war, sometimes it is not. What is important is that American military power is used to protect the rights of Americans, period. In domestic affairs, conservatism has become confused with Christianism. I am a conservative who supports the rights of states to write their own marriage laws. That these laws may violate the dogma of certain religions bothers me not at all. Excessive government spending and unnecessary interference in the economy are liberal ideals. As a conservative I oppose such policies. Ron Paul may not fit Mr. Lord's definition of a conservative, but it fits mine and many others.
Thom| 8.24.11 @ 6:28PM
That Ron Paul voted for an invasion of a sovereign country (Afghanistan) in 2001 no one can dispute. I’d like to hear from the Paulbots just what Ron Paul’s expectations were from this vote? Afghanistan did not “declare war” against us and they had no military capability to do so even if they had. That the Taliban ran the country is not disputable; that the Taliban protected and refused to give up AQ is also not disputable. No matter how you slice the pie, we invaded a sovereign nation that did not attack us and Ron Paul voted for this action.
No matter how the final result came out you cannot escape that US military power aligned with about 15,000 Northern Alliance fighters (anti Taliban) confronted and drove a force of over 45,000 Taliban and AQ fighters out of the country at some considerable effort and cost to us. If the Northern Alliance could have done this alone we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If the Northern Alliance could maintain what was achieved without our help we wouldn’t be having this conversation. No matter how you slice it, it was our forces that made the difference. In the final analysis what was the outcome? The same you get when you spray your workspace with bug spray and chase the roaches to your co-workers space for a month or so….. nothing more. Ron Paul voted for this.
If it was not apparent to the neophytes in the Ron Paul Brigades in 2001 it certainly is blazing obvious after a decade that the Taliban and AQ are just different divisions of the same movement with the Taliban being protection force for the Foreign Service Division. AQ set up shop in Afghanistan precisely because it is a very remote and difficult place to de-roach. If all we did after running the Roaches into Pakistan was to pack up and leave then it follows that the much stronger Taliban would have moved back in and set shop up again and AQ would have had a secure training base to operate from again. Nothing would have changed overlooking the shear cost of conducting such an operation (both getting in and out). Given the forces and capability we had at that time for such an operation of this scope cutting off the escape of the Taliban and AQ from this modern day Roach Motel were pretty remote at best. Based on Paul’s statements over his political career, had he been President for any length of time, we wouldn’t have had the capability to do what we did do with the limited forces we did have for such an operation. Capability equals Capital cost. The Libyan operation illustrates what happens when you don’t have the capability to conduct offensive operations. Without the US there would be no Libyan operation or any offensive capability within NATO at large. If anyone thought we could possibly cut off the movement and escape of the Taliban and OBL’s crew in 2001 with the forces and power projection capabilities we had then they were either on some sort of drug induced stupor or blazingly ignorance of our forces and the nature of Afghanistan. Since Ron Paul was a former Air Force Officer, whatever that means in relation to an operation like this, it stands to reason that he knew going in that our only two viable options was to chase the Taliban out of Afghanistan temporarily followed by trying to “build a viable” nation state that could resist their return or just chase them out and then leave accomplishing nothing at all other to get some of our people killed in vain. The latter option is what you see practiced by LE in large urban population centers in this nation with regard to gang violence. We see how well that method works….
To Wit, Ron Paul voted for an operation knowing by default that it would not accomplish any real world lasting result if we didn’t change the culture on the ground or he knew we would have to stay for as long as it took short of a massively reengineered American military force pool and a willingness to take the battle to the Roaches where ever they went….. As I remember George W. Bush said as much in his speak before Congress before we even had a plan for Afghanistan and Ron Paul still voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps Ron Paul is just another political opportunist and went along with an undeclared war against a sovereign country that did not attack us…..because that is what the bulk of his constituents wanted (as he saw it at the time)? An Ron Paul the President of the United States would have made a different decision than George W Bush, the “endless war Neo-con” in 2001? He would have been looking for work in January 2005 if he had.
The Paulbots might want to be careful for what they wish for…. a principled man does not vote to invade a sovereign nation that did not attack us one day and then vote against doing the same against another two years later …. Afghanistan was never the main theater of operations while George W Bush was President and for most of his presidency he didn’t keep more than 20,000 troops, the bulk of which were non-combat logistics types there. It is Iraq where AQ fought us in large numbers and died in similarly large numbers. Afghanistan has become important again because we have a weakling as President.
Ron Paul, the former Air Force officer of what combat command voted to invade a sovereign nation without a declaration of war for what tangible purpose in 2001?
Kent Lyon| 8.24.11 @ 6:32PM
Jeffrey Lord omits the most salient argument: Does the Declaration of Independence mean what it says, or not? All men are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that governments are established to protect those rights, exercise their just powers by consent of the governed, and are subject to replacement if they practice tyranny and deprive their citizens of their Natural right. Which of those points does Ron Paul contest? Which apply only to Americans? Apparently, for Ron Paul, all of them. And is the nation that enshrined those axioms supposed to turn a completely blind eye to those in the world that would reach for the freedoms America enjoys? It is a benighted soul, indeed, who could watch Iranians being shot in the streets, and sleep soundly while making no effort whatsoever to assist the Iranian people in their quest for freedom, indeed, that would support the murderous mullahs who were murdering their own citizens. I suspect Ron Paul and Barack Obama both lost no sleep over those deaths, and don't give a fig for liberty, the universal axioms of liberty expounded in the Declaration and worked out in the Constitution. A libertarian who doesn't believe in liberty. That's Ron Paul.
I suggest Ron Paul read the history of Gen. Patrick J. Hurley. And his blogger. And Jeffrey Lord.
Madison was the greatest applied political philosopher in the history of the world. The American Founding principles are the greatest governing principles ever propounded by mankind. Why does Ron Paul so object to liberty? Why is he so averse to preserving or defending or advancing it? America promotes democracy around the world for the same reason Caeser fought Gauls: It keeps us safe at home. When the Romans stopped projecting power, they shrunk and disappeared. A people advances, or it regresses. Nothing stands still. Nothing remains static. We cannot remain America alone, isolationist. We tried that last Century. Didn't work out too well. Same thing now, except with vastly greater risk if we fail. If America does not lead the world, the world devolves in to chaos and death. Ron Paul has only a Rhett Butler retort to such ideas. He and America may prosper briefly under his ideas, but war and chaos will be the result. If the forward wars are not fought, it is a guarantee that we will be fighting a defensive war, on our soil, against a nuclear holocaust. I for one don't want to wait for the nuclear attack on Washington, New York, Los Angeles, etc., that comes out of the blue like the 9/11 bombings, or the Pearl Harbor attack. Eternal vigilance, not libertarianism a la Ron Paul, is the price of freedom. Projecting power around the world is a necessity to avoid the defensive war Ron Paul wants to fight. With his approach, he will get his wish.
Jedipastor1| 8.24.11 @ 8:39PM
Nice speech. It represents the NeoCon spirit and belief system quite well: The US has a divine mandate, a manifest destiny, to be the world's policeman and superman. Now, whether or not others wanted their help or not does not matter. After all, we are the US! We know what's best for everyone!
Mr. Santorum, desiring liberty and justice for all is quite distinct from the capacity to completely achieve such in all countries of the world let alone in our own country.
To Ron Paul's valid warnings that the US not spread itself out too thin (ala Rome), you no doubt conclude that he is an isolationist who doesn't give a d*mn about the rest of the world. Umm, ok. Who is blinded by their beliefs here?
Thom| 8.24.11 @ 8:58PM
And your response is typical Libertarian tripe.
The last time this Nation tried your isolationist head up our arse approach to world affairs we ended up putting 12,000,000 men under arms (10 percent of the country’s population) , 16,000,000 serving in total all over the world, half our GDP going to war production for four years to undo the mess your mindset created. That was before long range weapon systems with a single warhead could destroy an entire City and millions of lives came down the pike. A decade in Iraq and Afghanistan combined don’t equal one good WWII battle for a single day. A sense of proportion goes a long way toward forming a valid perspective on things but that seems to escape your mindset.
Jedipastor1| 8.25.11 @ 12:19AM
Again, I understand proportion quite well, thankyou. Do you understand the economic situation at home? Your mindset obviously doesn't. Son, we cannot afford this ever-expanding foreign imperialism abroad which has and will continue to go on much, much longer than 4 years. Period.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.25.11 @ 7:18PM
Nice speech. Problem is, our nation is governed by a set of laws known as the U.S. Constitution, not the DOI.
And you support the Roman view of Imperialism. This is a joke, right?
If not, I'll put Paul's position in terms you might understand: lets return to a Republic and leave Empire behind.
publius cato| 8.24.11 @ 7:34PM
Mr. Lord's response is an uneducated hit piece made with no foundation in fact or logic other than to appeal to emotion. What Mr. Lord fails to disclose is the invasion of Canada was during the American Revolution (an open war with the UK) and a plan to other wise end the war before it even began. The quasi-war with France was caused by france seizing American ships. The invasion of the barbary coast was caused by acts of piracy on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Consider those events and now compare with Iraq or Iran or America's military presence Korea or Germany, what threat to an Americans and American interests are we protecting? None.
The Argument that Ron Paulers and Jack Hunter should vacate the US and return it to the First Nations because they insist on the US ending its military presence in over 150 countries, some of which causes angst among radical Muslims is interesting but distinguishable. The distinction is our forebears invaded America to live in America, they found to keep the land they settled and ultimate caused (rightly or wrongly) the First Nations to accept treaties of peace, by government they established with their own consent, in contrast the US has created treaties with puppet governments it created in several foreign states and otherwise funded "puppet" government oppression long after they lost consent of the people. Further some of the withdrawals have nothing to do with morality but everything to do with who should bear the costs such as the EU (no.1 GDP, IMF), Japan (no.4 IMF) and the RoK (no. 10, IMF).
publius cato| 8.24.11 @ 7:34PM
Mr. Lord's response is an uneducated hit piece made with no foundation in fact or logic other than to appeal to emotion. What Mr. Lord fails to disclose is the invasion of Canada was during the American Revolution (an open war with the UK) and a plan to other wise end the war before it even began. The quasi-war with France was caused by france seizing American ships. The invasion of the barbary coast was caused by acts of piracy on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Consider those events and now compare with Iraq or Iran or America's military presence Korea or Germany, what threat to an Americans and American interests are we protecting? None.
The Argument that Ron Paulers and Jack Hunter should vacate the US and return it to the First Nations because they insist on the US ending its military presence in over 150 countries, some of which causes angst among radical Muslims is interesting but distinguishable. The distinction is our forebears invaded America to live in America, they found to keep the land they settled and ultimate caused (rightly or wrongly) the First Nations to accept treaties of peace, by government they established with their own consent, in contrast the US has created treaties with puppet governments it created in several foreign states and otherwise funded "puppet" government oppression long after they lost consent of the people. Further some of the withdrawals have nothing to do with morality but everything to do with who should bear the costs such as the EU (no.1 GDP, IMF), Japan (no.4 IMF) and the RoK (no. 10, IMF).
hard headed veteran| 8.24.11 @ 10:00PM
I am more conservative than any of you pu$$ies. I fought in Vietnam (and I enlisted) and my son just died in Iraq not long ago. I know what it is to get your ass in the grass.
I dont shy away from a fight, never have and my son never did. That cost him his life, but he went down swinging and Im proud of him for that.
There is nothing wrong with a fight, but it seems like nowadays we think its the 'conservative' position to sneak it without declaring war and start bombing and displacing civilians. Brother, where I come from you look a man in the eye and you tell him when you're coming and you dare him to stop you.
Now I know some of you may not agree with me, but Im asking you to listen this one time to an old man and listen - just damn listen - to what Ron Paul says, and I swear to ya he'll start making sense.
We need a gold-backed currency and we need the fed gone. We need more guns, not less. We need a guy that will put his finger in your chest and tell you and the world 'I cant be bribed!' You can argue back and forth about whether Ron Paul is a racist or what religious group he likes or doesnt but I will tell you something and I want you all to think about it - Ron Paul cant be bought, Ron Paul will look you in the eye and tell you he's coming rather than sneak up on you, and he won't be around for another election cycle.
It will be real easy for him not to get elected. I promise you unless some of us take a new, long hard look at the situation and really think, he will not get elected. It will take a fresh look and yeah, some of us may need to eat some crow, but think about what happens if you elect any of these other phonies - nothing. Nothing. Give him a damn chance.
All these other guys, Perry and Romney included, cant ya'll tell they are telling you what you want to hear? Maybe Im just old enough to know people, but I cant think of one politician ever did what they said they'd do. Ron Paul is honest, at least honest enough so that I dont give a damn about the fine print. The man has voted consistent for 12 damn terms.
Here is a guy who is honest to a fault, will try to end the federal reserver and restore sound money, reduce taxes (severely) and kick the fkn progressive income tax commies to the curb in the process, bring our damn troops home, and who is man enough to declare a damn war before signing an executive order to start one.
I dont know about you, but Im willing to give him a second look and Im hoping some of my fellow conservatives are willing to do the same. You all are good people here, and you all (we all) deserve better.
Jedipastor1| 8.25.11 @ 12:27AM
Great post. I salute you sir and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for you and your son's valiant, sacrificial service to our country.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 1:57AM
Ron Paul is not an honest man. He's filled with hatred toward America and toward Israel.
He's a terrorist sympathizer who needs his head examined.
Otherwise he's just peachy.
John Hogan| 8.25.11 @ 2:21AM
Margie is not an honest woman. She is filled with hatred toward herself and toward humanity.
She's a socialist sympathizer who needs her head examined.
She does, however, keep a tidy home.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:47PM
Let me know when the liar Ron Paul retracts his statements concerning the terrorists are terrorists because of America as Occupiers.
And that's just one of his dishonest statements.
You need to grow up, you guys.
Morerice| 8.26.11 @ 4:43AM
Let me know when the liar Margie retracts her statements concerning the socialists are conservatives because of America as Pre-emptive Attacker.
And that's just one of her dishonest statements.
You need to grow up, you gals.
Bobby Taft| 8.25.11 @ 3:09PM
Paul is the only Republican candidate running who has served in the military--- and did so during a time of war.
Margie| 8.25.11 @ 9:48PM
I didn't know that not ever being in the military was a disqualifier.
Wow, you Paul-bots are just brimming with information!
NOT.
Bobby Taft| 8.27.11 @ 8:20PM
"I didn't know" must fly out of your mouth a lot (when it isn't filled of course).
USA,Israel, friends forever| 8.26.11 @ 10:51PM
Margie when I read your posts from late last night I become concerned that you are not sufficiently supportive of Israel. It is not up to you to decide you the terrorists are. Remember, judge not lest you be judged. Perhaps it is time for some brushing up on Leviticus, Romans & Matthew to keep you sorted. Maybe even the whole NT.
chuck| 8.26.11 @ 10:02PM
God bless you Sir, and may your son rest in peace. There are far too many like your son filling our national cemeteries.
I respect your opinions, they are expressed thoughtfully and with passion. If all of Ron Paul's supporters were able to thoughtfully and respectfully express themselves, Paul would be better received.
I agree with a lot of Paul's domestic agenda, the Federal government needs to be chopped, butchered, sliced, diced, not just trimmed around the edges. I think most posters here would agree with that. I just have some serious concerned as to his commitment to defending this country, and our interests around the world, including our allies.
Again, my deepest sympathies on the loss of your son, and I commend you for raising a child who was willing to do the job.
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 10:08PM
What revisionist garbage Lord's response is. We had no national standing army after the revolutionary war (except for a brief between 1791-96) until the war of 1812. Your examples of Jefferson, Madison are disingenuous.
Madison wrote: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Jefferson wrote: " I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer."
" War has been avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization it produces, and of the superior blessings of a state of peace and friendship with all mankind."
" I value peace, and I should unwillingly see any event take place which would render war a necessary resource."
" Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness."
Your revisionist response lacks credibility.
Jefferson, Madison, Adams (both), and Monroe were learned in their history. They were aware of what Caesar's militarism had meant to the Roman Republic. The degeneration of a society in culture and in its finances.
F.A. Hayek understood how different our founders' classical liberalism (read: constitutional conservatism based on the rule of law) differed as a cultural inheritance from the war obsessed Prussian and Austro-Hungarian clans. The former were for peace and commerce, friendship and trade, the latter were for slaughter and plunder, force, coercion, and destruction. Neo-cons, it's time to go back to your Wilsonian roots. Conservatism has had enough of you while the interventionist/statist left misses its bullying-enforcement arm.
Besides, we don't have any money. We're broke.
axbucxdu| 8.25.11 @ 1:07PM
"...Besides, we don't have any money. We're broke."
Maybe we can get this posted in an endless loop on that wedge shaped marquee in Times Square. Sooner or later it would seep into left/right prog consciousness as it relentlessly scrolls in the background during MSM broadcasts.
todd koby| 8.24.11 @ 10:18PM
"Reagan wasn't really a conservative and didn't represent conservative Republicans." If you spend $1.47 for every dollar you bring in, you ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE. You cant spin that. Reagan was NOTHING. He was president when the Fed Gov't basically had no debt in relation to GDP...and Reagan blew it...he is the one who invented false prosperity and unlimited deficit spending....and so we have arrived.....BANKRUPT, and the talking heads are treating this election like a beauty paegent...its Ron Paul or implosion. Go ahead and vote establishment-you will be rewarded with disaster.
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 10:53PM
Clint? Where are you? How can you sit there and let this guy claim that Reagan was NOTHING!
You told me Reagan was a Libertarian! Clint! Help me. So which is it today?
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:11PM
Don't Come Crybabying To Me, Asshole.
John Lofton | 8.24.11 @ 10:20PM
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John Lofton | 8.24.11 @ 10:20PM
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Nick| 8.24.11 @ 11:36PM
Mr. Lofton,
I loved watching you on the conservative TV network NET, founded by the late, great Paul Weyrich.
Why don't you appear on television more often?
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:31AM
Absolutely. The neoconservatives treat the Christian voters like the Democrats treat the blacks. They promise them big changes during the campaign, but don't actually represent their interests after they're elected. What's the point of voting pro-life when its painfully clear that there's no real interest in actually addressing the scourge of abortion - it's just a ring in our noses.
Clint Stutts| 8.24.11 @ 10:21PM
Wow. Just wow. Mr. Lord is so wrong about so much, it would take all night to set him straight.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 10:28PM
Of course, there's irony here. How ironic that Paul is accused of trying to re-educate conservatives, when it is just the opposite. Are we supposed to believe that No Child Left Behind, the bank bailouts, and Medicare Part D are bedrocks of conservative tradition. How ludicrous! I guess maybe the author is testing to see how ignorant his readers really are.
hipposelect| 8.24.11 @ 10:29PM
I find all this back and forth amusing and enlightening, and all the arguments in favor of foreign adventurism, too. But what about this, folks: WE'RE broke and can't afford it! Have any of you folks been paying attention to prices the last couple of years? Economics 101: You cannot borrow indefinitely. You cannot do it. Eventually debts must be paid. Of everybody in Washington, Ron Paul seems to be the only one who realizes this very basic economic truth. The increasing money supply via the printing press is driving prices up inexorably and still all these Washington fools refuse to stop spending. If your wife (or husband, as the case may be) ran your household deep into debt, and then every time he wanted some new toy, just went to the bank and asked that his credit limit be raised until it was way beyond what you could ever pay, you'd accuse him of having gone insane. And yet that's exactly what our federal government does year in and year out and you really don't believe there will be any consequences? Whether or not we should be wrangling Iran or other countries will become completely moot when you take your fistful of hundred dollar bills to the store and they won't buy a loaf of bread. Think that's too farfetched? Please, folks, look to the past to see our future: http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat-currency/
Simon Templar| 8.24.11 @ 10:46PM
A letter to all the Ron Paul Libertarians:
It is not Ron Paul that we believe is anti-semitic per se, it is the jackboots out here on this blog and many of his followers that are jew haters.
Furthermore, because we do not agree with ALL his positions on foreign policy we are labeled neo-cons and warmongers, terms defined and used by liberals against conservatives.
We also do not appreciate your discourse and style which are very close to liberals in the way you name call (Clint), attack, skirt central issues, intimidate, and avoid any criticism whether it is solid or weak.
Many if not most of your positions ARE not conservative at all. You mock people of faith, pull the liberal seperation of church and state bullshit to smash religion, mock traditional familiy values, demand unfettered legalization of all drugs, hold some (not all) foreign policy and naional security views that appear wreckless and irrational. Conservatives want an end to these occupations and more cautious and prudent approach to war as well. See, we have a difference though...we, unlike you, do not believe our nation is monstrous despite that, at times, it may be misguided or make incorrect decisions but with good intentions. So, stop the bullshit.
Then there is the thuggery that some of your followers have displayed like that against Sean Hannity and the smearing that you do with such vehemence against EVERYONE that does not fall down to worship THE DR. Paul. You create this LIST like little jackboot Nazi's of who is acceptable and who is not. And finally, you have the same arrogance and inability to move one inch even after the facts are presented just like a progressive liberal.
So, go ahead and prove me correct. I expect the same idiotic response that we have seen the last two days. I got news for you. You are not going to bully anyone nor are you going to push the conservative majority out of the way by calling us neo-cons and stamping your feet.
maxpower| 8.24.11 @ 11:07PM
The only "idiotic response" is the one you just wrote. You are the only hater here. And I think you have a real problem with one thing: The US Constitution.
Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 10:51AM
I rest my case. Thanks for supporting my viewpoint.
"you are the only hater here." A classic, from the halls of the Liberal Progressive rhetoric.
Deep, Deep analysis....like a little spoiled brat, "the only 'idiotic reponse' here is the one you just wrote."
You think? I could not tell.
maxpower| 8.26.11 @ 11:45AM
No, really, thank you for supporting MY viewpoint. It's never about the issues, only about who can call who the most names, right?
Clint| 8.24.11 @ 11:09PM
What Goes Around, Comes Around,Israel Firster.
Box Of Tissues, Crybaby ?
Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 11:02AM
Clint, no thanks. I think you are the one who will need them the most on the night of the republican nomination.
Younger Cato| 8.24.11 @ 11:30PM
Some of my favorite people are Jewish: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Felix Menelssohn.
Quit spreading this false guilt-by association meme. Truth is the number of anti-Semite Paul supporters out there is as negligible as that for any other candidate, but you instigators hope that by repeating this dishonest narrative you can convince those yet undecided that it's not worth listening to Paul because of the artificially created stigma you're hoping to create. Truly Alinsky-like garbage tactics coming form the neo-con wing of the party.
Simon Templar| 8.25.11 @ 11:00AM
No one has to repeat anything. The threads here and your pals comments are daming enough. It is not Ron Paul that I am concerned about, it is you jackboots.
Ron Paul is not threatening anyone, making anti-semitic remarks that I have heard, nor chasing people down streets like thugs. You and your pals are.
What I know of your Liberarianism comes out of your own mouths. My critique is not about Ron Paul, it is about you jackboots.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.25.11 @ 7:31PM
Axelrod would be proud of this. Rather than debate the issues, just yell "anti-Semite."
We have seen it all before. Insert "Tea Baggers" for "Ron Paul Supporters" and "homophobe/racists/sexists/what-have-you" and Obama's tactics on display.
POST American| 8.24.11 @ 11:07PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
'Que Sera Sera' Sarah Pail--in
Mitt ('with' in German) a Rome-Knee
(on your backs)
'ME---shall' BALK--MEN
(impotence subtexting)
Rki Tiki, Tavistock Institute TTT---Ricky,
'Pair--he'
And even Tim 'Paul n' Tea'
-------------we just can't buy.
RON PAUL, such as he is, is ALLLL we've got.
Javier R.| 8.25.11 @ 12:05AM
There is no question that Hunter had the better argument. Lord simply regurgitated his verbiage again like a good intellectual zombie. Hunter did solid job demonstrating that Paul stands squarely in the old right tradition. A tradition that far surpasses anything Lord belongs to.
AngelaTC | 8.25.11 @ 2:26AM
Neocons don't have to be smart, because they're bullies.
Douglas| 8.25.11 @ 12:54AM
As a Ron Paul supporter,
I have to say , Clint, STFU!
Its guys like you that give us a bad name, you really expect to win anyone over with your garbage? You make me sick.
You know, now that i think about it your most likely a paid plant, here just to make Paul look bad.
USA,Israel, friends forever| 8.25.11 @ 1:17AM
Ron Paul will be heart attacked before he ever gets near the levers of power. So talking about it is irrelevant. The US is the greatest country in the world, we hold the reserve currency, people & governments will continue to lend to us in perpetuity and so we will have whatever foreign policy we wish.
Javier R.| 8.25.11 @ 9:19PM
Ron Paul would run circles around you (literally) before you started panting for a timeout.
"....so we will have whatever foreign policy we wish" You also believe the smurfs live in NYC obviously.
rob| 8.25.11 @ 2:00AM
Lord's response to Hunter is surprisingly weak. It doesn't matter what Hunter thinks about the civil war or what Russell Means thinks about the white occupation of North America. Nor does Means characterization of Ronald Reagan mean that Ron Paul believes the same thing. These points appear to be an attempt to distract from the main point. Lord seems to concede that Paul is conservative on domestic policy and only challenges his foreign policy views. But he does so on the absurd grounds that the founding father's responses to attacks and threats of attacks are contrary to Ron Paul's views.
The British did still represent a threat to the US from the position in Canada. The French were attacking American shipping. The Barbary pirates took Americans hostage.
What did Saddam do to America? What threat did he represent? None whatsoever. The Iraq War was based entirely on lies. And when those lies were revealed, the pretext for the war was shifted to the Wilsonian principle of making the world "safe for democracy."
Neither pre-emptive war under false pretenses nor the presumption that nation-building is even possible is consistent with a conservative foreign policy. Nor does Lord even attempt to refute Hunter on his citations of such people as Buckley, Nisbet, and Will.
There may be a reasonable case to be made that Ron Paul is not a conservative, but Lord hasn't even come close to making it. The substance of his argument is that Ron Paul is not a neo-conservative. On that point, pretty much everyone can agree.
John Hogan| 8.25.11 @ 2:11AM
Man, I wrote almost the same thing. Weird.
CM Collins| 8.25.11 @ 1:28PM
Me too. How does Means calling Reagan a fascist equal Ron Paul believing it? Sounds like some sort of fallacy.
BTW, when and how did this all go down? Was it all one conversation? Did Paul politely disagree, agree in part but disagree in part, agree entirely, endorse it, repeat it, what? Inquiring minds want to know.
John Hogan| 8.25.11 @ 2:08AM
I'd say Lord is grasping a bit here. Russel Means said that Ron Paul said such and such in 1988? And then off into some lame discussion of how Jack Hunter's ancestry might be viewed by Russel Means? This is just weak and pointless.
Lord also relies on us taking his word for exactly what is conservative, and what is leftist. Of course, if we don't accept his definitions, then he has absolutely nothing to say. His entire argument is: You people must define conservatism by these standards, and liberalism by these standards, and therefore Ron Paul is a liberal, and you aren't allowed to support him.
Your premise, and your presentation of it, is pretty much horse excrement, Mr. Lord. What this piece will do is provide reassurance to a couple of people in adult diapers who want someone to tell them we still need to hate liberals and bomb people into submission regularly. If that's your objective, then nice work. If you want to convince anyone who can actually analyze anything that Ron Paul is a liberal, then back to the drawing board for you.
Minarchist| 8.25.11 @ 3:00AM
"In Paul's case his mantra is the same as non-interventionist left-winger George McGovern's in 1972: 'Come Home America.'"
Non-interventionism is neither liberal nor conservative - it's just smart and Constitutional. In McGovern's case regarding Vietnam, he was right, and Nixon eventually followed his advice. In Paul's case, he's right too.
And yes, Reagan was not in actuality the small-government conservative implied by his rhetoric. He was a corporatist, lowered but also raised taxes, and increased spending an enormous amount.
Ron Paul's voting record is clearly conservative.
victor| 8.25.11 @ 9:10PM
Minianarchist:
"Ron Paul's voting record is clearly conservative."
Riiiiight!
Here from NumbersUSA:
Pauls grade on Illegal Immigration. right next to Obama:
http://www.numbersusa.com/cont.....-paul.html
From ACU.org:
14th CD Paul
2010 2009 yrs Lifetime
96.00 91.00 20 83.51
He only went up in the last two years because he needed to raise money to run for his alleged campaign.
And a Lifetime Rating of 83.51%??
Let's put that into perspective, shall we?
Let's say Occam is 6 foot tall, then if Clint was Ron Paul's Lifetime Rating of 83.51% then Clint would be only 4 foot and 11 and 3/4 inches tall,
enough to reach Occam's armpit, perhaps?
Truly an appropriate place for Clint to be.
ps I'll get to your failure to understand Ronald Reagan later.
RMHill| 8.25.11 @ 7:05AM
Mr. Lord displays a strange self contradiction in his brand of 'conservatism'. It is the mark of what more and more Americans are beginning to call Neo Conservatism. Specifically, it is an interesting combination of small, constitutionally limited government action domestically, with a pronounced advocacy of huge government interaction abroad.
If traditional American conservatism has hammered home one point, it would be that government ought to be small and limited in its functions. Lord would agree with that, as would Mr. Hunter. Lord would certainly point out that one of those limited functions of the Federal government is national defense. But his position on foreign policy is actually not one that is based on national defense or the Constitution. His preferred foreign policy not only is anti-defense in its practical results, but it also makes a complete mockery of the Constitutional principles of divided power and checks and balances. For his 'national defense' ideals to work requires an unfettered executive branch and power to wage war and extended occupations absent of actual declarations from the legislature. Furthermore, his policy creates an unsustainable economic burden that is anything but conservative.
POST America| 8.25.11 @ 8:27AM
---------------------BOTTOM LINE---------------------
What can we do? --NOW?
Each and every one can begin by cleaning
the Rock--F--L--O 'Council of Churches'
EUGENICS con-men out of their churches,
along with the sundry Freemasons and
'Clergy Response' paid spies.
We can also get the mind control TV's
and PCs (which BTW are BOTH now
weaponized surveillance tools) ---OUT
of our personal spaces --and rediscover the
wonders of literature, memory, conversation,
location, ---one's soul.
We can also, as much as possible demand
they get those flicker rate, mind control HD
screens out of our social enviornments, cafes,
pubs and restaurants.
ALSO refuse to comply with the UN mandated,
eavesdroppping and bio-metrics enabled,
RED Chinese made, mind control, mercury fume
seeping, inately hideous flourescent light.
david a dudenhoefer| 8.25.11 @ 9:11AM
Statists will say anything and twist the facts to fit their agenda...control over the masses.
RON PAUL 2012
JaimeInTexas| 8.25.11 @ 9:39AM
Israel is a foreign country and government. We elect a President of these uSA. My solution to the uSA-Israel relationship is to simply begin a campaign to annex Israel as the 51st State in Union.
USA,Israel, friends forever| 8.26.11 @ 10:42PM
Your unfortunate display of antiSemitism has been noted.
Not-a-con| 8.25.11 @ 9:41AM
Here's the part I consider especially duplicitous on the part of the "conservatives" who are pro war. War costs trillions of dollars does it not? Then, by definition, doesn't that make you less of a conservative than those who resist war except as a defensive measure? Just focusing on that alone goes to show you that you're less of a conservative than you like to pretend you are. Moving on...
Here's another fact: we cannot stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon eventually. There are so many countries which have them already that, if they really sought one, they could probably get one a lot easier than we think. For example, the russians have several more than we do and some of them are missing. There was an article in Vice magazine not that long ago where they attempted to buy one on the black market and actually got into the same room with one.
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vi.....irty-bombs
The only way to guarantee Iran never gets a nuke is to wipe it out. But that doesn't really end the problem of radical islamic fundamentalism does it? You all speak about this caliphate that exists to murder everyone who's not muslim and subjugate the world and there is historical precedent to back that up. I won't pretend there isn't. However, the part I think your missing is that it's so central to their religion that the only way you're going to make it go away is to eradicate the religion as a whole, indiscriminately. The more of them we separate from their families, the more they are going to take up the more radical interpretation of their religion. If you think anything other than that is responsible for the jihad against us, you don't know anything about history or their religion.
So let's call a spade a spade. You claim Iran is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on one hand (terrorism being defined in this case as radical fundamentalist islam) yet you don't want to admit that the reality is that it is a war on all of Islam because there are peaceful Muslims. Wouldn't the fact that jihad is a central portion of their religion then negate the principal that there are peaceful Muslims when you consider how pissed people tend to get when you kill their innocent, peaceful children and other family? It's not hard to see that it's this supposedly preventative strategy that turns their acquiring a nuclear weapon into an inevitability and make the likely target of said nuclear weapon, us.
John Bowery| 8.25.11 @ 10:58AM
It is hard to know where to begin in critiquing Mr. Lord's response. He spends a great deal of time discussing Mr Hunter's views (irrelevant) and referring to Congressman Paul's statements about Ronald Reagan (taken out of context). As someone who can actually recall the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, I would also have to say that Ronald Reagan should hardly be held up as the standard for traditional conservatism.Despite the misty-eyed reverence with which he is held today, no president that created the huge and previously unprecedented deficits that he did should truly be called a "conservative". We are still paying the price for his complete abandonment of fiscal conservatism.
But his "argument" in support of associating the term "neoconservative" with anti-Semitism is possibly the most bizarre. I can only assume that he resorts to this use of the race card for the usual reason, lack of any substantive, intelligent response.
Tim A| 8.25.11 @ 11:10AM
Seriously, it seems this argument has been reduced to the following:
Liberal = ANTI-WAR
Conservative = PRO-WAR.
Is anyone really PRO-WAR???
This is absurd, and as a conservative Christian who believes in small decentralized government, low taxes, and the free market I reject Lord’s definition of “conservative” as PRO-WAR.
This is absurd
Not-a-con| 8.25.11 @ 11:45AM
Yes there are many politicians who believe war-time economy is what brings nations back from depressions. How barbaric is that?
Dither| 8.25.11 @ 11:15AM
It is clear to every intelligent reader that Mr. Lord's "argument" is nothing but name dropping to shore up his own credentials ("I am so great because I worked for Ronald Reagan") and guilt-by-association to discredit his opponent ("Ron Paul was seen talking to Russell Means, who said such-and-such about white people, therefore Jack Hunter is wrong and a closet racist").
Mr. Lord further demonstrates the paucity of his intellect by insinuating that Ron Paul is an anti-semite. Ron Paul -- whose intellectual heroes are the Jews Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard, and whose first presidential run was bankrolled by a Jewish supporter, Burton S. Blumert -- THAT Ron Paul is secretly a Jew-hater.
People of low character engage in gossip. Mr. Lord is a case in point. People of high character and intelligence -- like Ron Paul -- talk about ideas.
Jedipastor1| 8.25.11 @ 5:10PM
The only sense I can make of the charge of anti-semitism being made against Ron Paul is simply because of his non-interventionist stance, which implies he's not an Israel firster anymore than he is an Arab firster, or Euro firster, etc.. By "firster" I mean doing everything you can to boost up an ally even if it means sinking yourself in the process. The unfair label of anti-semite is simply coming from those who hold to an Israel-first stance. Whether they also happen to be Jewish or not has nothing to do with it.
USA,Israel, friends forever| 8.26.11 @ 10:44PM
Another antiSemite. Your views have been noted.
AJ| 8.25.11 @ 11:30AM
Call Ron Paul whatever you want, but he is the ONLY candidate that is capable of balancing the budget.
Sal| 8.25.11 @ 11:40AM
Its funny. Once the argument was lost, Mr. Lord felt compelled to employ a tactic normally reserved for our friends on the left...implied racism. But we know you neocons (Mr. Kristol!) are all former Trotskyites...
GAS| 8.25.11 @ 12:51PM
Lord is a tool. Anyone who uses Russel Means as an authoritative source needs his friggin head examined.
Not Fee Waybill| 8.25.11 @ 12:57PM
Jeffery Lord's conception of true conservatism had its test in the Bush years and was unsuccessful even when (or particularly when) he had two Republican houses to work with. The conservative movement and its party is slowly and a bit awkwardly reacting to this unpleasant truth and, right now, this new understanding is showing up in support for Ron Paul. Lord may claim this awakening is not 'real' conservatism, but the real source of Lord's bitterness is that big government conservatism proved untenable and is being overthrown.
Nick| 8.25.11 @ 1:12PM
Mr. Lord,
Thank you, for your excellent, well-reasoned arguments. Your rebuttal is practically flawless.
After reading the case you lay out, I don't understand how anyone would not finally realize the plain fact that Ron Paul will never be president.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.25.11 @ 7:42PM
Lord's "rebuttal " is a string of ad hominem attacks & non-sequiturs.
What does Russell Mean's opinion of Ronald Reagan have to do with Ron Paul's position on Afghanistan? Or even Jack Hunter's opinion of Lincoln?
Lizzie| 8.25.11 @ 1:20PM
Ronald Reagan was Bruce Fein's boss, too, and Fein is for Ron Paul.
john dieter| 8.25.11 @ 1:37PM
Ronald Reagan: "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."
Lord is an idiot....
Luke| 8.25.11 @ 2:32PM
Isn't Jeffrey Lord the ass who tried to claim that Shirley Sherrod's dad wasn't "really" lynched? And when called on it, even by his friends, he doubled down? And now LORD wants to play the race card?
The Answer to 1984 Is 1776| 8.25.11 @ 2:32PM
Ron Paul commands solid support from both "Old Right" conservatives and libertarians, but today's Republican voters are, by and large, warfare-state neoconservatives who see nothing wrong with big government as long as it's used for the "right" purposes. Very few of them realize that James Burnham and Irving Kristol, the founders of the movement, were former Trotskyite Communists whom William Buckley later legitimized through his magazine, National Review.
Although Dr. Paul commands strong support within the Republican Party, once the neoconservative field is whittled down, the last one standing will attract all of the others' support and Dr. Paul will once again be denied the nomination.
For Dr. Paul is to win the Republican nomination, his supporters must succeed in forging a strong coalition with thinking independent voters and even hard-core, anti-Establishment leftists, and bringing these members into the Republican Party to be able to vote in the 2012 caucuses and primaries. Be assured that his opponents are well aware of this, and will make every effort to keep these people out. We definitely have our work cut out for us!
However, once Dr. Paul does manage to secure the Republican nomination, he will proceed to make mince meat of Obama in the national presidential debates. Deprived of his teleprompter, and with an absolutely abysmal record in office that has satisfied neither mainstream Americans nor his radical base, Obama will self-destruct and Dr. Paul will be on course to become the 45th President of the United States.
Bobby Taft| 8.25.11 @ 2:57PM
You so called "conservatives" of Mr. Lord's persuasion better hope Ron Paul gets the nomination. Ron Paul supporters will not vote for the Republican candidate, and make no mistake about it, Ron Paul supporters ARE voters. Can a non-Paul Republic candidate win the election given a loss of anywhere between 5-15% of voters?
Jedipastor1| 8.25.11 @ 5:18PM
The real question is: Given Ron Paul's poll numbers, if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, might he then run as an independent and still win the presidential election, given all the independents and democrats who might vote for him? Might this be something the Neocon establishment is afraid of, which would help explain this smear campaign on Ron Paul?
Housewar| 8.25.11 @ 4:12PM
Conservatism is supposed to be an ideology, which would mean that a conservative foreign policy is an application of that ideology. Intervention, therefore, is not conservative unless it is founded on conservative principles.
"Making the world safe for democracy" is not conservative foreign policy, it's wide-eyed liberalism. Putting our people in harms way to protect corporate interests is not conservative foreign policy, it's corporate imperialism. Providing military protection to countries/regions that are perfectly capable of providing it for themselves in not conservative foreign policy, it's military welfarism. Failing to count the cost before starting wars we can't win and can't afford is not conservative foreign policy, it's just plain stupid.
Additionally, whether or not to intervene in Iran is not a question of conservative principles, but one of practical implications. It's not conservative to think Iran is going to nuke us, nor is it liberal to think they won't. If Jeff Lord thinks Paul is wrong about Iraq, or Iran, or the war on terror, then he should just say so. Instead, he attempts to paint Paul as a heretic and a bigot, which reflects more on Lord's character than Paul's.
Mario| 8.25.11 @ 4:35PM
Excellent points Housewar.
These so called "conservatives" don't really have any intellectual understanding. Their smearing of Ron Paul with labels and epithets is really an indication of their intellectual weakness. For example, playing the "anti-semite" racism card on whoever opposes futile wars. They also play "iran is getting a nuke" without any factual backing of such a claim, no indepedent verification. They just "believe so", therefore Iran must be making a Nuke weapon. No wonder liberals make fun of airheaded Republican voters.
From history though, we know that Iran never started a war of agression on it's own. Even in the Iran-Iraq war, it was Iraq that initiated the war.
Mario| 8.25.11 @ 4:14PM
Ron Paul got more campaign contributions from Military personnel than all other Repub candidates combined. Ditto in 2008.
Neocon ChickenHawks are simply arm-chair warriors who can't understand economics if it hit them on the head.
redneckbluecollarwhitetrash| 8.25.11 @ 5:29PM
As both a long-time reader and subscriber to TAS (and a recent convert to the Ron Paul camp,) it is a good thing to read Jack Hunter's perspective on TAS's website. Certainly Hunter's views on foriegn policy are at odds with the prevailing opinion of the TAS's editorial board. Yet I am certain the editors recognize obvious political trends: Paul's ideas on foriegn policy are gaining a foothold with an increasing number of rank & file conservatives.
More importantly, history is proving him correct: Lord's GOP is the party of John McCain. T.A.R.P., the Auto-bailouts, Stimulas and Obamacare? What led our country off the cliff into this fiscal insanity? And this year brings yet another Middle-Eastern war? By the supposed anti-war President? All the while, McCain was critizing President Obama for not getting into Libya fast enough? Both parties are insane.
I started to listen to what Ron Paul said, instead of what was said about him. I came to realize that the choice between Obama and McCain had been the lobster's dilemma: be brought to a boil slowly or quickly. Either way, you would be cooked.
To dismiss these views as "kookery" as Lord has done is to risk alienating a growing bloc of conservative voters. Paul's views deserve wider circulation, consideration and honest debate. Not the ad hominem attacks that Lord levies against Jack Hunter and Ron Paul.
Something is happening out here in "fly-over" country that pundits such as Lord can't comprehend. He, and the GOP, fail to come to terms with it at their own peril. I have been voting team-jersey politics the past 25 years. No more.
Owen Sands| 8.25.11 @ 6:58PM
Are you saying, with a straight face, that George Washington was somehow an advocate of US interventionism because he sent troops into Canada? You do realize that Canada was a British colony (well collection of British colonies) where British troops were stationed, don't you? And what about Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality or the Neutrality Act of 1794?
Mario| 8.25.11 @ 11:36PM
The invasion of Canada of 1775 was before the independence. It was attempt of continental army to forge alliance with the french inorder to fight the British. All these tactical maneuvers were part of the revolutionary war. As part of establishing the country of USA.
How in the world can you draw comparision between that and our supposed attack of Iran ? or justify Bush's Iraq war ? or justify our current 700 military bases spread over 100 countries ?
Owen Sands| 8.26.11 @ 12:42AM
Lord is either ignorant of US history or a liar. Either way, he doesn't grasp the fact that military spending IS government speeding.
Michael| 8.25.11 @ 10:21PM
In the end, who cares what is "conservative"? It's rather sad that this whole debate is over who has better claim to a meaningless label, rather than which ideas are actually materially better. If you support exhorbitant foreign intervention, make your case as for why, and likewise if you oppose it. The debate should be "why or why shouldn't be intervene overseas?" rather than "non-intervention is conservative or liberal because..." It just doesn't matter at the end of the day - we want solutions to the problem at hand.
Shane| 8.25.11 @ 11:59PM
Thumbs up
Corey| 8.26.11 @ 12:26AM
"The reason no one thinks conservatives George Will or Ann Coulter are anti-Semitic when they discuss "neoconservatives" is that neither Will nor Coulter have a reputation for anti-Semitism."
Nobody thinks Will and Coulter are anti-Semites because nobody thinks Will and Coulter are anti-Semites? Really???
William R| 8.26.11 @ 10:16AM
For the ultimate take down of Jeffery Lord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Hec Jervae| 8.26.11 @ 2:32PM
Lots of good things to read here from Jack Hunter, to the Ron Paul defenders in the comments section. Plus the puerile sophistry of Jeffery Lord reminds me of why the American Spectator is no worth reading.
Solo| 8.26.11 @ 4:27PM
You know...if it were actually true that we were staggering around the world, invading other nations for the sole purpose of "forcing" democracy, you PaulBots might have a point.
But...you are largely arguing from a false premise.
Prior to Obama, please name for me ONE military action designed solely to convert a nation into a democracy.
Show me one nation which has been "forced" into our so-called "Empire".
While I agree that we can significantly reduce our "footprint" around the world (or, at least, gain some form of compensation from our allies for our support), name for me one theater of operations you (or Ron Paul) would abandon to our enemies?
Would it be SouthEast Asia? Western Europe? Eastern Europe? South America? Space?
Name one which you believe is expendable. Because the RuPaul believes that they are all expendable.
By the way...inasmuch as most of you PaulBots are willing to accept Osama Bin Laden's word that we were attacked because we are "over there", why are you not willing to accept Ahmadenijad's word that he will destroy Israel once he gets the chance?
Do you believe that this action will have no negative effects for America?
Will America be better off once this happens?
Will we be more secure in our liberty?
Will simply trading with them make us less than the next target?
Someone explain this to me because, on its face, it seems laughably absurd to believe that our national security interests can be defined by our geographical borders.
Mike| 8.26.11 @ 9:36PM
"why are you not willing to accept Ahmadenijad's word that he will destroy Israel once he gets the chance?"
Iran is a much more complex political system than most Western media accounts suggest, and its president is not the most significant political actor in that country. But you didn't know that. It's alright, man.
Iranian behavior toward the United States and Israel has been remarkably consistent, both before and after the Islamic Revolution. That continuity is largely explained by a realpolitik not so different from the logic that informed the policies of the Cold War superpowers.
Revolutionary Iran fought an eight-year war with Iraq and suffered almost a million casualties. But this is hardly evidence that its leadership and population have a martyrdom complex. It was, after all, secular Iraq, rather than Iran, that started the war, and the Islamic Republic was the first to accept the United Nations’ ceasefire in 1988 once it became clear that the conflict had reached a stalemate. This behavior hardly indicates an irrational commitment to fight to the last Iranian.
You appear to have a very close-minded view of the Middle East and the history that accompanies it.
Nick| 8.26.11 @ 5:22PM
Anybody know what happened to all the comments in the thread from the original article by Mr. Lord?
Or, is it just my browser's fault?
Morerice| 8.26.11 @ 10:29PM
They were removed for your own good. You see conservatives like Lord don't much care for pesky civil liberties (like free speech) that people like Ron Paul and his Neo-liberal friends care so much about.
Nick| 8.31.11 @ 12:24AM
I don't think so.
Owen Sands| 8.26.11 @ 7:41PM
"Prior to Obama, please name for me ONE military action designed solely to convert a nation into a democracy."
Uh...Iraq. I guess you're one of the ones who still believes that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the purpose of the Iraq war was to protect the world from Saddam's WMD's and Al Qaeda's terrorism. No WMD's and no al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. It's well known that Saddam and bin Laden hated each other. Do you really believe that Saddam would have granted a safe haven to a terrorist organization that would have been a threat to his regime? And if our purpose was simply to dispose of an evil dictator, why didn't we just leave when said dictator was disposed of?
"Show me one nation which has been "forced" into our so-called 'Empire'"
Is that a joke? Since you ask for just one, I'll refer you to the Mexican-American war.
"...name for me one theater of operations you (or Ron Paul) would abandon to our enemies?
Would it be SouthEast Asia? Western Europe? Eastern Europe? South America? Space?"
I'm not sure what that even means.
"...why are you not willing to accept Ahmadenijad's word that he will destroy Israel once he gets the chance?"
Ahmadinejad is not now, or ever will be, in any position to destroy Israel. It's just laughable if anyone thinks he is or will be.
Solo| 8.26.11 @ 9:43PM
@Mike
"You appear to have a very close-minded view of the Middle East and the history that accompanies it."
Not at all. I'm fully aware of the ideo-political nuance of the Iranian government.
My question, however, was: Why believe Osama and not Ahmadinejad?
By the way...unless you're hopelessly misinformed, you should know that Iran is dutifully working towards Israeli's demise as the largest and most prolific supporter of terrorism within Israel and throughout the Middle East.
What makes you think that, if they had the bomb, that they wouldn't use it?
Mike| 8.26.11 @ 9:53PM
Ahmadinejad represents a nation that would accept responsibility and bear equal retaliation for any such attack on Israel. Osama did not represent any nation in such a way.
It's besides the point. Israel has historically performed strategic strikes in Iraq and Iran during the 80's. I trust that they would set them back again if they suspected anything. Israel knows how to do what the US cannot: reduce national threats without the quagmire of nation building and occupation.
Solo| 8.26.11 @ 10:03PM
Yes, Mike! It's worked out so well for them in the past, huh?
And you are still dodging my question.
Why do the PaulBots put so much faith in Osama's declarations regarding his motivations for attacking America, and yet, delude themselves into believing that Ahmadinejad and the Iranians are just posturing?
Mind readers, are they?
By the way....the Barbary Pirates were attacking us, taking hostages and committing acts of terrorism on the high seas hundreds of years before we were "spreading our Empire" across the Middle East.
My guess is....Bin Laden was just trolling for a few "useful idiots". Looks like he found at least one in Ron Paul.
Mike| 8.26.11 @ 10:17PM
We reap what we sow. We started it. You have to come to terms with that or you'll always be on the offensive.
What do you propose, going to war with them? It would sign the death certificate on the dollar, which is EXACTLY what Osama was hoping to achieve. Israel needs to handle her own business this time.
Solo| 8.26.11 @ 9:54PM
@Owen Sands
Ah..yes! The typical fever swamp response!
Still clinging to the "Bush Lied/Kids died" meme, eh? Pathetic!
We didn't go there to convert Iraq to democracy. Live with it!
2nd....Mexico, at least the last time I checked, is not part of some "Empire America". IF you are having trouble with that concept, try looking up the definition of the word "Empire".
3rd...Ron Paul intends to withdraw from the world stage and reduce us to cowering in, what can only be described as "Bunker America".
In so doing, we will be abandoning the field to our enemies. Which section of the world stage would you like to see abandoned first? And will it not matter to our own national security?
Finally...believe it or not, I agree with part of your statement. It's true that Iran is not currently a threat to Israel or the greater Middle East.
If they were, they would have acted on it by now!
Once they get the bomb--and if "The RuPaul" gets elected we can call it "The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul Bomb"--things could change on that score very quickly.
No one will be laughing then.
Concerned Reader| 8.26.11 @ 10:37PM
Jack Hunter is spot-on, Jeffrey Lord seems to have resorted purely to ad hominem attacks on Paul and his associates. The "strongest" point of his "argument" is where he ties Congressman Paul to a secondhand piece of hearsay that he may have considered some of Reagan's policies fascist. Silly.
The rest is pure fear mongering and idiocy. I particularly enjoyed the part where he said that George Will and Ann Coulter do not have a reputation of being anti-Semites because no one says they are anti-Semites. So does that mean that if someone called them anti-Semites they'd be forever stuck with that reputation? Awful argument.
Owen Sands| 8.26.11 @ 11:42PM
If WMD's, al-Qaeda, and democracy wasn't why, then please, please, let us know the reason why.
In the Mexican war we conquered the territory we wanted and completely absorbed that territory into the US. So yes, much of what used to belong to Mexico is now part of the US Empire. Since the war was started over a border skirmish with Texas and we ended up with half of Mexico in our hands, the war was obviously an imperialist war.
But if that war wasn't imperialist enough for you, I now refer you to the Spanish-American war.
Abandoning what fields to our enemies? American blood and treasure (ain't got much treasure) are required in every county in every part of the world to keep us safe? Guys with box cutters attacked us on 9/11. How can US military basses in Japan or Germany prevent something like that?
People with your kind of irrational fear are draining this country dry.
Solo| 8.27.11 @ 8:04AM
I suggest that you check your history more carefully.
California, Texas, New Mexico and the whole of Mexico itself belonged to Spain for all but a very short period of time. That's why they speak SPANISH!
And while you at it, you might check that dictionary for the definition of the word: "Empire". What you'll find is that it doesn't apply to America.
And..our entry into Iraq was to eliminate the missing WMD stockpiles. Yes...they were missing. IN fact, they were missing according to Saddam's own inventory submitted to the U.N. Security council. Little wonder why we thought they were there, huh?
Now...in the process of determining the status of Iraq's WMD program and stockpiles, we completely destroyed their entire system of government (if you could call it that).
So....instead of democracy, what system would you prefer to take its place?
Or..maybe you think we should have just bombed them back to the stone age and called it a day?
There are consequences for acting and there are consequences for not acting.
I would rather be engaged in the process rather than hunkering down here in "Bunker America" with my head up my arse hoping for the best while the world unfolds around us.
And finally..."no". You're right. The Japanese did not attack us with box cutters on 9-1-1. What's your point?
Larry R-Love| 8.29.11 @ 1:54PM
From Merriam-Webster:
Empire
a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
The U.S. is an empire, much of it seized from the Native Americans, Mexicans, and the Spanish. Our current president has claimed the power to initiate hostilities anytime for any reason. Earlier, he claimed the power to execute people overseas, including Americans, if he deemed them terrorists. Sounds like an emperor to me.
You really should stop parroting neo-con saws and start looking at historical cause and effect. Things do not happen to the U.S. or other nations without reasons. But of course this would require in-depth research and a dismissal of stale thinking to accomplish.
leave britney alone| 8.27.11 @ 4:24PM
to all the other ron paul people: consider your audience when posting here. just browsing the comments has exposed me to more "they hate our freedom" anti-thought than i would ever otherwise subject myself to. jack hunter and tom woods have already thoroughly intellectually humiliated the author, and i suspect American Spectator just posted this article because they knew it would drive up RP-related traffic to their site (honestly, who still reads these neo-con mouthpieces and takes them seriously?). you aren't going to teach these people about foreign policy in a comment or two, so let's just link to the debunkings and hope they discover tom woods or AmCon Mag (and maybe one day they'll thank you for saving them from the intellectual wasteland of the American Spectator).
BobS| 8.28.11 @ 2:15AM
Unfortunately Mr. Lord can't tell the difference between the rule and the exception.
For the record, bringing democracy to the world/making the world safe for the same is not found explicitly or implicitly in the constitution.
IOW the Iraq fiasco is an impeachable offense for GWB.
(Not to worry, GWObama has his own problems with the constitution.)
Whatever the founding fathers did - and again they weren't perfect - the current "Invade the world, Invite the world, In hock to the world" is neither constitutional nor conservative (HT VDare/SSailer).
Of course, Mr. Lord as a neoconservative would perceive a genuine conservative as a neoliberal. But again, he can't see the forest for the trees and doesn't really have a clue as to why things are going gunnybag. Rather he thinks everything is hunky dory.
Which is to say again, the "conservative" literati are neither.
While we are truly sorry about that, he's going to have to get used to it and stop embarrassing himself and the AmSpec with this kind of drivel.
Thank you.
Viva the revolution.
Larry R-Love| 8.29.11 @ 1:37PM
Jeffrey Lord is another fearful conflationist. His response was at least coherent until he decided that what Russel Means said was necessarily shared by Ron Paul.
Non-interventionism is a philosophy that a rising tide of us "kooks" and "whackos" share. We believe in responding to true threats rather than inventing them to enrich government and the military-industrial complex. Republicans and Democrats have never proven themselves distinctly different on the issue of provoking conflicts, often with false flag operations. The results of these adventures range from muddled and indeterminate to just plain bad.
So let the fearful huddle with Mr Lord behind an exorbitant wall of drones and bodies. We who treasure freedom and free markets will side with Ron Paul. It is true, Lord does have fear, propaganda, and a long-cultivated normalcy bias on his side; but Ron Paul has proven extremely savvy in debunking the myths of the so-called "conservatives" who would spend us into penury.
Vhan| 9.23.11 @ 11:38PM
What is conservatism? Is it libertarian, or authoritarian? Looking through history you find conservatism to be libertarian.
Authoritarianism is fascism. When someone acts out in an authoritarian way like Reagen, Bush, Obama, etc they were fascists.
Fascism promotes violence and war as actions that create national security.
Henry| 9.29.11 @ 4:22PM
I liked Hunter's reply but I saw a better one by Jack Kerwick, writing for the paleoconservative publication, The New American. I don't know if I can leave a link here in the comments, but I'd strongly recommend it: http://thenewamerican.com/opin.....d-straight
As for my own comment, I've already laid out a key distinction: paleoconservatism. The foreign policy that Lord trots out here is actually neoconservative. A careful study of the history of American conservatism going back before the Buckley era (and before McGovern, which Lord tries to use to corral Paul) will show a strong tradition of Paul's foreign policy. In fact, Paul's policy not only reflects traditional conservatism before the rise of neoconservatism--the dominating philosophy in the GOP today which captures both the interventionist foreign policy and the statist domestic policies seen under Bush--but the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers. If we are to be "conservative", I ask what we are trying to "conserve"! What is our bar? For me, it is the Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the God-given rights our Founders recognized when they first tried to shackle their newly-formed government. Given that, who else in the running can I choose but Paul?
Skip| 1.24.12 @ 12:07PM
Utter pablum. There is a fallacy of the excluded middle between Ron Paul's military isolationism and Bush's military adventurism.
See "Reagan" doctrine.
Can we imagine Paul at the Brandenburg Gate?
"Who are we to say what type of government East Germany has. Mr. Gorbachev, keep your gate, if you want to!"
"Jack Hunter" did nothing to refute the undeniable fact that "noninterventionism" HAS been a hallmark of the left.
Pauls isn't the foreign policy of Reagan, or Goldwater.