The American Spectator : Ron Paul's Submissive Side

Text Size

Ron Paul’s Submissive Side

By Aaron Goldstein on 11.22.11 @ 6:08AM

No doubt he’d be happier serving as Obama’s next Secretary of State.

But our policies definitely had an influence and you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm they say yes we didn’t like American bombs to be falling on our country, we don’t like the intervention we do in their nations so to deny this is very dangerous.
— Ron Paul, Face the Nation, November 20, 2011. Responding to Bob Schieffer’s question about what role the U.S. foreign policy played in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Less than twenty-four hours earlier, the New York City Police Department arrested Jose Pimentel, a 27-year-old Dominican-born convert to Islam, who was found with bomb-making materials in his apartment. It is alleged that Pimentel was planning to use those bombs against NYPD police cruisers, post offices as well as returning U.S. soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. Pimentel was reportedly a devotee of the American-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and had accelerated his plans after al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a U.S. drone strike in September.

If the allegations against Pimentel can be proven in court then it would be fair to categorize him, in Paul’s words, as an individual who would like to do us harm. It is worth noting that Paul went on to tell Schieffer that our “troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies.” Well, it would appear that Pimentel is just as aggravated and motivated when our troops come home.

For his part, Paul insists that America is not to blame for the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, he does argue that our policymakers and by extension our policies contributed to the attacks such as the presence of our military bases in Saudi Arabia. Well, Osama bin Laden complained about those military bases in his 1996 fatwa against the United States. Is Ron Paul telling us that he is going to let bin Laden dictate our foreign policy from his grave in the North Arabian Sea? The danger inherent in Paul’s argument is that he sends the message to our enemies that they can change our foreign policy through threats and intimidation and our enemies would be only too happy to oblige. This country can ill afford to elect a President who shapes his foreign policy on the whims of Waziristan instead of Washington.

Or let me put it another way. If President Obama deals with world leaders by bowing to them, President Paul might very well fall to his knees. If President Obama’s foreign policy legacy is one of apology, then President Paul’s foreign policy legacy would be one of submission. Whether Ron Paul likes it or not, the United States is the most powerful nation in the world and he would be foolish to accelerate President Obama’s policy of frittering it away.

Ron Paul and President Obama actually possess a great deal in common in foreign policy especially where it concerns Iran. Earlier this month, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked Paul how he would persuade Iran not to build a nuclear weapon. He replied, “Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn’t we talk to the Soviets, didn’t we talk to the Chinese?” Now consider what Barack Obama told Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes shortly after announced his candidacy for President of the United States in February 2007:

The notion that this administration has that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment is wrong. It flies in the face of our experience during the Cold War. And Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest.

What both Obama failed to recognize then and what Paul fails to recognize now is that President Reagan talked with Mikhail Gorbachev, not with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, or Konstantin Chernenko. Gorbachev was a genuine reformer who brought about glasnost and perestroika. It gave Reagan an opening and he seized it. There is no such opening in Islamic Republic of Iran. The last thing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs want for Iran are openness and restructuring.

As for extending a hand of friendship to Iran, I’m not sure what makes Paul think that Iran would welcome his overtures any more than it did Obama’s. Remember hot dog diplomacy? Back in June 2009, the Obama Administration made an ill-advised attempt for U.S. embassies to invite Iranian diplomats for Fourth of July celebrations. Of course, these invitations were extended prior to the Iranian “elections,” which resulted in massive bloodshed and violence when Iran’s populace disputed the results. When the Obama Administration hesitated to withdraw the invitations, Newt Gingrich said:

He can’t even bring himself to disinvite the Iranians from the Fourth of July party to celebrate a declaration which said all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So we’re going to celebrate the declaration of independence on the Fourth of July with Iranian torturers, murderers and the State Department says itself, the leading state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. I just think when you see an administration that is that weak, he may give Jimmy Carter a renewed reputation for strength.

An embarrassed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rescinded the invitations shortly thereafter. It was probably just as well. Not a single Iranian diplomat accepted the Obama Administration’s invitation.

If Ron Paul should be elected President any overtures he makes to Iran should be to the people, not to the regime. But don’t count on it. Not only would it be interventionist, it would offend and aggravate Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs and motivate them to act against us. And Ron Paul couldn’t have that happen now could he?

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (302) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 6:49AM

Way to go, Aaron. The Paul-bots are sure to be all "wee-wee'd up".
Trying to set a record for the most comments ever posted here?

Jay| 11.22.11 @ 7:06AM

Chuck has yet to formulate a compelling argument. No worries, Aaron has not yet either.

IO| 11.22.11 @ 10:43AM

He actually makes Ron Pauls case for him. Knowing that there are and always will be nut jobs everywhere in the world (especially in a country where we subsidize the mentally challenged) I.E. John Wilks Booth, or Lee Harvey Ozwald. Besides all of that common knowledge doesn't the author clearly state that this nut was further inspired to carry out his terrorist plot by the US action of killing a US citizen without a trial? Not a compelling arguement at all.

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:04PM

Again, who ever said anything about Nation Building? Nation Crushing is what I want to do.

But if you think a group of people with the most horribly bloodthirsty warrior ethos in history is going to start throwing flowers like the 60s Flower Children simply because we decide to crawl home with our tails between our legs, think again. These guys were challenging Vienna as late as 1683!

And now, with Europe dying, the time of Jihad has come again. It's important to win this one THERE. Because if we don't, they asuredly will come HERE. Anyone want to bet on the integrity of the Mexican Border?

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 1:57PM

Sorry Occam your day has passed. If you want to make a world war by attacking Iran. Israel will just have to do it itself. We are done and bankrupt.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:04PM

sooner or later your going to have to come to terms with one salient fact: in the hugely unlikely event Paul were elected Prez...he would be unable to govern. There would be millions....Republicna millions like me...on the phone every day to their Congressman demanding that they undercut this guy at every turn. he has no...and will have no.....real backing on Capitol Hill from his own party! Who is going to be leading? that is core issue. a collection of isolated Paul-bots like you? not good enough. YOU (and Paul) have failed in the one thing that matters most - selling the man. I know it...and you know it. so pratter on with your rhetoric. HE WON'T BE ABLE TO GOVERN. he'd be a lame duck Prez the second after he descended the Capitol Hill steps.

blaine| 11.23.11 @ 1:00AM

Congress is captive to the political winds, they have no allegiance to ideology. President Paul would show the congress which way the political winds were shifting and they would follow suit as usual. A lame duck because he would refuse to send Americans to fight wars you wont participate in? Forcing Europe and SE Asia to pay for their own national defense? Because he will let Israel act as a sovereign nation? You don't speak for millions of people. You pay lip service to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Neocons just refuse to go quietly into the night. You're time has passed, bye bye

Usotsuki| 11.25.11 @ 11:26AM

Sadly you don't really understand Paul's position. His position isn't one of weakness, but one of principle. We hear news reports of hacking by the Chinese and Americans get pissed off, thinking we need to do something big about it (another war). But if we listed everything we do to other countries to intervene and manipulate them, then put China's name on it, the American people would immediately demand Congress declare war on China. If any country did 1/10 of what we do to us we'd be screaming mad for war.

Why is it that we can do anything in our own interests (including killing thousands of people in other countries) and it's right and just, but when anyone else does it it's wrong? It's because we are hypocrites; we think the world belongs to us. But it doesn't. We think we are always right (this also means we are ignorantly supporting all the terrible things US govt officials have done that we don't even know about). Guess what? We (US govt officials) are not always right, and more often than not wrong.

Why can't we stop trying to control the world? We despise others trying to manipulate and control us, but are fine when our govt officials do it to other countries. No wonder other countries are pissed off. Paul's position of principle is to stop the hypocrisy and stop intervening in their affairs. Our interests do not justify us doing whatever we want to other countries. The sooner we realize that and stop all the meddling the sooner we'd see the world's opinion of us change drastically.

zppz| 11.28.11 @ 12:28AM

Well said sir. This is painfully obvious to anyone who grew up outside the US. 'Pre-emptive' war indeed...

Richard Wicks | 11.26.11 @ 1:08AM

> There would be millions....Republicna millions
> like me...on the phone every day to their
> Congressman demanding that they undercut
> this guy at every turn.

Oh PLEASE. As is ANYTHING could get you lazy morons to actually get engaged. All of you are just empty talk.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:20PM

Occam says, they will, they will win, and then what will they do when they get Leviathon developed and we need that oil. Hmmm...

Jack, you spend on defense what you need to. That means cutting ridiculous domestic programs. You are 4-F in more ways than just physical. Sorry if the razor hurts.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 2:09PM

Happened to Russia, now it happens to us...broke.
Is kinda humorous, Afghanistan..everyone thinks they can win..when the tribes just have to wait. Would not be surprised if Russia sold shoulder launched missiles to the tribes, heh heh comeupance is costly.

Warrior | 11.22.11 @ 8:55PM

OT, more to your point, the only way to end the threat of radical Islamists would have been to strike with speed, lethality and leave no doubt whatsoever that any attack on the US and/or a citizen would result in more of the same, to include if necessary a mushroom cloud. Instead, we launched wars that were politically restrained without focus, realistic goals and rules of engagement that have allowed the enemy to regain strength and continue with a belief that they can wait until the US gives up and leaves.

What gets left out in a discussion like this is what does the candidate you believe is the best of the bunch propose? You are quick to jump on the I hate Ron Paul bandwagon, yet many of us are curious as to why the other candidates policies are considered better. Unfocused and political use of our military by those that only care about public image and re-elections since about 1989 have gotten us to where we are today. Seems like everyone other than Dr. Paul are proposing to keep those worn out and obviously flawed policies going until bankruptcy hits.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:12PM

Yes...the gynecologist has a deeply profound foreign policy! and since when is use of the armed forces ever not a political matter? aside from that....your argument has a very hollow ring to it....warrior. we were attacked. that is how we ended up in Afghanistan.

Warrior | 11.23.11 @ 9:40AM

Read what I wrote and try again. The founding fathers were acutely aware of the political use of a standing military, that is why they attempted to write safeguards into the Constitution to prevent it from occurring. You then conclude with how we ended up in Afghanistan. Please provide me the basis in which our actions in Afghanistan are Constitutional. There has been no declaration of war as prescribed in the Constitution and there has been no means provided to budget for it. If my discussion has a hollow ring, you have countered with a post that is mindless and completely lacks any substance. Also, which candidate do you want to discuss that would have a foreign policy that you would support?

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:30PM

Warrior: I agree that we attacked the wrong folks first. Your entire first paragraph makes sense.

The people I would support as Prez? Bachmann and Santorum first and foremost---hard on taxes AND foreign policy. For VEEP, West. But all of the others are better than Obama except Paul.

Truly, I fear his approach to Foreign Policy. You CAN'T let the mullahs get nukes. That is insane.

I have no objections to re-evaluating and closing down NATO if necessary. Europe won't protect itself and they need a hard jolt to wake up. If they become anti-jihadist, time to re-evaluate. The UN is another waste of time. What a lot of people fail to realize is that Israel uses its military money and the Arabs put theirs in Swiss bank accounts. I would cut off all foreign aid EXCEPT that to Israel, because we are fighting JIHADISTS, and Israel is the buffer state for us.

We have a problem with maniacs who want a Caliphate. That is our number 1 problem over the next 30 years, as the demographics bloom. Bachmann has a very hard attitude towards those people, but Ron is weaker than Obama on this.

I hope you note ad hominems have been left out. I do respect you and your thinking. I believe that we should essentially destroy Afghanistan and make it a desert, call it peace, and withdraw. The same for Iran. I do not belive in nation building Islamist scum.

As for his domestic policy, except for legalizing gay marriage (not a deal breaker) and Marijuana (much more of a deal breaker---we have different specialties, and I have forgotten more on this subject than he has ever known), I've got no problem with paul's domestic policies. But, weirdly enough, Presidents are MUCH more important on Foreign Policy than Domestic Affairs.

I hope I answered the question respectfully. happy Turkey Day!

Warrior | 11.24.11 @ 9:43AM

Occam, excellent post. We agree on more than we disagree on. The problem with Bachmann is that she has been marginalized from the start. She is probably the most truly conservative candidate out there. This type dialogue should be taken further on this site.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:33PM

You can't stop the mullahs from getting nukes, any more than you stopped India or Pakistan, North Korea, Israel or the USSR from getting nukes. The idea that somehow America can bomb Iran into never acquiring nukes is idiotic.

Neoconservatives' idea that America can impose its every desire on every country in the world smaller than America (these cowards won't confront China, of course) is divorced from reality.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 2:13PM

what's left out is one dumass with a box cutter can xnay billions spent on defense. Somehow, I think there will always be one "militant" left, no matter how many we kill.

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:36PM

Ron Paul's contention is that promiscuously extending the bombings into new countries, such as Pakistan, just provokes future blowback. Funny that when Ron Paul echoes the CIA, these nimrods call him a nut. What he is saying is so obviously true that only a fanatic would deny it.

You do know that the former head of the CIA's bin Laden desk endorses Ron Paul, right? Must be because Paul doesn't understand what is causing the Muslim fundamentalists to attack us. Not Portugal, not Switzerland, not Sweden: us.

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 4:58PM

Warrior,

as you deserve a good answer: I don't believe Paul will defend our country in time of crisis. He is an inflexible ideologue.

aRocketScientist| 11.22.11 @ 7:48AM

Yeah, generally these empty Neocon Blogs are a great way to meet other like minded Ron Paul supporters. Thanks Aaron for providing an opportunity to reflect on those wonderful Bush years and re-enforce my decision to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils after Ron Paul lost the Republican Nomination in 2008. Even though I would have loved to see Obama impeached over his handling of Libya, he handled it at least an Order of Magnitude better than the Republican Neocon would have. Democratic Necons seem to be much better at target selection, attack, and withdraw than Republican Necons.... unlike Aaron would have us believe.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:15PM

yawn. said the insider.

Izee Aneeokhan | 11.23.11 @ 9:25AM

Yawn..said the Neocon above. Carnot, join the army and pick up a weapon; step away from your demagoggles and warmongering.

Steven| 11.22.11 @ 8:42AM

@Chuck. Nothings stopping you and your loved ones from buying a ticket and going over to that sh#t box 6000 miles away. When you get there, you could show'em what a real tough guy you are!

Chicken hawks make me want to vomit.

Ron Paul actually cares about the young men and women in this country. Why do you think he gets more money from the military than ALL the other canidates COMBINED.

oh, and believe me, I'm not waiting on baited breath for an intelligent reply. You don't have one..

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 11:51AM

You Wrote:

"@Chuck. Nothings stopping you and your loved ones from buying a ticket and going over to that sh#t box 6000 miles away."

And then you're "not waiting on baited breath for an intelligent reply." Hmm, your FIRST sentence directed towards him was just SOOO "intelligent" it almost knocked me out of my chair. And people don't wait "on baited breath." They wait "WITH baited breath."

Try to to piss & moan too much about how much "smarter" you are then everyone else. You most assuredly are not.

John| 11.22.11 @ 12:46PM

ahem...the word is 'bated'

We would have been better off with Ron Paul handling the aftermath of 9/11 since he has stated clearly that he would have kept his eye on the ball in regards to Bin Laden. Instead, that administration was distracted by visions of regime change in Iraq. And we all know that has turned out so well for everyone involved...especially Al Qaeda.

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 2:58PM

"baited" hahahaha! People always want to sound so smart! Nice catch John.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:19PM

oh BS. you don't have a f'ing clue. the reality...for those who are not delusional Paul-bots...is that the intelligence programs, the equipment, the tactics that led to bin laden's shooting WERE ALL DEVELOPED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. you're just regurgitating mush that has been floated in every Left-wing paper since 2003.

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:41PM

Oh, right: Bush was responsible for every sunrise of his presidency. Sure.

The central issue is what causes Islamists to want to knock down World Trade Center targets. The neocon answer is that they hate us because we're free. Ron Paul's answer is that the American government has propped up the House of Sa'ud, the shahs, Mubarak, Saddam, and other such thugs for decades. Bin Laden himself said it was the latter. Neocons say that the reasons that the Islamists give each other aren't their real reasons.

Make your own judgment.

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 8:19PM

Steven,
Point 1: I was criticizing Paul's supporters, not Paul. The biggest detriment to Paul's candidacy is that some of his most ardent supporters are obnoxious asses.
Point 2: I agree with Paul on 90% of his positions, and in some ways am further libertarian than his positions. Easily 2/3 of the federal government budget is unconstitutional. Social Security needs to be privatized, Medicare and Medicaid eliminated. All cabinet positions except Justice, Defense, and State should be eliminated. EPA abolished. The Federal Government should own no land outside of the District of Columbia. National Parks should be owned by the state they are in. Basically the only thing the Feds should do is defense, negotiate treaties, and the FEW other enumerated powers that were given to it by the constitution. I believe we could bring home a lot of troops from overseas, Korea, with a firm warning to N.Korea that we would nuke'em if they attack S. Korea. Empty out Europe. Even might be time to leave Iraq, not so sure about Afghanistan though.

My biggest problem with Paul is that I have some serious doubts about his willingness to defend our interests and allies around the world.
My question is: Can any of you Paul supporters make a persuasive argument that he will defend this country, our interests, and our allies around the world, and do so without referring to us non Paul-bots here as neo-cons,neo-libs,liberals,Israel-Firsters, hasbarets(whatever the hell that is), or any of the other names you call people who simply disagree with you.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:23PM

Paul will not be able to lead. that is the critical fact. where will his support in Congress come from? this guy is gonna command the support of people through the sheer force of his intellect and natural charm? I don't think so. it's so obvious. A Paul Presidency would be DOA.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:26PM

his very demeanor is a losing proposition. look at him! a sneering little child when confronted with opposing ideas. he doesn't have enough of a commanding intellect...and certainly has zero charisma. he doesn't evoke any higher aspirations. nothing transcendent. the other candidates may suffer similar deficits...but in tot like this guy. THERE IS NO WAY HE WILL BE ABLE TO LEAD.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:27PM

...but not in toto like this guy.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:32PM

Chuck: you are Prime Prime Rib, my man! Have a Great Turkey Day!

ContraSt8ist| 11.25.11 @ 1:58AM

Paul is a strong supporter of national defense and of the just war theory and believes that war should be handled the way the constitution outlines. He has recently made clear that if we were under attack like pearl harbor, then of course you do something immediately to defend the country. But in order to do the types of things we have done in Iraq and Libya, in order to declare war, Congress must vote and we must go there with a clear mission, achieve that mission, and come home.

As far as Israel goes, Any major humanitarian disaster would need to be answered by the Paul administration. The people would demand it. But that's not happening, and I don't believe it will. Iran hasn't invaded anyone's borders in 2000 years. If we were to stop foreign aid to Israel and stop trying to forge our peace treaties over there I predict that a lot of Palestinians that are attacking them will soon die, and if (IF) Iran were to decide to attack they would be demolished by Israel. China and Russia wouldn't dare do a thing. Diplomats would visit them and remind them, ally to Israel or not, that America doesn't like war but that we are quite capable if they decide to start something. Everyone knows Who is top dog militarily. Of course, that will change if the economy collapses and China and Russia, especially China, would have a great advantage.

Paul voted for hunting down Osama, and letters of marque and reprisal, which just so happens to be very similar to the way we ended up killing Osama anyway. A small, concentrated group with a clear goal-Dead or Alive ( and probably in many cases, like Osama, just the dead part )

Ron along with others however, did not vote for or support what eventually led us back to Iraq and what happened there. I don't believe that war had anything to do with 9/11, terrorists, Osama, or anything even remotely humanitarian. I believe we were all taken for a ride, and now I want off.

Maybe you wouldn't get called a neo-con if you didn't call me a paul-bot :) just sayin. I've never called anyone a neo-con by the way, at least not publicly. We are individuals with different ideals. All needed to make a great republic.

Walt| 11.22.11 @ 9:49AM

Actually, there was a time when a hawk piece like this would go unchallenged. Now, America is growing up and realizing what bunk it all is, and it's not just a Ron Paul wake-up. It's an EVERYONE wake-up...everyone except the hawks, of course!

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:28PM

speaking of strawmen arguments!!! you're the champ!

Rienone| 11.22.11 @ 10:30AM

Watch the interview here!

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/201.....-nation-2/

Ron Paul eats Scheiffer alive! That dinosaur tried soooo hard to sound-byte Paul so his bosses could circulate hit pieces like this article. Ron Paul is a smart, smart man. These naysayers aren't using their brains.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:30PM

yes we are. I know a sniveling, whiny man-child when I see and hear him.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:31PM

in fact...after months of slogging through much of the Paul-bot slop posted at AMSPEC....that characterization pretty much holds for all of you. whiny little children.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:33PM

Schieffer is a dumbass Liberal Democrat. Chuck Shumer is an asshat in many ways, but dumb he is not.

The Dangler| 11.22.11 @ 10:41AM

Wow Chuck! Its awesome how you just come right out and show your leftist authoritarian bent right at the first comment.....just dis the guy that that has a thirty year history of fidelity to the Constitution, and standing alone for peace, freedom, free markets, sound money and saying NO to corporatism and crony capitalism.

Honestly, I have no idea what you neocon leftists are a'fritter about...Obama has doubled down on the Bush doctrine.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:36PM

and no f'ing influence on anything. it's all rhetoric.

what major legislation has he ever marshalled to success? NOTHING!

He hasn't been a leader in the past. AND HE WON'T BE BLE TO LEAD IF ELECTED.

ContraSt8ist| 11.25.11 @ 2:23AM

Paul is talented at forming coalitions to get things done in Congress. Paul championed HR1207 (audit the fed) and recieved well over 240 co-sponsors. Jim DeMint and Bernie Sanders led the charge in the Senate, although ultimately watering down the language so a full audit could not happen.

Even after a partial audit, it was revealed that the Fed had issued along the lines of $16Trillion to foreign banks and other foreign interests.

It is obvious that Dems would vote for his domestic and foreign policies and that Reps would vote for his fiscal policies. I think he has the chance to accomplish more than any President before him.

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.22.11 @ 11:06AM

LOL... Beat me to it Chuck.

nelson| 11.22.11 @ 11:36AM

"chuck| 11.22.11 @ 6:49AM

Way to go, Aaron. The Paul-bots are sure to be all "wee-wee'd up". Trying to set a record for the most comments ever posted here?"

LOL! wha wha, 'mommy mommy, they made me feel bad; the only way to diver insecurity & make me feel normal is if I add suffix to someone's name, because AIPAC NeoCUNT whores like Medved/Levin/O'Reilly et al told me that's what I should believe! Wha wha!'

When you actually KNOW WTF conservatism means, and NOT what jaded liberal COMMIE CUNTS who have INFILTRATED the Conservative movement in 1960's told you to delude, then speak, otherwise shut your AIPAC KOCHsucking mouth, capice pussy?

STFU biatch. Now, go sign up w/IDF & help them kill some brownies who are like what 3 DNA markers apart from your own? Go make your 6million dead ancestors proud by mimicking Nazis, ya genetically mutated imbeciles.

Drunken Sailor| 11.22.11 @ 11:50AM

Clint?

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 12:57PM

Spoken like a classic Paul supporter.

Yeah, you guys are all about good governance and the constitution. I'm sure Paul might even tap old Nelson here (aka Clint) as his Veep.

And if you patriots have to bust some heads in the process of bringing about a truly libertarian world, hey, that's not your fault.

I mean, your wives only have black eyes because they don't listen so good, right?

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Mr. G---keep fighting the good fight. You shine and gleam even surrounded by Galveston turdballs. (Have you ever visited Paul's district? It's a shithole---site of the worst man-made disaster in US history, and the second worst natural disaster in US history.) But might I recommend that you go over to Weasel Zippers and post sometime. No Paulbots, just Conservatives...

(and I'm not Zip.)

Oh, and have a GREAT Thanksgiving! You entertain and enlighten, and are much appreciated by me.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 1:58PM

Thank you so much, Occam! That means a great deal to me coming from you - truly!

You have a great Thanksgiving, too.

No, I have not been to Paul's district - I'll check out WeaselZippers, though, for sure. I must say, the Paul groupies have made this site a lot less rewarding to visit.

They are indistinguishable in methodology and rationality from the liberal trolls they claim they hate (then again, Ron Paul supporters seem to hate everybody).

Well, these people all tell us that Ron Paul is a shoo-in for election. And, I say why not? Let it be so!

Because, were that extremely unlikely scenario to transpire, I'd like to see these fools six months into a Paul administration try to explain away why America's lot on the world stage will not have improved one iota, and how Ron Paul's magic wand will have fizzled.

Something tells me the proximate cause of Paul's great failure will be one of two things: Either George Bush and the Dancing Neocons will have undermined The Great God Paul, or else his wizard hat was one size too big.

Warrior | 11.22.11 @ 9:09PM

Grzmlyk, Happy Thanksgiving from a Ron Paul supporter. I agree with you that many of Dr. Paul's supporters simply attack instead of debating the issues. Here again, many of you simply attack Ron Paul without stating why any of the others candidates declared policies would be better. My only hope is that we get a conservative candidate nominated. Of course, while tepid, slightly to the right and totally out of touch politicians like Boehner, McConnell, Cantor...are controlling the party, we really do not have much to look forward to when it comes to conservative values and principles. There is no leader in the Republican party that has any republican values, and that will pretty much doom any Republican elected President.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:36PM

You see, Warrior, if you were a typical Paul supporter, your man would be doing much better. Hell, if YOU were him, his cause would be doing better.

I'm just pointing out I do not necessarily bite those that disagree with me. But Clint and Jack are disgusting, and far more representative.

Paul | 11.22.11 @ 2:02PM

All you fellow Ron Paul supporters out there!! Lets all get our heads out of these articles and spend some time volunteering to make calls for the Paul campaign rather than trying to respond to these nuts!! Its funny how we were thought to be the loons four years ago; now we're mainstream and the neocons are looking more like the nuts. The establishment is crumbling but to help tear it down and rebuild the foundation of this country on liberty lets all volunteer our time to the campaign. The idiots, like the writer, are just going to keep babbling their rhetoric, so just let them.

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 2:13PM

Paul: People that can respond to nonsense articles like this do Ron Paul a lot of good. We make these guys look like the fools and tools that they are. To let these liars get away unscaithed is wrong. Every lie should be met with the truth. Write letters and go on blogs all over the more to spread the truth. For the truth will set us free.

A.J.| 11.22.11 @ 4:01PM

Really sorry to have to break this Ron Paul Love fest up but the guy isn't going to get voted anywhere NEAR the US presidency. THATS the truth, better get used to the idea, and ....maybe your going to get set free.

Cpm| 11.23.11 @ 11:35PM

Actually you make yourselves look like assholes. Real assholes.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 2:18PM

All you fellow Ron Paul supporters out there!!

I agree with Paul! Go forth and take your brand of "mainstream" to the far corners of the country. Evangelize, evangelize and evangelize!

Just remember: Every face you stomp on is one less vote for Paul. So my advice is this: Sell them the Ron Paul snake oil FIRST and then stomp on their faces AFTER he's secure in the White House.

At that point, you should turn your attention to explaining why attaining heaven on earth was a little more elusive than just putting an "X" by Paul's name.

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 2:49PM

Grmcheck: The vast majority of people agree with us by polling, on ending these wars, ending foreign aid, and the rest of Dr. Paul's program. We have to answer liars and losers like you who try to dominate the discussion. If Ron Paul is so wrong on foreign policy why would you restrict him to 89 seconds in a debate? He would destroy himself. Well they try to silence Dr. Paul and his supporters because we have the country behind us on the issues.
Ron and Rand for Peace Prosperity an Liberty.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 2:55PM

Hey, I'm with you, Jack. You don't have to feel you have to answer me. Really, you don't.

I know that, just as sure as Israel needs to be obliterated from the map, Ron Paul will make the world a beautiful place and nobody will ever raise a hand in anger toward America again.

Woo hoo! It's face stomping time!

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 3:33PM

i don't understand why you keep talking about face stomping.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:37PM

Read Clint, Brian. And then read O'Brien's soliloquy in 1984 to Winston. Very, eerily, similar.

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 2:58PM

Watching daily & weekly polls is as stupid as watching the market daily for stocks. It means nothing.

And for the record, in the unlikely event of Paul's nomination, I'd vote for him. Simply because its better than who we have now. And his foreign policy would then have to undergo doses of realpolitik unlike that ever imagined by him or his supporters. I'm an "anyone but Romney & Paul" PRIMARY voter, but I'm an "anyone but Obama" Presidential voter. So that also means I'd hold my nose & vote for Mitt as well.

How many of you Paul supporters love your Republic enough to do the same? Will you be an "anyone but Obama" voter in the end? Or will you cast a de facto vote for Obama by voting 3rd party, should Paul go that way, or just staying home?

How many of you are Thomas Paine's "sunshine patriots?"

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 3:28PM

Well said, Con Chef.

The truth is, as the comments here show, many Paul supporters couldn't care less about Paul, politics, the country or the world. It's all about expressing rage for far too many of them.

But I cannot agree with you more about realpolitik. Paul supporters seem to think that, if Paul is elected, the planet will be a blank slate onto which we can lay the template of - what? kinda-sorta-ad hoc non-interventionism cum quasi isolationism, I suppose. This even as the world continues to shink and physical borders are increasingly rendered irrelevant.

Just as global events proved to be beyond the puerile and ignorant will of Obama, so they will prove to be beyond the soothing ministrations of Paul's hand, and the purity of his intentions will go the way of every war plan: They won't survive the first meeting with reality.

Take Iraq, for instance. It is certainly defensible to hold the position that we shouldn't have ever gone in, and, once in, we shouldn't have partaken of nation building. But we did. So now what? Does anyone think Obama's pulling troops out of there is going to make it safer? What happens if Iraq devolves into a brutal civil war and a safe haven for all sorts of terrorist mischief that winds up killing Americans?

We know of the problem with Iran getting a nuke. Are we really going to be happy to stand by as Iran becomes a regional bully, cowering before its demands?

Afghanistan is one area where I agree with many who say there's not enough "there" there to create a stable environment. But if we pull out, and a terrorist group flourishes there and then mounts an attack on America, what would a President Paul do?

There are no easy answers, and there never have been ever since civilizations rose from the pristine earth.

If Paul gets the nomination, I'll vote for him too, and God speed; but I have no illusion whatsoever that his presence will be a leavening agent. America is the world's de facto hegemon, and simply by virtue of our position as such, we are indeed going to incur the wrath and enmity of others.

We are about to cede that hegemony to China; Russia, too, has eyes on clawing back into global contention.

What would a Paul do with all the provocations that will be forthcoming once America is an abject shadow of its former self, a broke country with an atrophied global footprint in a world that is still global in nature? Will minding our own business be an option? And what constitutes "our own business,"anyway, in today's interconnected world?

Guaranteed, whomever our next president is, it's going to be a very, very, very rocky ride.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:38PM

Except---Paul is more of an ideologue than Obama. And he doesn't play well with others.

I always pray that you are right, Con. G-d Bless.

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 4:06PM

Very good questions Chef.

I struggled during the last election of who to vote for. As a Paulbot, I was sick by the thought of voting for McCain...but anybody except Obama, right? Well I was going to do as you suggest, hold my nose and vote against my values. But when it occurred to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil, I couldn't bring myself to do it. We Paulites or Paulbots, or whatever we are called these days, truly believ there's no real difference between Obama and Mitt or any of the others. A vote for Cain or Perry is just as wasted as a vote for Obama. Your options are police state vs. nanny state. I want neither. Here's another thing to consider....if I vote for a nominee other than Paul, it just confirms it's OKAY to black him out as the media has done. I'm not playing there game. If the media presented him fairly and the American people chose someone else, I'd be more likely to hold your position. But as it stands, the media clearly lies about Paul, so why should I trust them about the others? The only one I TRUST is Ron Paul. I admit I'm not sure how his Iranian policy would play out, but I am convinced we can't affor another war. We are broke. If I vote for Gingrich, and he wins, and we go to war in Iran, I'll always wonder, "What if Paul had won?". If it's Paul or no one, I can look myself in the mirror. I can tell my kids, "Well, our country is broke, but I voted for the guy who could have fixed that."

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 4:22PM

Brian, a sane response from a Paul supporter? Yikes, you are the skunk at the garden party!

I'm not sure a vote for Cain or Perry would have to be a wasted vote for Obama, if either/both of them were able to overcome their Achilles Heels.

I do agree that Romney is most defininitely not the answer. A guy who's good at applying band-aids isn't much use with an arterial wound that's bleeding out.

And I don't think we'd live in a police state under either of those two guys.

To some extent, I understand people's attraction to Paul - I even like some of what he says.

However, the truth is, I don't think Paul (or anyone) can even make a dent in the corrupt nanny state, let alone fix it - the balance of power in DC has long since shifted toward the entrenched bureaucrats, technocrats, lobbyists, professional staffers and other assorted apparatchiks that comprise the Leviathan.

This beast has grown so large the it will chew up and spit out anyone who dares to take away any of its food, let alone actively try to bring it to heel.

Even Reagan, arguably the last best hope for conservatism, couldn't do much to slow the metastasization of the Big Government Cancer, and it has spread so much further and become so much more corrupt in the last 30 years.

That's one significant reason why Paul's candidacy is Quixotic, IMHO. After all, what does the dog who spends his days chasing cars do once he catches one?

The sad truth is that it doesn't really matter who our next president is; the die is cast and the tectonic plates already have the potential energy stored up in them; the only question is when that energy will be released in the form of collapse, chaos and widespread despair.

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Grzmlyk, I agree with about 90% of what you say here. That's why for me it must come down to my own values. It seems very hopeless the way you put it, and I think you are very accurate. I must vote for Ron Paul simply because he WANTS to change this "leviathan". He's the only one who really wants to do this. He may not be able to, but at least I know with him there is the slimmest of chances. The others will just continue to feed the monster.

And thanks for the compliment, though I'm not sure the people I work with would call me sane!

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:19PM

"Even Reagan, arguably the last best hope for conservatism, couldn't do much to slow the metastasization of the Big Government Cancer, and it has spread so much further and become so much more corrupt in the last 30 years."

Hmm. So Reagan, in the long run, caused a reaction that increased the size and scope of government.

Now it is all coming into focus after 30 years.

Mark in LA| 11.22.11 @ 7:46PM

Dotcha just love the Reagan mythbelievers. There was the saintly Reagan with his lone finger in the dyke holding back the unstoppable tide of big government.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:42PM

Brian, a fairly intelligent comment from a Paul supporter. However, Iran with a nuke is unacceptable.

Or, let me put it another way. With Paul, Iran will have a nuke, and use it, and the resulting mess that wil follow will make "Fixing the Fed" miniscule in comparison. Look at THE DEMOGRAPHICS on the CIA website for the Islamic countries, Western Europe, and the US. Extrapolate 20 years---and figure out the men of military age.

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:57PM

"If Ron Paul is so wrong on foreign policy why would you restrict him to 89 seconds in a debate?"

Paul's foreign policy prescriptions are decent, but his domestic policies would only succeed if we lived in a Norman Rockwell painting.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:00PM

Dr. RON PAUL'S “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

SPENDING:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/

Melanie| 11.22.11 @ 4:44PM

Grzmlyk, I don't agree with you much but damn if you're not entertaining :-)

I do agree with about everything Ron Paul says...something I learned earlier this year when I in my disgust over politics as usual started doing some research on the man and his policies...you have to admire his unwavering dedication to stay true to the Constitution as well as his knowledge of history, economics and foreign policy...his vote on the floor cannot be bartered...it is such a rareity that this type of person exists in government anymore...now we have the insider trader thing is busting wide open...I can barely stomach it, what they are getting away with....

No more...we have to right the ethical compass by rewarding people who have standards, who stand up for what is right, who aren't wanting to be in public office because of the perks and lining their pockets with cash....and who really understand and love liberty...which is what America is about, no?

Cpm| 11.23.11 @ 11:40PM

Ron Paul will make the trains run on time.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:38PM

that's actually pretty funny!

MarkR| 11.22.11 @ 3:45PM

Dah dah dah dah!!!! Loonie tunes episode is over for now! That's all folks!!

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 8:24PM

wow, nelson, that was such a persuasive comment that I think I will have to assume the fetal position and suck my thumb. You really told me.

For those who needed a demonstration of the meaning of "wee-wee'd up", please refer to the post by "nelson" above.

Aleck| 11.22.11 @ 4:55PM

I always enjoy reading Aaron's offerings here, even if I don't agree with him. His interests are broad, and his articles or posts are generally thoughtful and well-written. But this article seems to be the exception, coming across as the irrational, angry outburst of someone who would have done well to pause and count to 10 before pushing "send".

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:40PM

because...in the end...he knows the only lasting influence Paul can have is a negative one: he won't win the nomination. if he decides to pick up his toys and run a 3rd party campaign....all he'll achieve is another Obama term.....giving the lie to any claim that he "loves America".

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:10PM

Ron Paul will be president when Hell freezes over and Jimmy Hoffa's skeleton is unearthed.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:05PM

Obviously, Only Agnostic Trash Talk.

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:31PM

Actually, I agree that our foreign policy is bad-
it has been clueless since the Berlin Wall fell.
I just don't trust Ron Paul-types across the street.

And Paul wants prayer re-instituted in publik skoolz? when during the school day would that be?: before the kids smoke their marijuana in the bottom stairwells, or afterwards?

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:10PM

ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks Has Benn Clueless SinceThe Berlin Wall Fell On Him.

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:47PM

Ron Paul's foreign policy might be 'alright', America is in fact an imperialist nation. When we fought the Soviets, it was a different ball game; but now there is no excuse.
However Paul's domestic policy is only good if we could return to '50s values-- EARLY '50s values. And that will happen around the same time Bernie Madoff pays back the money he Ponzied, and OJ confesses to murdering Nicole and Ron.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:13PM

Dr. RON PAUL'S “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the.....e-america/

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:42PM

said the expert with all the intelligence data at ready command.

ContraSt8ist| 11.25.11 @ 2:37AM

Said the guy with no intelligence to speak of.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Basically, to make it simple, Aaron is arguing that Paultards, and Paul himsef, like Obama, bend over and spread cheek for Jihadists wherever possible, only Paul does it more often than Obama. I do disagree with his main thesis here, however: Paul is even more LEFTWING and more SUBMISSIVE than Obama, kind of like two bottoms competing on a BDSM website.

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 7:25AM

The Neocons and their Republican elite enablers are destroying the Republicn Party and the Conservative movement. The vast majority of the American people by polling want an end to foreign aid and foreign adventures. They want the Fed audited and government spending slashed. Yet the elites war trying to stick the party with chickenhawks and banksters like Romney and Gingrich.

The most insane policy of these people was an attempt to rivive the career of the discredited, old, blowhard Newt Gingrich. His numerous scams have been exposed and have destroyed what little credibilty they have left. Both Gingrich and Romney are unelectable. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home. He will be running against the Bush economic policies. Of course we all know that much of that is lies. Obama is in the pocket of the same lobbies as Romney and Gingrich. We will have to offer nothing in response, but endless wars and endless bailouts, if we nominate such dislikeable fools an Romney or Gingrich. Endless wars and bailouts for the rich, while kicking grandma off dialysis, and reducing grandpa's Social Security would lead to the final end of the Stupid Party.

Dsf| 11.22.11 @ 9:51AM

the problem is not that we nominate the wrong people in the GOP, it's that the right people, for whatever reason, will not run for election.

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 6:04PM

"the right people, for whatever reason, will not run for election."

Because they don't want to be 'managed' like Tom Parker having Elvis dance like a puppet

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 6:55PM

"When we fought the Soviets, it was a different ball game; but now there is no excuse."

Remember, Reagan ended a war (and if you don't think the Cold War is over between us and the Russians, then at least the Warsaw Pact is no more).
The Cheney-Rove administration bequeathed us war galore.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Slurp slurp, Jack.

Doctor Right| 11.22.11 @ 7:28AM

Thanksgiving, after all, is about giving.

In that regard, Mr. Goldstein, I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to you for posting an article critical of Ron Paul and his nutty, absurd foreign policy ideas on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving!

THANK YOU!

Let the games begin!!!!

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 10:10AM

Bob Schiefer invited Ron Paul to be on Deface The Nation for a 20 minute segment. When Ron got there early for the segment he was given an earpiece to hear Scheifer's question. For 2o minutes the earpiece gave off a funny buzzing noise. Ron complained about it,but nothing was done. Well the questions of Scheifer were well planned to make Ron look bad, Mostly on foreign policy. Ron destroyed every Scheifer premise, and made him look like a fool. The inteview was terminated after 9 minutes despite Ron being promised 20. Well CBS is the same gang that would only give Ron 89 seconds in a debate about American foreign policy. Who controls American Foreign policy and CBS? Ron Paul has put up the whole interview on his webbsite. It is a great thing of beauty as he drives this old Washington hack into the ground. Everyone should go see it.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:15PM

Cowabunga!!!!!

al, in arkansas| 11.22.11 @ 9:49AM

What is it with all these Israel sympathizers? They've got 300 Nukes! I'm tired of the Neocons pumping up one enemy after another to keep their war machined well oiled. Goldstein? That ain't a Smith or Jones, now is it? I wonder where his slant comes from? We just gotta have a bogey man to chase and fight, don't we? Ron Paul 2012!

Cpm| 11.23.11 @ 11:45PM

Says the guy in the middle of the Ron Paul daisychain. You don't put any stock in any opinions but your own anyway.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:44PM

the Nepotism ticket! neither one with any major legislative victories to claim.....but gosh darn it......everyone is gonna line up behind the bot boys and back them to the hilt!

uh huh.

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 6:06PM

"What is it with all these Israel sympathizers? They've got 300 Nukes!"

Al in Ark. wants Armageddon in the Mideast??

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 8:21PM

...naturally, Al in Ark. wasn't really writing that we ought to leave Israel stranded with 300 nukes to incinerate her enemies, leaving giant clouds of radioactive material to drift hundreds of miles (or more) away?
No, of course not.

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:45PM

ever been to Israel?

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Well, Jack--may you get the short end of the wishbone again this year.

Bydand76| 11.22.11 @ 11:48AM

Last time I checked Wisconsin was still part of the United States and as such, WE as WISCONSINITES, are allowed to voice our opinion on all matters pertaining to both the Federal government AND our own States issues.

If you don't like what we as a State have to say that is your own damn problem. You don't get to tell us what to do sir!!

Last time I checked Wisconsin Conservatives were kicking the crap out of the left wing liberal elite in MY state!

At least WE are trying to do something meaningful about it instead of sitting on our collective asses like some of the other states in this country.

What state are you from? I am sure the same thing could be said to yourself in regards to your post!

Respectfully.....

Oldefarte| 11.22.11 @ 1:53PM

BS! Wisconsin [and others as well] CREATED ORIGINALLY the problems that now are engulfing them. There are old sayings such as PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES, LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE, etc. Scott Walker was on Fox 24 hours ago lamenting how his upcoming RECALL electing is in contrast to his enacting state policies that have continued government services without the need to raise Wisconsin's taxes to pay for same, all by his and R's fighting labor unions thuggish COMMUNITY ORGANIZING within YOUR STATE. Of course, you/everyone has a right to voice opinions, but the point is TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN STATE'S GARBAGE BEFORE OPINING ON OTHERS' FILTH. PS/FYI, my state of Alabama rightfully elected a dominance of Republican state legislators who thereafter purged the governmental labor unions' influence within our state [and also has enacted a state immigration law, of which the federal government under their current Gestpo Justice Dept is now legally suing our state over same, along with Arizona etc], so please don't again critisize otherstates for ficticious problems pertaining to yours only [along with Ohio]!!!!

Bydand76| 11.22.11 @ 4:30PM

First off Olde,
If you are comparing Wis. to Ala. please stop.We are two diffrent states with two different identities and cultures.

If you want to split hairs by saying that Conservatives aren't doing enough here in Wis. and by comparing the state to a solid Republican state such as Ala. well I guess that is your perogative......Although I am not to sure there is much more we can do in your eyes.

Wisconsin is in the middle of changing from a solid Blue state to a Red state. We are not going to be able to do that in one election cycle. Not only that but Gov. Walker hasnt even begun to change anything since it is still the previous administrations budget that he is dealing with...but I digress...

I guess if you want to complain about Gov. Walker lowering taxes by forcing the public sector unions to start paying more into their benefits they receive from the state, all the while trying to deal with a budget that was going to detroy Wis. you are within your rights to do so.

We will just have to take our new Voter ID laws, our new Conceal & Carry law, and our new lower property tax rates and say that we aren't as good as Alabama is.

Secondly.
For the first time since the 1940's Wis. elected a Republican majority to both its state House and its Senate AND we elected a Republican Governor. Not only that, but we sent the Liberal Twinkie Russ Feingold back to the unemployment line. What else should we, as the electorate, do?

What else can be done friend?
We are fighting the stupid recall effort tooth and nail (and in some cases with our fists) as they are a huge waste of time and money. You are right that we are seeing an influx of outside money and organizations trying to influence our states politics........but so are you! So take some of your own advice to heart.

To your point of trying to clean up our own house before we can speak on matters of national concern or whatever else... I thought thats what we were doing Sir! The Democrats have brought Wisconsin to the brink of financial doom. The Conservatives in this state are working their asses off to fix the mess.

As for the other states in this country I will reserve the right to criticize them as much as I want......especially California!

In all reality we fight for the same cause Sir.

Respectfully,

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 6:14PM

Anyone who call you 'Sir' is a smarmy rube- it is a stealth way of saying 'up yours'.

Bydand76| 11.23.11 @ 9:59AM

Oh well if that's what you think, then may I respectfully say
" Up Yours Mr Brooks... Sir!

You operate on a principle that people on this site actually care what you have to say.

A little speck of a human being who openly admits to voting for quite possibly the worst president in American history.....

I will say it again... Up Yours Brooks!

Go troll somewhere else.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:18PM

Yes, you are entitled to do that in Wisconsin, home of "proud 4-Fs" (Jack's quote) and "Live cowards." (Jack's quote)

I do not believe that Wisconsinites, overal, support jihadists. I do believe Jack does.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 10:25AM

Golly, don't you foolish neocons realize that Iran has a sovereign right to obliterate Israel and kill American citizens?

You imperialists would deprive Iran of that right?

I, for one, will be happy to convert to Islam, if that's what the Imams want. In fact, I've already had my wife in for a burka fitting.

I mean, what more effective hand of friendship can we extend to Iran than becoming subjects to them? I'm sure if we're nice to them and do whatever they want, they'll be nice to us in return.

Woo hoo! Grzmlyk LOVES Ron Paul 4-EVER!

The Tea Party Rebellion is Here! Let the face stomping begin!

Boar Hunter| 11.22.11 @ 11:03AM

I am of the same mind as you, but I suspect you were insincere about your claim to support Islam, Burkas don't ever fit.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 12:18PM

I know. You'd think they'd make a one-size-fits-all type (pretreated with fire retardant), but no. Perhaps we could enlist the help of Fruit-of-the-Loom.

Yes, the Ron Paul wing-nuts of the Tea Party have long since won me over: They had me with face stomping.

I can hardly wait for Lord and Master Ron Paul's inauguration. The moment he takes his oath, the sky will be a little bluer, the birds will chirp a little louder, and peace on earth will obtain forthwith. The good will shall flow to America in a warm deluge of amity, and all of our foreign entanglements will melt away like so much gossamer.

Golly, knowing all that, why would anyone NOT worhsip at the altar of Ron Paul?

I'll tell you why: Neocons are evil, bellicose warmongers and chicken hawks who love bloodshed and support the evil Halliburton. Why, they probably admire Dick Cheney!

I lie prostrate before Mr. Paul and his merry band of face-stomping, vengeance-seeking (but only within America's borders) supporters. Take me, take me, Ronnie!

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:10PM

I seem to recall a novel involving a political party engaging in endless Face Stomping....ah, yes, 1984, and the Party was IngSoc.

Jay| 11.22.11 @ 6:17AM

Definitely, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is “submissive.” The Revolutionary warriors who wrote it were “submissive.” Paul has no problem with sending troops abroad, he just has the audacity to suggest that we should obey the Constitution, and actually properly declare war first. Once we deploy troops they should fight, win, and then return home; instead of staying behind for decades occupying and nation building. That has always been Paul’s position.

While Paul has no aversion to fighting a war; like any sane person, he prefers not to contribute to starting one when it can be avoided.

In this instance, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz agrees with Ron Paul:

“There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia.

“Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina.”

Source: Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with Sam Tannenhaus, Vanity Fair (09 May 2003)

Dsf| 11.22.11 @ 9:56AM

Every candidate for president agrees to follow article 1 section 8. Bit once elected, every president seems to chafe under the same. If Paul is elected would be interesting to see is he chafes as well and how he would respond once he is brought p to speed on all the security issues he will face. Just saying what the candidate (all candidates) preaches and what the elected do are usually two different things, in my experience and opinion

Boar Hunter| 11.22.11 @ 11:04AM

Paul is a nut

B Rye| 11.22.11 @ 1:44PM

Takes one to know one. I guess it is a lot easier to call people names than to say something intelligent, childish pig humper.
You would have to be nuts to vote for anyone else.
Ron Paul 2012

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 2:22PM

Hey, Clint - oops, I mean "B Rye" - I'm now fully onboard the Ron Paul choo-choo train.

I even bought a pair of really awesome face-stomping shoes. Just send me the list of all of those evil neocons whose faces need stomping. Maybe we can split up the list alphabetically!

Woo hoo! The Tea Party Rebellion is here!

chuck| 11.23.11 @ 8:44AM

Hey GRZ,
For your face-stomping shoes, do you prefer golf shoes with the original metal spikes, or a good set of baseball cleats?

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:45PM

Mongo like Steel Cleats for His Face Stompers.

ad hominem| 11.22.11 @ 2:16PM

You must be a genius.

Tampa Mike| 11.22.11 @ 2:08PM

Other than Ron Paul, each of these neo-con candidates base their policies on the war propaganda of FEAR repeated again and again (on behalf of those who profit from perpetual war). FRD said, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” We are Americans! Why should we be afraid of countries obviously weaker than America? Why should we fear the terrorist hiding under our beds each night? Why should we cheer our role as meddling, defensive world policemen, as we descend into policy-induced bankruptcy? Bring our troops home to defend American borders, sovereignty and freedom with unrivaled might and all force at our lawful disposal; be prosperous again; respect the sovereignty of other nations; be diplomatic; be an example to the world of a powerful nation made formidable by its steadfast adherence to principals of liberty and freedom. America was once truly exceptional and prosperous - we can be again, but not by following the tired policies of fear espoused by both parties now .

C Bowen | 11.22.11 @ 6:19AM

I can appreciate that a Red Diaper Baby from Canada doesn't really understand Ron Paul's foreign policy position, but after the disaster of the Clinton-Bush-Obama Neocon/New Democrat Global Islamic Democrat Revolution, one would think it was time for reflection.

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:11PM

Yes, the reflection that we should all vote like Dennis Kucinich, who would be Paul's Secretary of State.

Dayne| 11.22.11 @ 6:26AM

The real truth is not that Ron Paul would fit in well as Obama's Secretary of State.
More to the point, Barack Obama would make a fantastic Secretary of Defense for all of the neocon candidates on the Republican side - all of whom you would cheer vociferously if they had done what Obama has done.

There is fundamentally no difference between the two parties when it comes to the pursuit of an internationalist Wilsonian foreign policy & you know it, Aaron...

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 7:01AM

Mr. Goldstein I don't know your personal history, but if you want war so bad you should volunteer for the frontlines in Afganistan. Ron Paul is the only sane one running in either party. Chickenhawks like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Frum, Perle, Kristol, and Mitt Romney should just shut up and go away. They lied us into Iraq and now are trying to lie us into a disasterous war in with Iran. Iran has about as many weapons of mass destruction as Iraq, But it will not be a " cakewalk " like Iraq. The huge Shia populations in Iraq, Eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Lebanon will have the ability to make it hot for our troops, sailors, and allies in the area. The Iranians probably have it in their power to close the Straits of Hormusz. The oil markets will be in turmoil for many years is such an insane attack is done. The world's nearly bankrupt economies will be brought to their knees. This policy of endless war for control of the Middle East is bankruptng this country.

Doctor Right| 11.22.11 @ 7:31AM

"Mr. Goldstein I don't know your personal history"

Translation:

"Goldstein, eh?? Another 'Son of Abraham' Neo-con..."

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 8:06AM

How is the weather in Haifa Dr. Wrong? Well a Happy Thanksgiving to all the good people here and even to the bad ones like my old friend Dr. Wrong. Shalom.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:47PM

Haifa? Dr Right is a former Catholic turned non-denominational Christian (DID I PEG THAT, BOSS?), not a Jew or a Bahai'.

Emmanuel Goldstein| 11.22.11 @ 9:31AM

Goldstein, eh?

Maybe Jewish Americans need to accept that America is slowly abandoning the expensive and unconstitutional neo-con foreign policy that has Israel's protection as its central feature.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:41AM

Find out which candidates actually served in the military.

Oldefarte| 11.22.11 @ 11:18AM

That is pontificating STUPIDLY, and is the exact reason why our current president was elected on 11/4/08. Thank you for your [and those thining similarily] supreme STUPIDITY!!!!!!!

Doctor Right| 11.22.11 @ 7:32AM

2 years as an Air Force gynecologist is not exactly Audie Murphy...

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:40AM

Do Your Homework.

" 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)"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.

Dick Nome| 11.22.11 @ 8:25AM

We've been there before. Air Force and Army MDs are commissioned as Captains. He did not 'reach' that from a lower rank. It isn't the same as an operations officer or Pilot who is commissioned 2nd Lt and is promoted up to Lt. Col as my father was. I know a bit more about the Air Force than you do Mr. Your comment is misleading. What does being a Gynecologist have to do with foreign policy??

BTW, RIck Perry was an Air Force Captain as well as a Pilot and Aircraft Commander. That has a little more standing. He was also an Eagle Scout which probably is of not interest to you.

Marine| 11.22.11 @ 8:42AM

You are not as smart as you think, Dick. An "Operations Officer" is a billet and it is usually held by a Major. A 2ndLt serving as an Operations Officer is about as rare as you being correct in one of your internet posts.

Matthew Quigley| 11.22.11 @ 9:34AM

Depends on the level. At wing level, yes, it would be a major or lieutenant colonel. At squadron level it would be a captain (although I did know a fast-burner 1LT who was a squadron ops officer once...and not a good one. He stopped burning so fast not long after that). Those are Air Force examples...your Marine Corps mileage may vary.

Marine| 11.22.11 @ 9:42AM

OK, but my statement about a "2ndLt serving as an Operations Officer" was, and still is, true. Also, the statement was designed to illustrate Dick's incorrect use of the term "operations officer". Also, by the way, I, myself, served as a battalion Operations Officer as a 1stLt (even with 2 deployments under my belt at that time I, too, lacked the experience to be a "good one").

Mac Jehoff| 11.22.11 @ 10:15AM

Perhaps you screwed your hat on too tightly. Mr.Nome noted an operations officer or pilot who was commissioned 2nd Lt , and later promoted as his father was. Pilots are not Lt. either. I saw room for promotion in the Dick's statement before reaching operations officer. Nit pick away, hoser.

Dick Nome| 11.22.11 @ 12:07PM

I didn't say that. I also used a lower case 'o'.

AJP| 11.22.11 @ 6:43AM

Did you read your own sentence: "Pimentel was reportedly a devotee of the American-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and had accelerated his plans after al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a U.S. drone strike in September."

He ACCELERATED his plans after al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone. This is exactly the kind of blowback Dr. Paul is talking about.

Do you really think heightening tensions and violence is going to solve the problem?

". . . he sends the message to our enemies that they can change our foreign policy through threats and intimidation . . ." Do you really think WE can change THEIR foreign policies and behaviours through threats and intimidation?

Do you see the irony? Do you see the hypocrisy?

Obama attacking Libya and sending more troops to Afghanistan is a foreign policy of "frittering it away"? Seriously?

The Iranians wouldn't eat hot dogs with us, and that's a valid reason to stop trying to talk to them? Do you hear how childish and immature that sounds? This is why the world is in trouble: we're being led by children. Ron Paul is one of the few grown-ups in the room.

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 6:56AM

I agree, Ron Paul would be able to sit down with the Iranian leader, whats his name, Iamonajihad, have a hot dog(were they serving Hebrew National, all-beef?) and talk him out of his desire to destroy Israel.
Hell, if that works, maybe he can talk to Jack about the same thing.

Oldefarte| 11.22.11 @ 10:52AM

What about the WAR that is currently occurring within your own state of Wisconsin, and in downtown NYC etc? Why don't you concern yourself with that issue instead??????????

AJP| 11.22.11 @ 7:06AM

Well, chuck, you didn't really address anything I had to say. And as far as Israel goes, can't Israel defend Israel?

Steven| 11.22.11 @ 8:55AM

@AJP. They could but they won't. They want the us Americans to do it for them.
Or maybe they can sell the Chinese MORE military tech. that we gave them for free. Maybe the Chinese could SAVE THEM from another Holocaust from a country that cant even make gasoline for themselves.

Dsf| 11.22.11 @ 10:07AM

The reason the Iranians did not accept the invitation to Fourth of July is because they were afraid the food served would not follow their dietary and religious laws. When I worked at the international office of a major university in the SW USA, had to make sure every snack and beverage had the "Hal al" symbol on it, even potato chips I had to confirm had not been fried in pork fat, otherwise we would offend the Muslim students who visited our office.

Drax| 11.22.11 @ 12:39PM

And a lifetime as an internet troll is not exactly anything at all...

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 11:52AM

This from the valor thief who never served. Oh, the staggering irony.

Oldefarte| 11.22.11 @ 11:27AM

But a lifetime of being raised in terrorist-dominated countries, radicalized prep schools and universities, be-friended by 1960's radical-terrorists etc does make on PRESIDENT OF THE US, sadly [along with the voting assistance of STUPIDS-VOTERS]!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:14PM

Wow. Four years as an Flight Surgeon. By the way, if I went in right now, I'd be a Major with 2 decades of Medical Experience. I do get recruited every so often...

Rick Perry served as an actual Pilot. Much more impressive than Paul. He also led men.

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 2:03PM

You may or may not be a Dr. Occam the Israeli supporters here have a little problem with the truth.They don't seem to know how to put 2 true words together.

Drunken Sailor| 11.22.11 @ 2:43PM

I beg to differ.
Jack is an ass
See 4 true words together.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:49PM

Well, Jack, I'm an MD. And in my real life, one of the highest paid MDs in the US in my specialty. Sorry, dumbass.

You on the other hand, are a bezoar.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:51PM

Look up bezoar. Then tell me how many lay people would be using that term,and why a piece of intestinal detritus with misplaced teeth would accurately describe you. UTMB 1988 MD. Age 25.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 2:00PM

No, R. Perry is not a leader, for quite some time. He is a not a follower either. But he will take contributions from most anyone whom walks up. Some of the most deplorable are the For Profit prison bucks.(Don't get arrested in Texas,lol)
Took 4 years plus before dealing with the underage for profit raping of children problem to be dealt with by him. That's a long time to have over 400 complaints sitting ones desk-even if they provide campaign funds.

Solo| 11.22.11 @ 6:51AM

"Dayne" Wrote:

"There is fundamentally no difference between the two parties when it comes to the pursuit of an internationalist Wilsonian foreign policy & you know it, Aaron..."

Perhaps that's because the realities of National Security do not change based on whether you have an "r" or a "d" behind your name.
Those realities are not going to magically change for a President Ron Paul, either.

The bottom line is that our national interests and security are not defined by our geographic borders. One would ignore that fact at the nation's peril.

Dayne| 11.22.11 @ 7:02AM

"The bottom line is that our national interests and security are not defined by our geographic borders. One would ignore that fact at the nation's peril."

The hubris & arrogance on display here has been pounded into the skulls of so many Americans as acceptable.

What is China's strategic interest in North America?
Iran's?
Russia's?
Venezuela's?

Do you not see how you have been taught to herald what our country does, when you would never tolerate another country doing here?

Ryan| 11.22.11 @ 8:10AM

Ummmm...you DO realize that we are currently engaged in a de facto cyberwar with China over information and intellectual property, right?

dayne| 11.22.11 @ 8:52AM

Ummm,

What does that have to do with our military overreach in the name of protecting our "Strategic interests"?

Again, whereis the chinese military base in north america to protect their strategic interests?

Ryan| 11.22.11 @ 10:06AM

China may not have a base, but it does have military agents here. We've seen that a handful of times.

Steven| 11.22.11 @ 9:00AM

@Ryan. Ummmm...do you realize Israel spys on us and sells not only intellectual property, but military tech. that we give them for free! Our then head of state Jim Baker threatened to stop all aid if it weren't stopped.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:54PM

And the US spies on Israel. And so it goes. I don't recall Israel getting aid cut off, which means the Chimese thing was handled what,20 years ago now? Before 9/11?

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:53PM

Dayne:

but the thing you forget is, the thing you forget---all of those countries are governed by assholes who need face stomping.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:59AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down."

Oldefarte| 11.22.11 @ 10:54AM

Don't forget the INTERVENTION within Wisconsin and Ohio, which is directly related!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jose Mora| 11.22.11 @ 7:03AM

Perhaps if we actually kept our military within our own borders instead of meddling in everyone else's, we might be more secure.

How would we react if China had bases here, if Russia had drones killing people on our highways, and if both had their navies permanently off the Louisiana coast?

Uzee Oneeokhan| 11.22.11 @ 7:20AM

This article is so poorly written, I could barely finish it. The fact that Mr. Goldstein disagrees with Dr.Paul's foreign policy which directly contridicts the foreign aid of Israel is quite apparent and this article biased to that respect. Ron Paul as secretary of state for Obama is laughable. At least you didn't call him an isolationist. What are you advocating for? A war with Iran? You are suggesting that because Paul would follow the rule of law and be diplomatic in his approach to the use of force against a sovereign country that this is somehow submissive? Why are we there in the first place? Israel can protect itself--it has nuclear weapons. If Iran wants nuclear weapons so badly guess what? There is nothing stopping any country in the world from acquiring them from another country who is selling them. This is a holy war, U.S. politics has no business or interest there. Bring the troops home.

russ| 11.22.11 @ 7:33AM

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win.

Ron Paul 2012
FTW

Doctor Right| 11.22.11 @ 4:32PM

What fun would that be???

Invading other countries is our Right.

Dsf| 11.22.11 @ 10:12AM

uhmmm, if we hadn't won the cold war, who's to say their wouldn't be Soviet military bases in the USA? as for there being Chinese bases.......we haven't won that conflict yet, time will tell.

4d7711| 11.22.11 @ 10:05AM

It would be great if "jews" like Aaron Goldstein would not incite the wars Christians and Muslims die in.

Dick Nome| 11.22.11 @ 12:11PM

You mean Capt. McQueeg?? Come on Clint, try again. You aren't a Marine.

Dick Nome| 11.22.11 @ 12:41PM

I'm yanking your chain BTW. As for CApt. McQueeg, I did not care for haim at all and did not vote for him in the primary. What the hell would I know about the military, not much I guess, I just grew up in it and was just a dumb E-5 Medical Specialist in the US Army Medical Service.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:55PM

Ron Paul in 2012---retiree in the oilfields of Galveston Beach (that is an insider's joke).

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:52PM

fear of subject matter inflluences appraisels. God- look a little more, but he does have the most expertise, as evidenced by his correct predictions, going broke, Federally invasive conditions being extended.. Bill 1867 goes before the Senate tomarro.

William R| 11.22.11 @ 7:48AM

No Goldstein, even our CIA says we suffered blowback on 9/11 for our policies in the Middle East. You're fundamentally dishonest and another third rate hack at the American Spectator.

Obomneycare| 11.22.11 @ 7:48AM

Another unprofessional article that only really attacks Paul's policy from a psychological angle.

"If you agree with Paul, you are being submissive"
"If you agree with Paul, you agree with Obama"

That's all that the message of this ugly article is. The straw man attacks are abundant and embarrassing if you actually understand where Paul stands. He is one of the biggest critics of Obama's foreign policy and would have no problem entering a Congressionally declared war and doing everything he could to win.

Mark in LA| 11.22.11 @ 8:02PM

The sad fact is that most real conservative magazines get into fianacial trouble. A neoconservative with a bag of money comes in and buys it and fills it up with trash articles. Ron Unz owns "The American Conservative" and has just printed another lie filled article about all the benefits of immigration. I won't renew again this year.

Wallace| 11.22.11 @ 7:57AM

Another Neocon worried that Ron Paul might stop the meddling in the Middle East and cut off Israel's gravy train.

Disagree with Dr. Paul, but the fact remains: We can't afford these corporate driven neocon interventionist policies anymore.

Donavan| 11.22.11 @ 9:01AM

We're going bankrupt because of them. It's pointless. I completely agree.

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:56PM

The $3 billion a year to Israel is bhankrupting us? I don't think so.

It is paying dividends in intelligence and military outreach.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:46PM

Keep in mind, that's declared(# bill), far more dissapears from the "defense budgit" in "please play nice" money. After USS Liberty incident , I think everyone understands it's turned into bribery $ sent to the middle east ultimately to sustain an energy policy(access to oil).

Red Phillips | 11.22.11 @ 8:07AM

Neutrality and minding our own business is not "submissive." It is a good neighbor policy and the inherently conservative policy. Aaron, I don't know if you write your own titles but you are better than this silly nonsense.

DFerreira| 11.22.11 @ 8:08AM

This article was written as a joke, right? This guy doesn't honestly believe that the people in the middle east hate us because we're free, does he? Nevermind our intervention in that region since the early 50's.. Nevermind our heightened intervention since the 60's and our first terrorist attack coming in the 70's, it has to be because we're free that they hate us. Let's ignore the fact that we were FAR more free in the years prior to 1913 and had never seen any kind of islamic attack on our country.. Let's ignore the fact that Switzerland is more free than we are right now, yet they aren't attacked. Let's not focus on the fact that it was the US and UK that were the primary targets of terror attacks.. That little fact couldn't have anything to do with our joint policies in the Middle east since the 50's either. No, instead it's because these people are just irrational fools being driven to hatred because of their religion. And we, as a Christian nation, have every right to kill them all and make them peaceful by the rule of an Iron Fist.
Ron Paul cannot be our leader, because we obviously don't deserve someone like him yet. Our country men and women are brainwashed into believing the most absurd crap with 0 question. I, personally, was in the AirForce while we were bombing Iraq (1993-2001).. Notice the dates 93-01 ... We were not at war with Iraq, yet bombed them near daily starting in 1996.. But they don't hate us for that.. No, it's because of our Freedom..

R. Williamson| 11.22.11 @ 8:11AM

Mr. Goldstein, I doubt you should learn anything from a comment posted here. However it is well worth noting that in your example of the homegrown terrorist, Paul's concerns about blowback rang true. Pimentel was clearly motivated by U.S. interventions abroad; the question that Paul raises is one of considering these possibilities instead of ignoring them. I cannot say I agree with Paul on everything, but his insistence upon a sort of 21st century detente is smart.

Daniel| 11.22.11 @ 8:13AM

I am so sick of this same ridiculous argument against Ron Paul - "Will Ron Paul let Bin Laden determine our foreign policy?"

Anyone who doesn't understand what putting a base on somebody else's country does has not bothered to actually think about it critically. What if China decided to put a base in Montana, how many people would be pissed at China?

Russ| 11.22.11 @ 8:21AM

Love it when people interpret what RP means by his clear words. Yeah sure I heard him say exactly that -- let Bin Laden dictate our policy.

Here's what I'm saying -- YES PLEASE PLEASE LET RP help steer our policy!!!

Steven| 11.22.11 @ 8:30AM

We can ill afford to start bombing Iran and have oil go to 300$ a barrel. Iran can't hurt us. We have no buisness a half a world away. Just admit it. We're there for Israel. If it were up to you Mr. Goldstein, we'd fight her wars to our last American. Cowards like yourself and our like minded congress should go there yourselves. Or better yet, send YOUR kids! 70% of us true Americans got you number. You and your ilk blew your load on Iraq. NEVER AGAIN.

Have a great day!

Rienone| 11.22.11 @ 8:35AM

WOW! You are a fool Mr. Goldstein. Dinosaurs like you, will someday die and we might get a chance at a decent future.

Red Phillips | 11.22.11 @ 8:37AM

It is absurd to deny that our foreign policy is at least partially what motivates Muslim resentment of America. It clearly is a factor. I DARE anyone to deny this. Go ahead so you can lose ALL credibility right here forever to be on display in this public forum. And while you're at it go ahead an deny that grass is green and the sky is blue. All this "Ron Paul blames America" feigned outrage is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy to appeal to emotions. What are you, a bunch of children? I guess you also think that Paul wants to take food from the mouth of hungry children because he wants to end the welfare state. Such emotional appeals are beneath honest intellectual discourse, and the people who use them should be ashamed of themselves.

That our actions in the Middle East (specifically with regard t0 Al-Q our troops in Saudi Arabia and our support of Israel) at least partially motivated their anger and resentment toward America can not credibly be denied by honest people with above plant level IQ. What interventionist really believe is that our intervention is right and necessary and should be continued IN SPITE OF the resentment it causes. Many also believe that to object to our intervention is inherently malevolent because they have a childlike cartoonish sense that all is either black or white. The mere act of objecting and not acknowledging the US as the bringer of goodness and light is reason enough to start bombing away until they can be cowered into seeing the light. (This is one aspect that marks interventionism as the radical Jacobin like concept that it is.) Hence such emotion wrought simpletons can't get that our policies might be objected to by reasonable people so the objections must be the result of malevolence.

Realqueenofspades| 11.22.11 @ 10:47AM

Thank you!!!! You hit it on the head exactly. The interview was ridiculous and this article is ridiculous. This country wants it's freedom back and to get back to our constitution- we are not eating this propaganda anymore!! Goldstein should be ashamed of himself- this article's transparency only made him look foolish.

Notary Sojac| 11.22.11 @ 8:45AM

If there were one other candidate on the debate stage who was willing to say, loud and clear, that he or she rejected the idea of long-term counterinsurgency "wars" with politically constrained rules of engagement, much of Ron Paul's message would be nullified.

Ian Hammond| 11.22.11 @ 8:46AM

You are an uneducated fool.

Donavan| 11.22.11 @ 9:00AM

Thank You. I completely agree.

Sean| 11.22.11 @ 8:47AM

Mr. Goldstein should stick to discussing baseball. The fact is that Obama's foreign policy is much more like the neocons. Unconstitutional war in Libya, troops to Africa, threats to Syria and Iran.

From the above Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Romney, Perry, and Cain could all be Obama's Secretary of State, but not Ron Paul.

Oh by the way you conveniently neglect the fact that Ron Paul authorized action in Afghanistan. What he doesn't agree with is instead of us going full bore after Bin Laden, the war turned into building schools for Afghan children and trying to secure women's rights over there.

Ron Paul in an interview with Jan Mickelson stated if Congress declares war he will fight that war to win and not to nation build. No half ass measures like Korea or Vietnam.

Jacob Hince | 11.22.11 @ 8:48AM

How are any Obama policies any different than Bush's? If you think they are, then you must be living in a dream world. Obama involves the United States in undeclared military conflict. The conflict itself does not really matter. Whether it is using drones to bomb countries, sending troops to far off corners of the world; it does not matter. But saying that Ron Paul will fall to his knees in front of other world leaders? The United States is no longer respected in the world. Why? We are an enormous debtor. We don't pay our debts. We print money. We are an agressive country. If you know your history, the United States was respected in the past not because we had an enormous army, but because we were the worlds largest creditor nation. We held everyones debt. We are now the worlds largest debtor nation. Now, those who hold US dollars around the world are having their investments devalued, on top of U.S. policymakers parading our military around the world with no regard to others. Now, explain to me how cutting militarism around the world is going to be bowing to our enemies? Now, let's keep in mind, that does not mean warships, planes and bombs. That means not protecting Germany's borders while they subsidize their welfare state. That means not blowing up bridges and then rebuilding them in the name of freedom and liberty. Surely, any rational person wouldn't think that these ideas are not part of the American Tradition. Surely, you could not look to multiple instances throughout history where great empires imploded themselves through the unsustainability of multiple wars! History always has a way of replaying itself over and over. It finds new ways to reinvent itself every time. We're not the exception to the rule. There are literally hundreds of ways to become educated on this. And, there is no excuse to not be.

Ed Ward II| 11.22.11 @ 8:51AM

Wait a rootin tootin minute. The guy was upset over a targeting overseas. And Dr. Paul wants the troops home to protect us here. There'd be more protection at home, not less.

Donavan| 11.22.11 @ 9:00AM

Exactly.. He wants to reduce military budget, not the defense budget. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!

Gmartine| 11.22.11 @ 8:55AM

Ron Paul said this would happen. He advised that killing Awlaki unconstitutionally would create blowback and here we are. Besides this guy is just another stooge that the FEDS helped to become radical. Read up on how they have been working with him for 2 years. Sound familiar? Like the other "terror" suspects that have been arresting.

allen| 11.22.11 @ 8:57AM

i have to say that i'm not sure if Ron Paul is right on the issue or not, BUT the basis of your argument is flawed in the since that he believes that our foreign policy was wrong from the beginning of its conception and these are the consequences of their implementation. he has never said that because someone doesnt like what we do we should stop doing it.

aRocketScientist| 11.22.11 @ 9:39AM

But, how can we recognize a flawed policy? Could it actually be flawed if we find ourselves supporting ruthless dictators, then attacking them? Overthrowing other democratically elected leaders in favor of kings, queens, and dictators? Selling massive amounts or arms to authoritarian regimes? Destroying old F-14s to keep them out of the hands of Americans? Torturing captives? Asking every American to be Submissive and submit to Sexual Assault just to travel within the United States? This is the un-flawed foreign policies that Neocons advocate?

Donavan| 11.22.11 @ 8:58AM

Since when is it "Un-American" to criticise our government? Ron Paul is right. So go fuck yourself. Ron Paul 2012

Postwala | 11.22.11 @ 9:07AM

Education is so expensive these days. People stop going to college and end up writing blogs like this. I mean can you ever think straight? the blogger doesnt even know that you can still shoot any base in the world sitting here in USA in 60 secs if they are really harmful. So why go there and engage in wars and kill thousands of people and expect nothing to happen.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:35PM

So why go there - money, from American Taxes. 2 oil companies have 1/2 the oil production in Iraq,
KKR and Haliburtan and Blackstone made fortunes.

Postwala | 11.22.11 @ 9:10AM

And when the US govt needed - both Saddam and Osama were friends of USA and then enemies. Doesnt that tell something....Someone said, show me his friends, we can tell about him.

Ryan| 11.22.11 @ 9:15AM

Several problems and comments.

I have problems with BOTH sides of this debate. One, Ron Paul's foreign policy appears to go a couple of steps too far in withdrawal. I'm one of many Americans who believe that we need to particularly stop spending taxpayer dollars on other countries. There is plenty we do that is not in our national interest. However, his stances on the Middle East, and Islam in general, I find to be far too shortsighted.

"Blowback" is NOT the way to form foreign policy. It limits proper engagement and may result in a less safe world. It limits the reality that real democracies don't war on each other.

There has been no good answer to the question I continually present to paleoconservatives.

If we completely defunded Israel, withdrew every troop from every Muslim country, and apologized profusely to them, would they cease terrorist activities against American interests?

That being said, Islam is not going to bring down America. We aren't going to be invaded by anyone - the worst we will see is singular terrorist attacks, with the outside chance of some sort of dirty bomb.

Going in, winning a battle, and getting out does not necessarily work. Continual engagement needs to be done - as we did with Japan and Germany after World War II; unfortunately, modern political correctness sees Islam as equal rather than deviant.

Freedom abroad IS in the national interests of the United States. We ARE overextended. There does need to be a balance.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:31PM

Remember when Russia left Afgan theater, going broke, wall fell? Every country reaches it's tipping point in Military spending. Watching recent Russin and Chinese actions and timings, seems they remember that occasion also,,,, going broke/military spending.

Chase| 11.22.11 @ 9:18AM

Wow the so called "paul bots" ripped this stupid article apart! Ron Paul just earned my support.

Tan| 11.23.11 @ 10:28AM

Really, Noam Chomsky is your reference? Anyone who think Noam Chomsky have anything sane to say is insane.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 9:31AM

Aaron Goldstein please take a vacation, reflect on the world and forget yourself for at least one minute. Maybe you will see the value of peace?

Burning_Tyger| 11.22.11 @ 9:42AM

When take into consideration the stated reasons why someone does something, that does not mean the other person is dictating to you.

If your neighbor lets his dog poop in your yard, and then you ask him why, and he tells you that it's because you are always dictating to him which color to paint his house, whose fault is it? Yes, the dog shouldn't be allowed to defacate in your yard, but if you had quit pushing your weight around where it isn't your business, maybe your neighbor wouldn't dislike you so much. Actions have consequences, folks.

charles ranalli| 11.22.11 @ 11:37AM

yes - questioning your government's policies IS "sedition" to fascists like yourself mr 9thID. go find yourself a nice police state to live in. we don't want one here.
charles ranalli
albuquerque

Ryan| 11.22.11 @ 10:08AM

Paying evil for evil doesn't justify either action.

Randy| 11.22.11 @ 9:45AM

"It is worth noting that Paul went on to tell Schieffer that our 'troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies.' Well, it would appear that Pimentel is just as aggravated and motivated when our troops come home."

If anything, this only bolsters Paul's argument. Pinemtel is angry about the wars and U.S. foreign policy. But also, he's now angry about domestic policy (assassination of an American citizen without due process). What do you think will happen as more totalitarian policies are implemented? If you wage war in foreign lands, you'll stir up the populations of those lands and they'll hate you. If you wage war on your own populace, expect the same result.

DTOM| 11.22.11 @ 12:48PM

The Muslims first attacked US interests in the early 1800's. Our crime? Having shipping interests worth pirating and paying ransom for kidnapped citizens. Eventually, we responded with the Marines and the Navy. After we kicked their asses, they quit for decades and decades. Well, they're back, with a vengeance. Thinking that they'll leave us alone if we promise to leave them alone is as sensible and as reasonable in an undying faith in the tooth fairy.

Ron Paul's stated intention of negotiating with the Iranians shows that he does in fact believe in the tooth fairy. Even Obama seems to have figured out that you cannot trust the Iranians. They don't attack us because we were 'mean' to them 60 years ago, they attack us because that is their nature. It is the nature of Islam which holds that non-Islamic people must convert or be killed (That way, things will be peaceful, thus "religion of peace".) Until we can convince them that we are absolutely ready, willing, and able to obliterate them, their behavior will only worsen. As it has since 1979. Anybody notice the trend there?

Ron Paul's foreign policy would make Jimmy Carter look like the originator of 'peace through strength.' Which neither Jimmuh nor Doc Ron comprehend. Chamberlain proved chickens get slaughtered - strong, well-armed, prepared nations are left alone. Begging the Iranians to leave us alone will only egg them on.

Bleat on, Paulists.

PS.

After twenty years in the House, Ron Paul still has ZERO legislation passed. Nichts, none, nada, zilch, nothing, goose egg, empty page, NOTHING!

John Giles| 11.22.11 @ 1:19PM

Zero legislation is a good thing. Why do you want more and what is it?

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 3:45PM

DTOM,

Finally someone posting here that understands the mentality of the Islamic goons. The Paul-bots all have their head in the sand about the dangers involved.

BTW, it sure is fun to get them going! Way too easy!

I think they have a network of people with nothing else to do but crash these sites when a disparaging word is written about their Messiah.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:26PM

Bill 1867 goes to the Senate tomarro or the next day. keep your fingers it, unlike everything else, is not abused. "wage war on your own populace".

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 9:52AM

The great Ron Paul is great when he talks about on fiscal issues and sucks when he talks about foreign policy. He will make a great Treasury Secretary under a conservative President under any fiscal crisis. He fumbles on foreign policy, relying on isolation and pre-9/11 mentality. Overall, I 'll give Dr. Paul a "A" plus on fiscal agenda and a "F" on his foreign policy. Obama is no near close to Dr. Paul. Obama is a socialist, and Dr. Paul is a libertarian.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 10:01AM

Bill you need to do some serious research, check the 9/11 report, check the CIA and DoD reports and then make an educated decision on Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 10:24AM

J. Nicholson, I watched Dr. Paul in the GOP debate, that's good enough to know where he stand on the foreign policy, his views on foreign policy are simply pathetic and shocking.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 11:06AM

Bill are you saying the traditional US foreign policy is pathetic and shocking? Check the history books. What do you think made the US a great country and why are we now falling?

The Dangler| 11.22.11 @ 10:29AM

Exactly Bill, that's why he gets more contributions from the military than all the republicans and Obama combined....you're like s one man brain trust...

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 10:54AM

There is some similarities between Herman Cain and Ron Paul on foreign policy. Cain knows nothing about foreign issues, saying "I'll talk to my military adviser on any issue", while Ron Paul's foreign policy is based on isolation and retreat in the midst of a national security crisis. They both inept and unelectable considering their views on foreign policy. No Cain, No Ron Paul in 2012.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 11:10AM

Non-intervention is not isolationism. Trade and diplomacy would create many more opportunities for the American people and the world then violence and occupation.

DTOM| 11.22.11 @ 12:49PM

Can't trade if you can't or won't protect your interests.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 2:47PM

You call protecting your interests destroying countries killing innocent women and children around the world. Over a million Iraqis dead since 9/11/01. With 1/3 of which were children. That's just one country. What is your interest? My interests are peace and prosperity not at the expense of others but through my own hard work. We can blow up the Earth a million times? Do we really need to own everything? We are the richest nation in the world by far (yet most hard working Americans get nothing but higher taxes and less freedom). What more do you want? You are sick with unprecedented greed my friend you need to go see a doctor: Dr Ron Paul.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 3:27PM

How about we just escort cargo ships with military ships if we are so scared of the big bad pirates?

Michael Ivy| 11.22.11 @ 11:43AM

Actually Bill, Ron Paul would make a lousy Treasury Secretary under a foreign policy hawk Administration since the two positions would be logically irreconcilable. This is because as treasury secretary, Paul would have to authorize a perpetual unbalanced budget to finance the foreign policy. To do that, he would have to encourage further debasement of the currency by the FED's purchase of US treasuries. To do that, he would have to be a believer in the permanent dislocation of investment capital under a zero interest rate regime. And to do that, Ron Paul would have to believe that the benefits of your foreign policy would outweigh the costs of permanently impoverishing the middle class through the erosion of fixed income, higher prices and chronic unemployment. Clearly Ron Paul could never exercise prudent fiscal management of the Nation's budget under the current foreign policy dosctine. If you want to keep the current foreign policy, then by default, you would have to keep both Geitner and Bernanke. There's No Free Lunch. RP 2012

Bydand76| 11.22.11 @ 12:01PM

Can anyone tell me how much money is spent by The United States on countries like:

Saudia Arabia
Pakistan
Jordan
Egypt
Indonesia
Algeria
Nigeria
Somalia
Sudan
Qatar
U.A.E
Kuwait

Or how about the non-Islamic countries like :

Columbia
Argentina
Mexico
Germany
Japan
South Korea............

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 12:01PM

Gee, Nelson, I think I'd like your speeches better in "ze orichinal Cherman."

Nice to see the Jew haters that are the core of Paul supporters. And you turds think that you're gaining "independents" with this shit? The only thing you people "gain" is more dough for the Ron Paul retirement fund & more derision from almost every normal thinking person in this nation.

What'd you do? Get all the LaRouchies, Buchannanites, David Dukesters & clapped out Skinheads to go libertarian? Because that's EXACTLY who y'all sound like. You people ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE, except on fiscal issues. YOU ARE LIBERTARIANS. The idea that you people pass yourselves off as "true conservatives" is as laughable as your Obama-lite/Chamberlain-esque candidate.

James Nicholson| 11.22.11 @ 12:33PM

Let's say Africa is the motherland of blacks. Do black americans lobby to go to war with random African countries because it is their so-called motherland and they have a malevolent interest in one country over another? The Prophet Abraham (if you read the Torah/Bible/Koran) came from an area now called Iraq; wait we already destoyed Iraq. Then should we rape and pillage every place Jesus went? We have a long road ahead of us brothers and sisters since we are not sure where he went from childhood to his 30's? What if he went around the world? Should we kill everyone then? Wait we are already doing that. So much for what all the Prophets taught, let's blow up every place my dog pisses while we are at it. I could go on and on but it seems like a waste of time so I give up, good luck to you all.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 12:03PM

Here's a set of politico:
~Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley Jr, Mark Levine, Rush Limbaugh, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Rick Perry, Jim Demint, Ron Paul
~Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Banchmann, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, Susan Martinez
~Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao,Fidel Castro, L.B.J., Jimi Carter, Barack Obama
~The Democratic Party (USA), Labor Party (UK) SEIU, ACLU, ACORN, the Nazi Party (Germany)
~The Republican Party (USA), The Conservative Party (UK), NRA, Club for Growth
~The Constitution, We The People, In God We Trust, Liberty, Democracy
~Government, Tyranny, Recession, Despair, Revolt

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 12:08PM

America gives $3 billion foreign aid to Egypt, giving away free taxpayers' money to the Islamic Jihadists who seek to help the Hamas in the Gaza against Israel and demonize its own freedom-loving people. No taxpayers' money to any Muslim country, which hates America and its western civilizations. As Gov. Rick Perry said, "We have to start with Zero dollar." Aimen...........

Ed| 11.22.11 @ 12:24PM

Wow, mention Ron Paul's isolationist policies and his jew hating fandom really oozes up out of the sewer. What an amazing coincidence that his newsletter was edited by a neo-nazi.

dan | 11.22.11 @ 12:36PM

"Pimentel was reportedly a devotee of the American-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki and had accelerated his plans after al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen by a U.S. drone strike in September."

Proves Ron Paul is correct about blowback.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 12:50PM

Breaking News!!!!!!!!

Reporter: Mr. Cain, Are you a conservative or liberal?

Herman Cain: 9-9-9

Reporter: Did you happen to know Sharon Bialek ?

Herman Cain : 9-9-9

Reporter: Do you know Lady Gaga?

Herman Cain : 9-9-9

Reporter: Are you awake?

Herman Cain: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......

Paul Bot| 11.22.11 @ 12:52PM

Great article. His supporters are always so entertaining.

Erin| 11.22.11 @ 12:55PM

"Well, it would appear that Pimentel is just as aggravated and motivated when our troops come home."

In case you haven't noticed, the troops are NOT home - they are still entrenched all over the world - so your argument is invalid.

JimH| 11.22.11 @ 1:03PM

As long as Iran has oil the West needs it has little to fear from us. Maybe another reason to focus on domestic energy resources? Neocons and Progressives (currently in the form of the Obama administration) are equally interventionist. They just disagree on whom we should invade.

Joey S.| 11.22.11 @ 1:04PM

Goldstien seems to think that the U.S. has nothing better to do than be involved in endless "undeclared wars". Question foreign policy and the possible bad side effects of it is something very useful and needs to be discussed without more saber rattling.
This is nothing new. Reagan lamented the decision to send a force into Lebanon; and the eventual loss of lives from the Beirut Barracks bombing that killed 241 servicemen (mostly Marines). Reagan, if memory serves me correctly, referred to it as the worst mistake of his presidency and began rethinking the foreign policy for that region. Now while Reagan laid the blame largely on himself and the government foreign policies, no one was screaming that RR was a blame America-first type. He saw the policies were flawed and sought out changes, rather than entrenching the U.S. deeper in the hornets nest there.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 1:04PM

We are not Libertarians, we are conservatives, the savior of America.

John Giles| 11.22.11 @ 1:13PM

Really, really insipid. Goldstein should read the 9/11 Commission Report.

BHatch| 11.22.11 @ 1:15PM

It is propaganda such as this that will reelect Obama by causing voters like me to abandon the Republican Party due to its ignorant, Establishment hypocrisy.

GM| 11.22.11 @ 1:19PM

"Well, it would appear that Pimentel is just as aggravated and motivated when our troops come home."

This is just after the paragraph saying he sped up his plans after al-Awlaki was murdered by a drone strike. It is our actions, not our inaction, in the Middle East that incites anger against the US.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 1:34PM

The GOP Dream Team for 2012:

President : Rick perry

VP: Mitch Daniel

AG: Michelle Bachmann

Treasury: Ron Paul

SOS: Condi Rice

naql| 11.22.11 @ 2:24PM

@defCon ChefBoyardeeBlowhard

Remember,
"If you learn from defeat, you haven't really lost." - Zig Ziglar

os| 11.22.11 @ 2:36PM

"No doubt he'd be happier serving as Obama's next Secretary of State."

Yea, that Obama has been one staunch non-interventionist.

ken| 11.22.11 @ 2:40PM

Here is the crux of the matter:
The Iranians largely view many in the US government as the same terrorists who work for the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. There is a small "cult of advisors" that are present in every Administration.

The Iranians would be happy to see Dr. Paul as President because they feel the same way everyone does that he Paul is not a terrorist scumbag that is using the Political Office to protect his ass from any misdeeds and pawn off any corruption and guilt to the entire country.

Iran is not our enemy. The longer we treat them like enemies the longer they will remain enemies. What they were is irrelevant. We need to focus on what they can be. Iranians are the Astronauts of the future, future settlers of Mars. When humanity goes into space we are taking them with us whether Israel likes it or not.

It is time for someone to end this lunacy. Sure, the Iranians overstepped the lines in the past, but they are no more beyond redemption then Israel is. We need to promote friendship with the Iranians if we want them to change their ways.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 2:44PM

Ron Paul is a legend, considering his fiscal policy on taxes, spending, the federal government, budget, and debt,and he will remain as a valuable asset to the conservative movement in America. I understand that Ron Paul's foreign policy is unacceptable and dangerous.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 2:49PM

We need Gov Rick perry, a solid conservative leader who will unite the GOP voters, defeat Obama in a landslide, fix the fiscal crisis we have right now, and restore America's pride and glory. Rick Perry is an articulate, solid conservative, proven problem solver, and electable, unlike nobody in the current GOP field. Remember, he is from Texas-a must win state for GOP presidential candidate in 2012. If we lose TX, we will lose America forever.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.22.11 @ 2:52PM

Most well rounded and experienced candidate.....

Rick Perry.

naql| 11.22.11 @ 3:00PM

Ooo, ooo, me first:

There are three reasons why I, a native and current resident of Texas, think Perry would make a terrible President.

One, he is a weather vane in a suit, a posturing politician willing to say anything to get elected;

Two, he is an intellectual lightweight and the country is not going to elect another swaggering caricature of a Texan, and

Three, ..., three, er, um, I forget three.

Oops.

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 4:53PM

Very good, naql.

I am not that familiar with Perry prior to his getting into the race. However, what you say is consistent with my instincts.

A finger-in-the-wind Republican is something we do NOT need. And his debate performances alone have been bad enough - but he's got that Texas drawl and the swagger; I don't think another Texan of that ilk will be elected until every last person who was alive during the Bush era is long since dead and gone.

I'm just not excited about any true conservative leadership emerging in this election, unfortunately. I like Bachmann to some extent, but she has been marginalized by the "feminist" (nudge, nudge, wink, winkd) media. I like some of Santorum, but he's an angry, self-righteous guy and, apparently, getting his clock cleaned in his last run for the Senate renders him radioactive among the ink-stained wretches who cover politics from both sides.

Cain has blown it with his utter ignorance on most issues. Newt is a snake in the grass.

No, I think the Karl Roves of the world will get their way - it'll be Romney. Yipee. I'm sure he'll kick the can down the road with a certain panache, but that's about all I expect from him.

We are so screwed.

Bill| 11.22.11 @ 2:55PM

Those of you, being fed up with Ron Paul or Mitt or Newt, we welcome you to get on board on the Rick Perry's ship, which will be the ultimate winning team for 2012.
We need Gov Rick perry, a solid conservative leader who will unite the GOP voters, defeat Obama in a landslide, fix the fiscal crisis we have right now, and restore America's pride and glory. Rick Perry is an articulate, solid conservative, proven problem solver, and electable, unlike nobody in the current GOP field. Remember, he is from Texas-a must win state for GOP presidential candidate in 2012. If we lose TX, we will lose America forever.

Melanie| 11.22.11 @ 3:27PM

I am sure the fact that we dropped a bomb on the dude in another country that he (Pimentel) was devoted to had nothing to with him wanting to "do us harm"

I completely agree with Ron Paul on this...the anti American sentiment took hold when we left our "allies" high and dry after "Charlie Wilson's War"

Now we are trying to maintain an empire that we can't cash flow....funny how left leaning fellows have turned into Obamites wanting to infest every corner of this earth with a military presence...we are even sending troops to Austrailia now...what gives??

“Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away.” --Ron Paul

Ambrose | 11.22.11 @ 3:32PM

"There is no such opening in Islamic Republic of Iran."

Maybe that's because the crippling sanctions and threats of pre-emptive war put them perpetually on the back foot.

Who are you to declare there "is no such opening"? Have you been to Iran? Have you ever met an Iranian?

The people of Iran just want to live their lives in peace. And you collapse any chance of this by dismissing an entire country because of their leadership.

How would you like it if I dismissed your ideas because of the words and actions of Barack Obama?

Your arguments are well written, but unfounded.

Give peace a chance.

loulou| 11.22.11 @ 4:20PM

I thought Ron Paul was funny in the Borat movie. He better stick to gynecology and stay off the national stage--unless he gets another movie gig.

Chris| 11.22.11 @ 4:25PM

An action is right or wrong based on its own merits, not based on what will result from taking or not taking that action. It is wrong, in principle, to interfere in the affairs of other nations. How do we know it's wrong? Because we wouldn't want other nations to interfere in our affairs. Always behave in such a way that you'd be satisfied to have everyone behave just as you do.
So, no, we shouldn't have OBL or Halliburton dictate our foreign policy. Our foreign policy should be based on doing what's right, because it's right. To paraphrase a famous teacher: how could it profit a nation to be rich and secure, but at the cost of its own soul? There's not enough wealth or security in the world to trade for what we've surrendered in the past 10 years.

Kathie| 11.22.11 @ 4:53PM

It takes strength, understanding and humility to prevent WARS. One does not need any of these qualities to create WARS.

Abe| 11.22.11 @ 5:07PM

What you call not submitting is in fact just reacting. If we are just reacting then our enemies control us.

Bin Ladin attacked us and got us to entangle ourselves in the Middle East.

It takes intelligence to stay out of conflict. There are always opportunities for conflict. Unnecessary conflict is expensive and doesn't further the prosperity of the US.

lester| 11.22.11 @ 5:33PM

So if we got out of the middle east and stopped sending money to Israel, this would encourage muslims to attack us??

That makes no sense. They are trying to drive us out of the middle east the way they drove the soviets out of afghanistan. They didn't want to take over russia.

You acknowledge as much here

"Well, Osama bin Laden complained about those military bases in his 1996 fatwa against the United States."

Thom| 11.22.11 @ 5:42PM

The First Amendment Freedoms are a beautiful thing in action…

Give the Loons a chance to speak without hesitation in the sunshine and they won’t disappoint and rally around their circular logic.

Well done Aaron.

Loon rule No. 1 – stake out a position that has been thrown on the ash heap of history so many times that you can’t fit all the failures of the last century on a single piece of notebook paper in 8 point print.

Loon rule No. 2 – When numerous failures of said position costing tens of millions of human lives are pointed out blame the victim.

Loon rule No. 3 – When someone presents an intellectual discussion with facts to back up said position in opposition call them names or label them things you have no basis upon which to base that label on.

Loon rule No. 4 – If all else fails, blame the “jews” no matter how convoluted the construct. The Aryan Nation would be proud supporters of the comments about this article today.

Loon rule No. 5 – Never admit your position has ever been wrong or failed. Never.

Poland forced the Germans to invade them….

Czechoslovakia forced the Germans to invade them after the Czechs forced them to threaten to destroy them or else after the British gave them away anyway….so it didn’t really matter that German violated its Armistice just like Saddam Hussein.

The Czechs forced the Russians to invade them too.

We forced the Japanese to attack us…. We force the Germans to attack our merchant ships and escorts with their unrestricted U-Boat campaign years before we forced them to declare war on us on Dec 8th 1941.

Norway forced the Germans to invade them in 1940…and the Low Countries …

The South Koreans forced the North Koreans with generous help from the Russians and Chinese to invade them in 1950.

The South Koreans forced the North Koreans to sink one of their Frigates and shell one of the populated islands recently just because…..

The US forced the North Koreans to attack an unarmed AGI vessel in 1968 because we have soldiers on the Korean peninsula. They are offended by our presence.

The South Vietnamese forced the North Vietnamese with generous help from Russia and China to attack them for over a decade….or was it the French that forced the North to attack….

Taiwan forced China to station nearly 2000 SCUDs within range of their principle cities. Taiwan has no comparable capability. China is offended by our presence in Japan, South Korea and even Guam which they consider their “space”. Like Israel, there is nowhere to hide from that level of firepower delivered all at once.

The “jews” forced Arab counties on its boarders and beyond to attack it in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and since then every chance a means to project lethal weapons via proxy into Israel from outside the country. The “jews” are good but this is one mean trick to pull off tricking the world that all the Arabs around them want to annihilate the country. Good things sticks and stones aren't the weapons of the day.

The “jews” forced the Germans to slaughter them everywhere they found them from the western tip of Europe to the Volga deep in Russia.

The Tustis forced the Hutus to slaughter between half and 1 million of them (with help from the "jews" I’ll bet)

Kuwait forced Iraq to attack it which was brought about by the existence of Israel which then Iraq attacked with ballistic missiles flying over another Arab Nation and putting their population at risk. The “jews” had to be behind all this from the start.

The “jews” forced Arab Terrorist groups in Lebanon to attack our peace keeping forces and led them to the exact point of entry where the “jews” had forced us to not put up any road blocks and kept our Marines from having the proper weapons (even loaded ones actually too). The “jews” even supplied the truck and explosives I hear….

The US forced Iraq to attack the USS Stark squawking US military radar and sailing in a box pattern and then forced the Iranians to attack the USS Vincennes while protecting our shipping in the Gulf from mines and Silk Worm attacks…..which the “jews” forced the Iranians to do….

The “jews” forced 12 US Presidents and at least 31 Congresses since 1950 to either not ask for a Declaration of War or demand one despite countless incidents involving US military actions throughout this time which by the standards of the Loons makes the majority of the US population traitors for the last 61 years….

And last but certainly not least we forced OBL to attack us on 9/11 after his predecessor had tried to blow up the same New York landmark 7 years before because we forced sovereign nations in the Gulf and Middle East in general to invite our military forces to their lands….to protect our and their National interest.

Red Phillips | 11.22.11 @ 7:46PM

Mindless Interventionist Ideologue Rule # 1 - preemptively throw out the charge of anti-Semitism.

Mindless Interventionist Ideologue Rule # 2 - nuance is not an option. Actually attempting to understand the history of a region and its peoples, the forces at play on the ground, etc. is worthless detail. All foreign policy situations are the same and the first resort should always be to military intervention.

Mindless Interventionist Ideologue Rule # 3 - it is always 1939 and the enemy is always Hitler. No foreign policy dispute with a non-interventionists should end without a reference to WWII.

Mindless Interventionist Ideologue Rule # 4 - always frame the non-interventionist position in terms of weakness ("submissive" in this case which is a nice touch) and frequently invoke playground bully metaphors. Always question the non-interventionists’ masculinity even though it is the interventionist alarmists who live in fear while the non-interventionists go about their business free of fear.

Thom| 11.22.11 @ 8:44PM

Red Philips,
All the countries mentioned above didn’t “intervene” in the affairs of the countries that attacked them with violence and overwhelming force. That’s Loon Rule 1-2.

Putting a label on the person that wrote that without a shred of evidence is Loon Rule 3. You have no idea what my positions are other than I disagree with your positions on such matters.

Ignoring the anti- Semitism comments just by those commenting on this one article let alone the continuous stream of such going back as far as you want in TAS logs from your brothers in arms is Loon Rule 4.

Ignoring the substances of all the failures of your beliefs in action I’ve listed is Loon Rule 5.

Thank you for making my point.

chuck| 11.25.11 @ 12:51PM

Game, set, match!

Well done!

UncleSim| 11.22.11 @ 5:43PM

The author seems to assume that America has a right to have military bases anywhere it wants. As I see it, they have as much of that right, as I have to put my hands anywhere on anyone that I want.

Should she not complain about my hand being on her breast or her behind? Or even her shoulder, if its unwanted? Or even if she first ok'd it, but has changed her mind?

Likewise, we must consider that foreign lands are not ours, and we must consider the repercussions of occupying that space.

Funny, even as a vet, I never viewed America's strength as being based on having our military finger in everyone's pie at once. Nor do I think that removing it from a few would harm our security. If we minded our own business, there would be far more targets in the rest of the world for ppl's hate, rather than us.

Thom| 11.22.11 @ 6:03PM

UncleSim,
Name one foreign govenment where we have "bases" that has ask us to leave and we've refused? Just one.

Fango Sheeret| 11.22.11 @ 5:48PM

Oh please. Recognizing a minor contributing issue doesn't mean it shapes all subsequent policy making. American Spectator is serving up ginormous helpings of strawman these days. In fact, I think it's your one and only raison d'etre.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.22.11 @ 6:08PM

ROTFL!
Aaron, you just keep stirring up the wing-nut Paul-bots.
Mr. Paul is a nut....a dangerous nut with a learning disability.

Bottom line...if he goes third party and drags his bots with him...we get Obama and revolution.

Wow I hate that.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:42PM

We'll See Kenny TheRINO-CINO Squirel In Iowa

" Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET

There are now multiple polls that show Ron Paul has gained support and has a legitimate chance to come in first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire. I would now call Ron Paul one of three front-runners in both Iowa and New Hampshire alongside Mitt Romney and a third candidate, currently Newt Gingrich. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, which he might, all bets are off. Also, most analysts miss the fact that many states have open systems where independents, and in some cases Democrats, can vote for a Republican nominee. This could give a further boost to Paul.

It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.22.11 @ 6:20PM

Ron Paul is a nut...with his nutcake fringe. If he goes third party...it means four more years of Obama.
Get serious if you are NOT a nut.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:44PM

The Big Yellow Kenny The Squirrel Bus Calls A Lemon Pie Yellow.

Get Help, If You Already Haven't, NutBagKenny The Squirrel.

naql| 11.22.11 @ 7:01PM

Then I guess you had better come around to our way of thinking.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:52PM

" Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET

It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here, Not Eastern Europe.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:53PM

Ron Paul is surging, an Iowa and New Hampshire front-runner and powerful third-party possibility
By Brent Budowsky - 11/21/11 10:04 AM ET

It is now time to give Ron Paul the attention he deserves in debates and throughout the political community.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.22.11 @ 7:38PM

I shall give Ron Paul the attention he deserves.

Screw you ! Screw your lunatic fringe!

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:53PM

it just struck me! on TV...Ron Paul is the spitting image of Stan Laurel!!!!!

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 10:08PM

Stan Laurel for President!!!!!!

Hail Ron Paul!!!!

POST American| 11.22.11 @ 10:27PM

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

PAUL, such as he is, is what he is, and,
also, no doubt is the sole candidate on show
who's NOT bought off, 'on board' or
lethally 'CALM--PRO--MIZED'.

WHEN will be get even a single piece on the
UNDENIABLY long underway, cyber
surveillance, blackmail and extortion op?

--------------------------------------------WHEN?

GAS| 11.22.11 @ 11:01PM

Oh my... you don't get paid to write this slop, do you?

A piece of nothing but non-sequiturs and false analogies.

POST American| 11.22.11 @ 11:37PM

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

SUB-Mitt ROME-knee is a PRO-carbon tax
Globalist, and NAFTA/GATT con-man

TTT-Rick PAIR-he is an out n' out Bilderberg
attendee, and flagrant violator of the LOGAN ACT,
and has championed the gropings
of the Federal TSA over the good people
of Texas ---just months ago

NEWT 'Getting-RICH' is a decades stale,
PRO-Globalist, RED China TREASON OP
enabler, Carbon tax CON and EUGENICS advocate

----------------This is the 11th HOUR------------------

------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED--------------

Taxpayer| 11.23.11 @ 1:06AM

Thank you, Aaron! I've been making this same argument against Paul in attempted discussions with Paul supporters.

Studs Dupa| 11.23.11 @ 5:38AM

Hi,

Ron Paul did vote for military action against Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks based on the Letter of Marque and Reprisal clause of the Constitution. He believed the United States should fight, win, and leave Afghanistan. Ten years is enough time to spend in that worthless, uncivilized cesspool. He also believes if one is to go to war against a nation (such as Iraq); one should declare war as the constitution requires.

Love,

Studs

RON PAUL 2012!!

Sqwidman| 11.23.11 @ 7:35PM

Osama and the radical islamists already won. We let the fear of them subject the American people to the stripping of their civil liberties via the Patriot Act. So, we have let the terrorists dictate domestic policy and fill our country with fear. Ron Paul is right.

G| 11.23.11 @ 11:17PM

My God, you war mongrel you.. Are you afraid of your shadow? Is every muslim a damn enemy to you. America has been going to shit because of people like you who are under the impression that everyone is out to get you. Largest military spending. Most bases situated in the world and yet people like you feel fear.

You speak of "terror" plots let most of these are fabricated by the CIA and FBI.. The mass media even admits it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzTY9dSnmcs

TheRightRadical| 11.23.11 @ 11:21PM

Some law enforcement officials have said police sought to get the FBI involved but the federal investigators felt Pimentel didn't have the inclination or ability to act without the informant's involvement."""

Another bribed bum; guided along in his journey to play "jihad" this time by the NYPD (and you thought they were completely tied up with OWS) If the NYPD like the FBI, doesn't have enough to do, other then to find the most retched of society to play this game of make believe jihad, then perhaps they should get out on the streets, and fill some potholes.
In any case bedwetter you jumped the shark again.
Perhaps Mr Goldstein you should practice your 2nd Amendment rights, and gain profiency in the use of those tools. As the next war you agitate for (but wouldn't think of fighting in) might well break down the economy and country of the US, and you might damn might it. Not from any "jihadist" but the less fortunate that need your bread, amongst the shambles that you and your ilk have caused.

Goldstein Chickenhawk| 11.23.11 @ 11:35PM

Another false flag Goldstein.
It turns out, however, that Pimentel was far from a lone wolf. As in so many other proudly proclaimed victories against domestic terrorists, he appears to have been greatly assisted by a paid government informant. In fact, the New York Times reports that the informant’s role was so significant that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, itself no stranger to busting terrorist plots instigated largely by its own informers, chose to drop its own investigation into Pimentel despite repeated pleas for cooperation from the NYPD."'

As the below indicates. The war on terror is just one big LIE. Nothing more then to push the racist fantasies of men like Goldstein.

"First, of the 508 defendants whose cases they investigated, “nearly half the prosecutions involved the use of informants, many of them incentivized by money … or the need to work off criminal or immigration violations,” according to Aaronson. Needless to say, those already inclined to flout the law are also unlikely to concern themselves with the ethicality or legality of the actions the government asks them to take, especially if cooperating with the feds keeps them out of jail or in the United States.
Second, “sting operations resulted in prosecutions against 158 defendants,” Aaronson writes. “Of that total, 49 defendants participated in plots led by an agent provocateur — an FBI operative instigating terrorist action.” As Martin Stolar, a lawyer who represented a man caught in a 2004 sting involving New York’s Herald Square subway station, told Aaronson, “The problem with the cases we’re talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the a** by government agents. They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.” Doing so creates such marvelous publicity for the government that, Aaronson remarks, “President Obama’s Department of Justice has announced sting-related prosecutions at an even faster clip than the Bush administration.”
Third, “with three exceptions, all of the high-profile domestic terror plots of the last decade were actually FBI stings,” reports Aaronson. “The exceptions,” he explains, “are Najibullah Zazi, who came close to bombing the New York City subway system in September 2009; Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian who opened fire on the El-Al ticket counter at the Los Angeles airport; and failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad.” It’s worth noting that the FBI managed to thwart only one of these plots, that of Zazi, and then only because Scotland Yard caught on to Zazi’s plot and informed the bureau. Hadayet, meanwhile, was gunned down by LAX security guards; and Shahzad was foiled by his own ineptitude, his smoldering but undetonated car bomb spotted by street vendors. Cynics wonder how many terrorist plots FBI informants were busy instigating while genuine plots went undetected by the bureau."""

For this we need a "strengthened" Patriot Act. There is only one submissive pants wetter here, and it certainly aint Ron Paul.

seth| 11.23.11 @ 11:48PM

Ron is right..... Can anyone honestly say that Iraq was a wise decision? I agree attacking Afghanistan was proper, but is it necessary to make this our longest war ? Was Viet Nam a success ? There was a time not so long when conservatives where extremely cautious about foreign adventurism . But now if you don't want to get involved in any and every conflict around the world you are labeled in isolationist.

Publius| 11.24.11 @ 1:13AM

Reagan withdrew from Lebanon.

What a submissive pussy wimp he was!

Richard Baker| 11.25.11 @ 1:19AM

Mike L:
Since the German, British, French, and American intelligence agencies ALL came to the SAME conclusions regarding what are euphemistically called Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, shouldn't you be condemning them ALL? With your immense knowledge of disinformation tactics used by Iraq under Hussein, what other conclusion should all these intel agencies have drawn from the vast amount of data that ALL these agencies shared? I guess his use of biologicals in the murder of the 5,000+ Kurds in Halabja really meant nothing, correct? Blind but will not see you are.

Richard Baker| 11.25.11 @ 7:28PM

Ross| 11.26.11 @ 2:01AM

You're an idiot. We spend $600 billion a year on our military while China spends $150 billion. It has nothing to do with letting them dictate our foreign policy. We don't have the money to be over there and we definitely don't have money to deal with another crisis like that. I bet you supported the war in Iraq too. Maybe you should listen to our troops, most of which vote for Ron Paul.

Uppercut| 11.26.11 @ 11:49AM

That's right, Nelson. Keep reminding us why we refuse to vote for your Jew-hating fascist RINO: all his biggest fans are from Stormfront and the KKK. The last thing we need is another political Messiah and his brain dead devotees stinking up our country with their thuggery and racism the way the current one is. Even the Mormonism that limp noodle Romney nominally claims as his faith isn't as crazy and retarded as your racist suicide cult.

Mistral| 11.26.11 @ 1:11PM

Weel said Ron Paul - what a gross waste of public funds has been US militray policies over the last few years. Their presence in Iraq & Afghanistan does nothing to forestall terrorism and has been an exercise in oil control.The same goes for policies towards Libya - oil and the fear Africa will use gold in a common currency. More impotantly, however, Ron has nothing in common with Hussein Obama's economic policies wich are far more significant. Time Americans got over their ruinous self-destructive RAMBO mentality and got back to matters of real liberty at home. Ron Paul has absolutely nothing in common there with the current POTUS.

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 1:21PM

There isn't a snowballs chance in 'ell Ron P. would do Sec. of State for Obama. Why be a pimp
for what he sees as continued mal foriegn policy.

mzk1| 12.1.11 @ 12:18PM

Well, I knew the Paul-worshippers would flood this. But the simple point is that at base, the assumptions of Paul and Obama are the same. They both think appeasement works. A disengaged America is a doomed America. If we didn't learn this from Munich, we never will. And if you don't know what Munich was, go join the clueless at OWS.

mzk1| 12.1.11 @ 12:29PM

An isolationist and pacifist Sec. of State? As matter of fact we had one. William Jennings Bryan, founder of the modern Democratic party.

Ron Paul would be perfect as Obama's Sec. of State.

Vanyam| 12.1.11 @ 3:45PM

This article is unadulterated horse crap.. I don't know about any other Americans, but I'm getting damn sick and tired of Israel-firsters and evangelicals hiding their religious war based on Biblical prophecies behind American "foreign policy". When they speak of "foreign policy", we could just expose their agenda by extracting "foreign" and inserting "Israeli" and then Americans would see that it's not about GLOBAL foreign policy or safety or order or cooperation or anything else. It's about Israel, and to these people, that's all that matters in the world. America is being offered as a sacrifice in order to preserve this obsession with End Times and Apocalypse. This is not a military, political, economic election in 2012 for NeoCons... it's a religious election for them.

RON PAUL is perceived as a threat to the "arrangement" we have with Israel. Blowback is real. The Muslim hornet's nest has been beaten with a stick for decades (by our corrupt and obsessive quasi-religious sect in Washington...) the war mongering is nothing more than a 21st century Crusades. The global but more importantly Israeli cash cow has been the US. Tel Aviv has tremendous power in the Beltway, our NeoCons march in lockstep to keep this religious war alive, but the American public has been so duped and distracted that the War on Terrorism looks somehow "legit".

Throughout the debate charade, no one has had the honesty or backbone to bring this up verbatim. The fear of Ron Paul on this issue is always hidden behind Beltway Speak. The NeoCons do not want this Israeli carte blanche access to American power and resources debate amongst Americans because they realize how many Americans would support Ron Paul's views on our current corrupt system and especially on our very secretive policies with Israel. In other words, our Israeli foreign policy wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny.

RON PAUL 2012 .... don't accept any more shills in the White House... they're bad for our national health.

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 6:16AM

Dr.Ron Paul, "I would ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary,"

Gee, Imagine An American President abiding by The Constitution.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & in Iowa.

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

Ron Paul’s Submissive Side

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (302) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 6:49AM

Jay| 11.22.11 @ 7:06AM

IO| 11.22.11 @ 10:43AM

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:04PM

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 1:57PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:04PM

blaine| 11.23.11 @ 1:00AM

Usotsuki| 11.25.11 @ 11:26AM

zppz| 11.28.11 @ 12:28AM

Richard Wicks | 11.26.11 @ 1:08AM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:20PM

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 2:09PM

Warrior | 11.22.11 @ 8:55PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:12PM

Warrior | 11.23.11 @ 9:40AM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:30PM

Warrior | 11.24.11 @ 9:43AM

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:33PM

Mike| 11.27.11 @ 2:13PM

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:36PM

Occam's Tool| 12.20.11 @ 4:58PM

aRocketScientist| 11.22.11 @ 7:48AM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:15PM

Izee Aneeokhan | 11.23.11 @ 9:25AM

Steven| 11.22.11 @ 8:42AM

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 11:51AM

John| 11.22.11 @ 12:46PM

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 2:58PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:19PM

Kevin | 12.1.11 @ 12:41PM

chuck| 11.22.11 @ 8:19PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:23PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:26PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:27PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:32PM

ContraSt8ist| 11.25.11 @ 1:58AM

Walt| 11.22.11 @ 9:49AM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:28PM

Rienone| 11.22.11 @ 10:30AM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:30PM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:31PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:33PM

The Dangler| 11.22.11 @ 10:41AM

carnot| 11.22.11 @ 9:36PM

ContraSt8ist| 11.25.11 @ 2:23AM

PhilTheCapitalistPig| 11.22.11 @ 11:06AM

nelson| 11.22.11 @ 11:36AM

Drunken Sailor| 11.22.11 @ 11:50AM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 12:57PM

Occam's Tool| 11.22.11 @ 1:08PM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 1:58PM

Warrior | 11.22.11 @ 9:09PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:36PM

Paul | 11.22.11 @ 2:02PM

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 2:13PM

A.J.| 11.22.11 @ 4:01PM

Cpm| 11.23.11 @ 11:35PM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 2:18PM

Jack in Wi| 11.22.11 @ 2:49PM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 2:55PM

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 3:33PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:37PM

Con Chef (NB) | 11.22.11 @ 2:58PM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 3:28PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:38PM

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 4:06PM

Grzmlyk| 11.22.11 @ 4:22PM

Brian| 11.22.11 @ 4:43PM

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:19PM

Mark in LA| 11.22.11 @ 7:46PM

Occam's Tool| 11.23.11 @ 6:42PM

Alan Brooks| 11.22.11 @ 5:57PM

Clint| 11.22.11 @ 7:00PM

Melanie| 11.22.11 @ 4:44PM

Cpm| 11.23.11 @ 11:40PM