The American Spectator : Ron Paul Haunts New Hampshire

Text Size

Ron Paul Haunts New Hampshire

By Robert Stacy McCain on 1.10.12 @ 6:09AM

What does his fanatical following really represent?

MANCHESTER, N.H. – You don’t have to go to a Ron Paul rally to find Ron Paul’s supporters. Wherever there has been a political event in New Hampshire in recent days, at least a handful of the Texas congressman’s fans have shown up, waving their signs and shouting expressions of support for their candidate. They are the only Republican campaign that does this. You will never attend, say, a Newt Gingrich rally and find Rick Santorum’s supporters waving signs outside, but the Paul people are ubiquitous here, just as they were in Iowa, and the question remains: Why?

Paul is likely to finish second here in the “Live Free or Die” state, after having finished third in Iowa, and it is difficult to imagine any scenario in which the libertarian-leaning Texan could win the GOP nomination. He does not have what the pundits call a “path to the nomination.” And yet the implausibility of Paul’s campaign does not seem to deter his notoriously enthusiastic supporters.

“President Paul! President Paul! President Paul!” hundreds of them chanted in a Nashua aircraft hangar Friday, expressing the least likely of all outcomes in this topsy-turvy Republican campaign. As absurd as such hopes may seem, however, it is remarkable that the candidate most likely to win – former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – generates nothing like the excitement shown by Paul’s supporters. Republicans are seemingly prepared to nominate the tepid “It’s His Turn” candidate, while rejecting the only candidate in the GOP field who comes near to matching the cult-like following inspired by President Obama.

There are many mysteries to the phenomenon that is Ron Paul. How is it, for example, that a 76-year-old with a reedy voice – his appearance and manner not remotely “presidential” by the usual standards of the TV age – is an idol to so many youth? Polls in Iowa showed that Paul got 48 percent among caucus voters under 30, which might suggest that his libertarian-tinged anti-war message represents the future of the Republican Party. But that youth vote was only good enough for 21.4 percent of the total, because fully 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers were 50 or older. So the oldest candidate in the race, dismissed as a crackpot by most mainstream Republicans, is almost uniquely capable of attracting young voters to a party dominated by the gray-hair-and-bifocals set. However one attempts to explain this situation, it does not bode well for the GOP. And perhaps it doesn’t bode well for America, either.

At an invitation-only event Monday at the historic Lawrence Barn in Hollis, one of Paul’s supporters asked whether his proposal to end the deployment of U.S. troops overseas was opposed by many Americans because it involved a recognition that “our empire is shrinking and maybe they can’t handle that.” Paul answered matter-of-factly: “Empires always end, not because another military power comes along, but for economic reasons.” He cited the example of the Soviet Union, which he said “went bankrupt,” and then reminded his audience that the Soviets “were so foolish, they went into Afghanistan and got bogged down in Afghanistan” – clearly a jab at the most recent Republican administration. “I do not think an empire serves the interests of the freedoms of individual Americans.”

Such talk is wild, dangerous, radical and extremist stuff, according to most mainstream Republicans, and yet it has garnered for Paul a following whose fanatical devotion is one of the great unavoidable truths of the 2012 campaign. However, because Paul’s foreign policy views are so starkly at odds with the GOP mainstream – an outright repudiation of the Bush administration’s War on Terrorism stance – the liberal media have generally treated Paul with a deference that his Republican rivals must envy.

No mainstream journalist, for example, seemed to notice the flyer the Paul campaign was distributing at their Hollis event that was obviously meant to pitch Paul to social conservatives. “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate,” the flyer quotes the candidate. “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman,” the flyer quotes Paul as saying, expressing his support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that would “ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ‘same sex’ marriage license issued in another state.”

Nothing wrong with that, but other conservative Republicans – including former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum – have been harassed and heckled in New Hampshire for espousing such views. Many of Ron Paul’s enthusiastic young supporters are in favor of same-sex marriage and seem to assume that their political idol shares their views. Yet Paul gets a free pass from the same establishment media that have sought to portray Santorum as a single-issue fanatic whose entire candidacy (according to them) is based on his religious zealotry and opposition to gay rights.

Whether one admires or condemns Ron Paul as a politician, his significance as a phenomenon is what should concern conservatives. At some level, the enthusiasm for Ron Paul represents a rejection of the recent Republican past – a symbol of the “brand damage” the GOP suffered during the Bush years, and from which they have not yet recovered, even after nearly three years of Obama’s unpopular presidency. Whatever the percentage of votes Paul gets tonight in New Hampshire – polls indicate he should get about 20 percent – it should serve to remind Republicans of the work which remains to regain the trust of Americans haunted by the ghosts of Republicans past.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (520) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:17AM

The latest CBS national poll shows Ron Paul and Romney as tied with Obama head to head. Think how far ahead Ron would be if he had honeset media coverage? The people are sick of you warmongers and bailout artists. No pro war pro, bankster Republican can win the general election.

It is Ron Paul for Sanity, Peace , Prosperity and Liberty.

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:31AM

No candidate for the Presidency can be elected with the teppid, at best enthusiasm, Romney is getting. Obama will make mincemeat out of him. Obama will be running as the guy who got Bin Laden, got the troops home from Iraq, and is getting the troops home from Afganistan. How you going to beat that with an inarticulate chickenhawk like Romney? He will blame the economy on Wall Street, the big banks and Republican intrangence. It worked for FDR and Truman 4 times. How do you counter that with a dull investent banker like Romney?

Ron Paul polls the best by far among the young, independents, and disaffected Democrats. No Republican can ever be elected without lots ofthese votes. The brain dead Bush Cheney contingent is down to less then 20% of the population.

It is Ron Paul or ruin.

Ilylial | 1.10.12 @ 7:32AM

I, as one of these youngsters so disrespectfully referenced in this article, am being attacked by saying somehow we are disconnected with the progressive movement. The truth is without breaking down the spending in this country, in my opinion, we won't be able to open a legitimate debate about what this country needs, which is less debt. I'm a full blown leftist demi that believes we have to either foot the bill now or change the laws in place RADICALLY. Cut spending and RAISE taxes. Right now MY unborn children could be at risk because of national debt. Stop trying to put it off to other generations. It's your fault. Solve the problem. Starting a war with Iran will end this country as we know it, and my children will not be in a country full of war mongers. By saying that war increases ANY revenue is basically saying "We don't want give bailouts, but if you help kill these folks here you can earn the money." So, there goes that argument conservatives. Something is seriously wrong with that train of thought, and I will move to a different country before living here under a establishment view of how the government should work. I'm also an atheist. This means that I belong to the 16% percent of Americans that aren't being represented in government. I'm sick of this religious nonsense being imposed through the media. Ron Paul does not force his views on personal life to anyone. That's why it isn't a focal point. You would think that would be obvious. Btw Marxism is being pushed by us young folk as a stepping stone to a world where equal opportunity isn't just a term set up to cause retardation of the population. We know what's going on. We can separate fact from fallacy combing over the internet craving knowledge. The internet has fostered in an age where people can educate themselves FOR FREE. Here I am, a high school dropout, blowing your mind. Proof in itself. Here's a quote for ya, "Ron Paul is like cough syrup. Hard to choke down, but necessary for recovery." Therein lies my point.

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 8:02AM

"Here I am, a high school dropout, blowing your mind."

You are blowing something all right. Call it smoke, if you will. Last I checked, none of the other candidates are forcing their views on anyone either. If you agree with them, vote for them. If you don't, vote for someone else. This isn't conservative anything. It's progressive leftist drivel dressed up as "Libertarianism."

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:11AM

The conservative views create binding law that imposes their beliefs in my everyday life. They all want to delve into our lives besides Ron Paul, and they say it openly everyday. If you are incapable of seeing that then you'll be blind forever. I'm free to debate my beliefs this morning if you think you can rationalize your own.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:17AM

Still your point is void of substance. Did you understand what I said? Shall I summarize it for you? Or did you not get the "I'm a full blown leftist demi that believes we have to either foot the bill now or change the laws in place RADICALLY."

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:17AM

@Vlady:

"You are blowing something all right. Call it smoke, if you will."

Although you didn't give "Ilylial" the same respect, I will attempt to respond to you, respectfully.

If you still believe that Ron Paul's supporters are primarily "libertine," college-aged pot smokers, you are buying into the political spin of his opponents.

I am an evangelical Christian, 46-year-old, college graduate, father of four and an entrepreneur.

What should truly concern the GOP, if they don't nominate Ron Paul, is that the reality ISN'T that Dr. Paul's support is "just a bunch of atheist kids, living in their parent's basements, hoping for legal pot.

In reality, a HUGE portion of Ron Paul's support is coming from the GOP's former "go to" voter bloc, middle-aged, CONSERVATIVE, CHRISTIANS that are sick and tired of being pandered to and taken for granted.

"This isn't conservative anything. Its progressive leftist drivel dressed up as "Libertarianism."

Again, respectfully, this is more an establishment Republican talking point than it is researched fact.

With a little research, it's fairly easy to establish that "TRUE CONSERVATISM" (if you're willing to go back more than four years of history) was, traditionally more associated with
Ron Paul's positions... NOT "leftist drivel."

Until the eighties, the Republican Party, in general, and the conservative movement, specifically, was ANTI-BIG GOVERNMENT and ANTI-WAR.

Although, thinking people disagree about the differences/similarities between conservative and libertarian ideas, this recent dismissal of Ron Paul's (libertarian) ideas as being equal
to "atheism/anarchism/leftist" by the establishment in the Republican party is PURELY done in the hope that voters (like you?) will believe their "spin" and not do any actual research.

Here's a quote on the CLOSE relationship between true conservatism and libertarian ideas:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is... I believe there are legitimate government functions... But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

That quote was from Ronald Reagan in 1975.

So, I would hope that you would consider not dismissing Ron Paul, out of hand, simply because candidates that want your vote, today, are willing to try to scare you about what Libertarian ideas really mean.

Secondly, I'd ask you to consider the actual lives and records of the candidates, as well.

As someone that considers myself a "conservative Christian," I'm fairly shocked at the cynical way in which the Republican party is treating me.

Mitt Romney has been both "pro-choice" and "pro-life."
Mitt Romney has been both "pro individual mandate" and "anti-individual mandate."
Mitt Romney has been both "pro-gun control" and "anti-gun control."
Mitt Romney has actually described himself, when convenient, as a "progressive."
Newt Gingrich lectures people about the sanctity of marriage and, well... you do the homework on how sanctified he seems to think it is in his own life.
Newt Gingrich talks about the Constitution and wrote the forward to an Alvin Toffler book that advocated destroying/ignoring the Constitution.
Newt Gingrich was, essentially, run out of congress on a rail, by his FELLOW Republicans because of ethics and leadership problems.
Rick Santorum is supposed to be the "faith voters" candidate and he supported ARLEN SPECTOR over a conservative Republican. Spector's subsequent win was a force for the pro-abortion forces and was one of the critical factors in Obama passing "Obamacare."
Rick Santorum has a track record saying whatever is necessary and convenient. For a small example, here's what he's said about the Tea Party, depending upon his audience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3TVoVqvt74

Rick Santorum admitted to warning his "good friend," Senator Ensign about the fact that the MSM had learned about Ensign's cheating on his wife, in an effort to help Ensign to preserve his political career (as opposed to calling Ensign's wife?).

On the other hand...

Ron Paul's life is a real testament to conservative values, no?

Married, for almost fifty years, to the same woman.
Successful physician and business man.
Almost thirty years of a CONSISTENT record in Congress of voting in line with his beliefs/the constitution.

Boring, maybe (to some), but "leftist?"

I've decided that, like we used to say about the "prolife" movement, us Ron Paul fans should focus on changing hearts and minds, not disrespectfully trying demean supporters of other candidates and I hope I've done that in this comment.

That said, I BEG YOU to please spend some more time researching the FACTS outside of what CNN, MSNBC and FOX are telling you.

Respectfully,

Robert

Sean| 1.10.12 @ 11:02AM

Well said Robert. Let me list some of Paul's supporters that I know and only one of them has smoked pot. All of them have been Republicans for years and now are disgusted with the mainstream Republicans unconservative habits.

30 year old Afghan war vet
33 year old lawyer
33 year old architect
64 mother and retiree
42 year old mechanical engineer
40 year old IT worker

They all see that the MSM including liberal run Fox don't want this guy to be President because unlike the others he means what he says.

chuckles| 1.11.12 @ 1:35AM

Is it the IT worker?

Warrior | 1.10.12 @ 12:15PM

Very well stated Robert.

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 12:23PM

100% right Robert, couldn't say it better .

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 1:47PM

I'd be all for Ron Paul, if it wasn't for his complete lack of understanding the world outside the US. Iran DOES mean us harm, they ARE working for a nuclear bomb (even the UN finally acknowledged it for crying out loud). Iran IS the primary supporter of the major radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

China IS our enemy, they are constantly attacking our networks, openly "spy" on us (hard to count it as spying when people see you do it honestly), and is attempting to use mercantalism to drive us under so they don't have to face our military. Speaking of military, they're building their's up rather quickly. They have increased the size of the military budget from ~$11mil in 1999 to nearly $92 billion last year. If that isn't an eye opener regarding a COMMUNIST government with a history of killing and imprisoning their own people to put down any dissent, I don't know what is.

Leaving Europe to defend themselves is one thing, their only enemies are internal radical muslim factions, and possibly the Russians at some point in the future (which hopefully they've finally learned after WWII not to ignore a military buildup nearby). Leaving Korea and Japan would be the same as giving those countries to China in the next 20 years. Even Obama managed to acknowledge that one...

I'm no chickenhawk either, I served in the military on active duty (not drafted and stateside the whole time like Ron Paul) for 6 yrs, spent my time in the Gulf, and continue to serve in the Reserves. I've lost friends, have friends and family still in harms way, and acknowledge the sacrifice that sometimes has to be made to protect the people HERE. I'd almost guarentee that anyone in the military asked the question, "Would you rather fight an enemy on a foreign shore or here in the US?" would answer, "Here in the US" (some people are just nutty, so I won't say everyone would agree). But that is the choice Paul would have us make.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:02PM

@TrueBlue:

First, thank you for your service and sacrifice.

Would you agree that, sometimes, in life, as well as in politics people's rhetoric doesn't line up with their actions?

If so, you might understand that some of us are offended by the "establishment" (when they need something... like votes) are willing to talk about "supporting the troops" but then their actions are not quite so supportive.

My best friend in the world came back from Europe two years ago and found himself in health/medical straits. The lack of care he received was horrendous.

The treatment he received, even during his move back to the states was humiliating and shameful. He ended up "owing" the US Govt. thousands of dollars in shipping because of some arcane rule.

When he had a stroke, he was given WAY less than the best treatment in his VA care.

I'm sure you've heard the stories about the Govt. dumping soldiers bodies in a mass grave instead of actually burying them?

Or the "arrangement" the government made that, effectively, stole many veterans insurance and pensions?

It wasn't really that long ago that we were hearing stories about shoddy armor being provided to soldiers in the field, was it?

My point is that supporting the warmongers/military industrial complex that benefit from endless war does NOT imply that someone doesn't (whole heartedly) support the military.

I have an 18 year old son that (as of this moment) is planning on entering the NAVY upon HS graduation. I've told him that I consider Soldier to be a Noble profession.

But, I haven't been able to be honest with him about my fears that he will be following the orders of people motivated by greed and power... not our defense. I didn't want to put my (possibly) wacky fears into his head. It's his decision.

But I do have a question.

The Paul campaign has probably made TOO MUCH of the fact that he receives more donations from people in the military than all of the other Republican candidates COMBINED.

I know it's not a FACT... but would it be unreasonable to believe that this "sample" of the military might be extrapolated out to the military in general?

I'm truly asking.

What's your experience with listening to other soldiers?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:46PM

and someone should take your emotive language seriously?

how about...as you refine your profound analysis...do you believe the military is a unified political group with a single set of interests and advocacy positions? or is an aggregation of diverse points-of-view, interests, sub-cultures, and agendas?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 6:51PM

@carnot:

I don't know.

I'm not in the military.

I was respectfully asking TrueBlue's opinion.

Was that the part that was unserious?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:18PM

fair response.

no....the military isn't a monolithic block supporting Paul.

Paul is serving an important purpose....like the others...he will narrow the wiggle room for whomever succeeds when it comes to effecting a purposeful approach to addressing spending and the impending federal budget disaster.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 3:34PM

@carnot:

For someone that keeps accusing Paul supporters of shallow, unsubstanitated arguments, you have, so far, continued to refuse to answer EVERY SINGLE actual argument...

My point here was that all of the pious support for the troops spewed by our government isn't really backed up by results...

Do you think I made this stuff up?

Are you okay with burying soldiers in mass graves?

Stealing their pensions?

I guess as long as we TELL them how much we support them that's all we have to do?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:11PM

sell it to someone else. you asked for scenarios you could address...I provided them. you have not answered.

we all get the bait-and-switch game you like to play. have at it!

America First| 1.10.12 @ 10:43PM

Why are the citizens of Canada, New Zealand, & Australia living basically the same as Americans, admittedly with a little more socialism, without having to have troops stationed at 190 bases around the world?

We have to worry about China taking over Korea and Japan in 20 years? Hah, we have to worry about China taking over the U.S. in 10 years if we don't stop borrowing tens of billions of dollars a month from them to run our overseas operations.

If we are going to worry about a country like Iran attacking us we will have never ending war forever. Our armed forces could obliterate them in no time and Ron Paul wants to keep it that way. We can deliver a warhead to ANYWHERE in the world in 1 hour, we don't need to go broke worrying about a fifth rate country who might get a nuclear bomb. IF they get one, just how would they attack us??? They have nothing that could be called an air force or navy. They don't have even one oil refinery in their entire country!!!

If we would develop our own oil and gas industry here at home we could stop enriching our enemies in the middle east. And if we left there it wouldn't be long before we wouldn't have so many enemies.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:10AM

well....you nailed it! our security interests are exactly like Canada's!

and your prescription is pure genius!! have a problem? why the first item on the checklist is nuke em!

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.11.12 @ 9:31AM

Have you not considered the possibility that we would be better positioned for action where it really mattered if we were not so tied down in so many different places that matter so little?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:14AM

I don't know...you explain to me the intricacies of logistics and medical systems and how that translates to execution timelines, military effectiveness and saving lives.

while you're at it......as we domestically move ahead with closing yet more and more bases and training areas......explain just how we will maintain readiness with the few troops we have left...all video game experts no doubt.....preparing for Ron Paul inspired sepaku.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:41PM

@carnot:

Are you a professor in real life?

You are willing to spend hundreds/thousands of words trying to make some (non obvious) point instead of just having the courage of your convictions to STATE, clearly what you are FOR and then defend it?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:25PM

no. I just happen to know a lot about what goes on in an area YOU ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT IN. and that is why the incessant platitudes get worrisome. you don't know what you are talking about. you aren't equipped by experience to think through the implications of the positions you adopt. at least not with respect to foreign policy and the military.

one hopes all the Paul posters are truthful when they claim deeper understanding of capitalism and free markets. Freidman, von Hayek, von Mises...all were friends of my grand-father. while I never met any of the men...I was steeped in the literature growing up. if you have the time...read Schumpeter's "A History of Economic Thought" if.... at least to a point in the last century...you want to trace the thread of thought leading into the free market paradigm you presumably favor. then come back and instruct us on what is needed and how a Ron Paul Presidency will accomplish a transition.

You are the one selling a set of ideas....not me. Make the sale.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 9:51PM

@carnot:

If your personal connections with these men is true, that's both amazing and interesting.

But, apparently, it hasn't meant that you agree with them?

Why?

JFGalt| 1.11.12 @ 12:48PM

Take away their reason for hating us - one which does not benefit most Americans anyway just the monied interests - and then the threat evaporates. Anyway, there is little defense a suitcase bomb snuck into the country which may already be here anyway. What's really funny is that most "conservatives" on this board would never vote for Thomas Jefferson either.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:40PM

yawn.

You all sidestep one critical FACT: Ron Paul never accomplished anything in all his years in Congress. Talk about taxpayer fraud! the problem many of us have with Paulistas...aside from the glib propensity for platitudes....is the incessant whining about others without any real inspection of their own candidates negatives. it suggests a certain detachment from reality.

BulletGibson| 1.10.12 @ 5:00PM

Over 600 bills sponsored by Dr. Paul. Only one was passed. Why? Because every last bill he sponsored cut spending and government. Didn't take the time to look did you? Didn't think so. You didn't care what the bills were about, you just wanted to spout a poorly thought out opinion.
So, since the rest of congress didn't want to cut spending (shock huh) it's Dr. Paul's fault? That's just silly. Thank you ever so much Dept. of Ed. and Jimmy Carter for delivering to this country an entire generation of people like this.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:29PM

ummm. you're missing the point.

HE'S NOT A LEADER. he has no coalition. he can't coordinate/manage and inspire consensus. in short...all his years in Congress have been an arrant waste.

one of the primary qualifiers for a successful politician is the ability TO LEAD. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THIS GUY CAN LEAD.

rationalize all you want.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 6:58PM

@carnot:

"yawn"

I apologize if my desire for freedom and liberty and some feeling of obligations to persuade others makes you bored.

"You all sidestep one critical FACT: Ron Paul never accomplished anything in all his years in Congress. Talk about taxpayer fraud!"

If he accomplished nothing else but the recent audit of the FED, that would have been more than most.

That said, I think we all face the quandry of balancing principle with pragmatism.

Sure, Paul could have "accomplished" more (does that mean passing more federal legislation that restricts our liberties?) by not following his conviction to avoid voting for anything but what he felt was Constitutional. So, are you saying he should have compromised his adherance to the Constitution more?

"the problem many of us have with Paulistas...aside from the glib propensity for platitudes...."

What have I said, specifically, that you consider a "platitude?"

"the incessant whining about others"

Please show me where I was doing this.

"without any real inspection of their own candidates negatives. it suggests a certain detachment from reality."

Which of Paul's possible "negatives" do you feel I haven't inspected? Please let me know.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:39PM

yes...let's reduce a generalization to a specific instance.

and, oh btw, I don't take you seriously. I have read enough of your neocon emotionalisms that, incidentally, also tar and feather large masses of people rather arbitrarily...or all the gibberish about warmongering. none of it is any different from what you are caviling as unacceptable. it's the same garbage pail finger pointing...only the target has changed.

who are you all kidding? rational debate my can. no....the burden isn't on me. It's on you to adduce the evidence...to structure a coherent plan.....to align causes and effects. all I ever hear..after the incessant and mind numbing attacks...are platitudes that just about any one from any political stripe North of Moderate who visits this board would assert (small government, reduced conflicts, etc.). there's no niuance...no threshold...no articulation of real interests and how they will be addressed. just these empty platitudes - follow free market principles and everything else will take care of itself. aside from the blatant simple-mindedness of the assertion...it's simple never drawn out what that means in practical terms, what structures are needed to realize that system, what cultural assumptions are being made, how it will be managed when it breaks down....just back of the box quotes absorbed during a campaign speech or a quick Internet search.

As I stated below...once one begins to examine the details...there is no there there.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 8:57PM

Carnot, it's people like you that have led the country down the path we find ourselves on today. You need to consider what Paul actually stands for rather than throw up strawmen.

The person here that is unserious is you.

Of course Paul is not a "leader" in your fringy ideology. He could have been if he had done things like Newt or Santorum, and see just how much money he could spend.

That you view the maniacs that run and dominate the GOP as mainstream simply shows how deranged and degenerate the party actually is. The opposition of morons like says more about the GOP than it does about Paul.

And no, I won't vote for Paul unless he the nominee, but there are several others, like Mittens, that are just as contemptible as Newt that aren't worthy of consideration. That they haven't been laughed of stages is a shame to the GOP.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:14PM

@carnot:

So I'll assume that's a "No. I'm not willing to defend MY choice/solutions... I'd rather name call?"

Also, BREAKING NEWS: NBC just announced that 24% of NH Voters are:

1)bright

2) successful in a specific field of endeavor

3) unfamiliar with, are not trained in, and have not been educated to wrestle with ideas that fall outside the bounds of their specific, narrow areas of expertise

4) lack leadership skills as well

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:20PM

btw...don't apologize for your aspirations for freedom and liberty.

just don't blithely assume you alone understand the surest path to restoring those gifts...or that anyone with contrarian ideas on tactics and means doesn't harbor similar aspirations.

lee pefley | 1.10.12 @ 6:13PM

None of the current-day Republicans can rightly be considered conservative, and none have shown the least support for a return to racial segregation, for the rescission of female suffrage, for demanding a full refund (with interest) from Israel, for an end to welfare and public education, for the annexation of Canada (by force if necessary), for the establishment of mandatory unpaid work camps for all immigrants (legal and otherwise), or for any of the other projects needed to disconnect our country from its long term pursuit of the lowest possible common denominator.
Tito Perdue
author

David| 1.10.12 @ 9:11PM

Excellent summation, Robert. If the neocon GOP doesn't learn anything else this election, they will learn that true conservatives -- those who actually believe in small government, government out of our personal lives, sound monetary policy, strong national defense WITHOUT constant interventionism and nation building -- want a change from the big government, more of the same BS being dumped on us from the so called elites of the party. We want a change of substance, not rhetoric.

I held my nose and voted for the faux conservative, John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain last time -- I refuse to vote for more of the same this year. Give me a true conservative such as Ron Paul or go pound sand -- even if it means the Obamessiah gets elected for another four years...I see no real change on the horizon for this country whether we have the progressive Obamanation or a neocon sock puppet like Romney or Gingrich. Either way we're screwed.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:22PM

@David:

Here's the scary thing...

We didn't even have to elect McCain to allow him to dissemble our personal liberties.

He was one of the most vocal advocates of the NDAA.

Did you see the Onion piece on the NDAA?

http://www.theonion.com/articl.....ill,26928/

My favorite quote it this one: "I don't see why this even matters. Why would we need to detain American citizens indefinitely when we already have the authority to shoot missiles at them from drones?"
And from the "it would be funny if it wasn't so sadly true column"...

Freedoms Curtailed In Defense Of Liberty

http://www.theonion.com/articl.....berty,213/

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:16AM

this is laughable...unlike you...McCain actually served.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:58PM

@carnot:

And your point?

That doesn't seem to carry much weight with you when it comes to Ron Paul...

So, since McCain served, I should smile while he steals our personal liberties?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:41PM

what exactly did the flight surgeon gynaecologist do for those 3 years? there seems to be a conspicuous absence of detail in that regard. and, let's be frank, someone needs to ask the man "at the time...were you not drafted...would you have volunteered?"

Geez...you do like to dance off into tangents. McCain's service has nothing to do with McCain's politics. The two can be judged separately. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that Paul folks like to draw attention to their guy's service.....but others, who they disparage to the nth degree, served and sacrificed a great deal more.

You want to get into an abstract discussion about stealing your freedoms...fine. but if you do...pls at least take the time to rank order the threats. I can assure you...the ACLU...moveon.....Soros......Trumpka...the people who fund, staff and do the daily barge lifting and bail toting.......those people are infinitely greater threats to your freedoms than John McCain or the bogeyman neocon.

one day....one hopes....the Paul folks will learn to think tactically and strategically.

runningdeer| 1.16.12 @ 1:49AM

What concerns me about the support that is apparent for Ron paul is how vehement the supporters are about the man, No doubt his stand for legalizing drugs is one reason for the youth liking him regardless of his advanced age. His ability to appeal to an audience is apparent when he appears on shows like "The View" and" Leno". There is a good sense of humor in the man. He is good for a laugh. Paul is not hot or cold. He is a luke- warm person who seems to be on a fence with most of his opinions and will jump from side to side as the will strikes him to keep the conversation going and his audience agreement.
He is saying all the right things to happily satisfy the young and the old. But his ability is what I question. His wishy washy luke -warm way is what I dislike and his views on national defense as well as his anti Government talk that attempts to blame America for any and all ills that have in past or that ever will face this nation.
Ron Paul has tried to paint himself as a conservative with a modest personality who is all for peace. That is not what I believe him to be at all. His supporters think that by attacking those who are not for this man that they can somehow change the opinions and views of voters. That is stupid.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:01PM

There is always a simple solution to all problems---simple, straightforward, wrong.

History does not put burdens on you when you are ready for them, but when it wants to. As Tony Blankley has pointed out, Islamism is our great challenge of our generation.

I would prefer to destroy our enemies before they become a major threat. Ron Paul and his idiots would rather see millions of Americans dead before the feces slides off their eyes. Therein lies the difference.

KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 12:14PM

Occam, Amen! And in your penultimate sentence lies the danger of an isolationist foreign policy.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:06PM

@KennesawJack:

Did I miss something?

Did either of you attempt to provide reason/proof for these "opinions?"

Or is it sufficient to pat each other on the back and HOPE that the military industrial complex/neco cons have YOUR best interest in mind?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:03PM

@Occam's Tool:

I don't personally know you. And, you don't personally know me, right?

So, is it possible that we could have a respectful "reasoned debate?"

In that spirit...

I agree that we should "defend" ourselves from true threats.

At this point, we agree.

Beyond that, we both rely upon others/"experts" to tell us what those threats really are.

So, let's be honest... in reality... whether either of us is correct has to do with whether the people we trust to tell us such things are correct/not lying.... right?

Believe it or not, I was freakin CHEERING when Bush finally went into Iraq, initially. I, too, believed that we were "pre-emptively" defending ourselves.

But, since then, as most of the justifications for Iraq were shown to be out and out LIES...

And as I learned about empire building plans by The Project for A New American Century that was written almost a year BEFORE 911 and Iraq...

And as I read more about the (very)small group of individuals that surrounded Bush (the neocons) and how "convenient" it was for their plans for eternal world domination to replace "the cold war" with "the war on terrorism" I began to have some doubts.

Ultimately, if me and Paul and the people he relies upon (many in the CIA and many current/former military leaders) that this "war on terror" is as much about supporting the military industrial complex as it is about "real threats" ... are wrong... then YOU will be correct.

I'm neither an intelligence officer or a general... but intelligence officers and generals have strongly come down on BOTH sides of this debate.

That said... how do you continue to buy the "hype" from the neocons when they have lied to us so many times before?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:51PM

one doesn't have a respectful "debate" with the likes of you. are you kidding? "military/industrial complex"..."necons"....your whole language is populated with terminology that screams "I detest any and everyone who disagrees with me."

here is what you will learn...sadly: in time...you will become the enemy of many.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:08PM

@carnot:

Neoconservative is a term that most neoconservatives use to describe themselves.

Military industrial complex is a description of a concept first made popular by Dwight Eisenhower.

Which of these scream I detest anyone HERE?

Do I detest the idea of neoconservatism? Yes.

Do I detest the military industrial complex? Yes.

Unless I missed it, no one HERE was claiming to be part of either group.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:49PM

quit being evasive. you employ the term as a pejorative to tar large groups of people. moreover...it's interpreted in a very superficial manner. neocon = chickenhawk. oh really? what exactly...in an empirical sense does that mean? is there a scale so that one can make comparative assessments so he/she understands how someone is being containerized? it's all rhetoric intended to belittle ideas/points-of-view Paulistas find unpalatable. it has no real substance. and that's fine by me...what I dislike is the hypocrisy of pretending to be "serious" and earnest seeking the exchange of ideas. what a crock - if one thins is obvious by now....Paul's supporters have ZERO tolerance for contrarian ideas and opinions. in truth....when one watches Paul in the debates...it doesn't seem like he does either. who wants someone like that for President?

on another tangent.....I hope you do realize...that if Paul runs as an independent and secures Obama's reelection...not only will he be marginalized further than he already is.....but he will be hated and vilified by millions who will hold him responsible. moreover, I am willing to bet, he will undermine any chance his son has to run for major office.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:04PM

Carnot, most Neocons are Chickenhawks. Overwhelmingly, they have not served, nor do their children serve in the military. They are glad to fight to the last kid of the mudanes that are bitter clingers that didn't do well in College, or didn't go at all (to use your Buddy Kerry's language, which, like it or not is yours). people like you aren't worth the bones of one US Infantryman. Your language marks you as scum.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:30PM

Q.....the majority of just about every social, political or economic group one can name hasn't served. not a very meaningful distinction.

I'm pleased you feel that way. No doubt...had you served in my command...I would have quickly observed your ability to deal with foreign ideas, your emotional maturity, your ability to support the unit in spite of your personal beliefs.

Please apprise me: how should I judge you relative to the standards your Service presumably holds you to?

You also might take the time to address your proclivity to jump to conclusions. I served a full career in the military, conducted my life in consonance with my principles - never deviating, and can match your conservative "credentials" lever pull for lever pull.

there's no dishonor in being aggressive. but learn to do it smartly man. otherwise, whether you realize it or not, you're just a tool of the larger forces manipulating you.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:32PM

@carnot:

"on another tangent.....I hope you do realize...that if Paul runs as an independent and secures Obama's reelection...not only will he be marginalized further than he already is.....but he will be hated and vilified by millions who will hold him responsible. moreover, I am willing to bet, he will undermine any chance his son has to run for major office."

Thanks. I hadn't considered that.

I guess means I should just wait around and vote for whomever "the establishment" tells me can win.

Please let me know when it's been decided.

I'd hate to vote my convictions; I'd much rather worry about pissing off people orchestrating their own political suicide.

Sounds EXACTLY like "one man, one vote" was intended... was the ending of that... "as long as the establishment likes your candidate."

I'd love to know how any of the Republican candidates will be a scintilla different than Obama.

Obama and McCain: NDAA and SOPA

Obama and Romney top contributors...

Obama’s top 20 list included:

Goldman Sachs ($1,013,091)
JPMorgan Chase & Co ($808,799)
Citigroup Inc ($736,771)
WilmerHale LLP ($550,668)
Skadden, Arps et al ($543,539)
UBS AG ($532,674), and...
Morgan Stanley ($512,232).

Romney's top contributors:

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $195,250
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
Price Waterhouse Coopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500

Yep, I can see how electing ANYONE but Obama is CRITICAL.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:50PM

welllllll

- the quoted paragraph was about Paul...not you. but the response is revealing just the same

- yes...you're a principled guy. I have no grounds for doubting you. Here's a hint.....those who support other candidates...many of them are principled as well. Really! Paulistas don't hold a monopoly on virtue.

- that's an impressive list of Romney contributors! I'm happy these decision-makers care enough to fund an opposition candidate. you may want to consider the proposition that Paul isn't nearly as successful for several reasons: shoot self in foot syndrome, the perception that he can't lead, the notion that he isn't up to the task - like Obama there's no legislative track record to suggest otherwise.

I get it....any other candidate than Ron Paul is an automatic clone of his predecessor. not much room for the "serious"" discussion you want to hold. and no doubt you know with ineluctable certainty that the current target de jours, Romney, will be entirely corrupt and unable to resist the magnetic influence of all his benefactors. Paul, on the other hand, won't have to cut any deals and make any compromises in order to realize his agenda were he elected. he's possessed of this magical spirit! he'll arrive on scene..sprinkle magic Paul dust...and..all by his lonesome...the various opposing interests and outwardly hostile critics will line up and submit. cuz we all know......the massive changes Mr Paul promises to make won't create any political opposition! his natural charm will win the day! he will never have to deal with hard political realities and the dirt that he obviously was so successful at managing throughout his Congressional ersatz voting exercises.

All these cats...including Paul....are into some real money compared to you and me. I'll take the measure of the man and worry about the contributors later.

guarantee you this....were I confronted with an Obama/Paul choice..I would pull the lever for Paul without thinking twice.

You know....adhering to first principles is vital. but it's not a binary decision space. There is margin. You may also want to stop and consider that the war is won over a series of battles. Are you wedded to a set of principles or to Mr Paul?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:03AM

I am wedded to turning back the tides that oppose liberty.

I am absolutely (currently) convinced that Paul is the only candidate currently running that has so uniquely demonstrated a true commitment to liberty and the Constitution.

I, honestly, have little faith that THIS TIME AROUND he will prevail.

But, I am hopeful that he has helped to spark a movement that will continue to grow and blossom into something truly monumental.

So, if he loses, I will re-direct my energy into "plan B" which will be working with other like-minded people to continue the movement towards liberty.

I am not being snarky or sarcastic or anything when I say that I SINCERELY believe that no other candidate has demonstrated (to me) that he is worthy of such a mantle... and... specifically... I'm not persuaded that it matters if we replace Obama with Romney.

If we had McCain right now, we probably would have had SOPA and the NDAA quicker.

If it's possible for you to answer me as a human...

Please tell me who these other people are?

How have they demonstrated it?

Exactly how would a Republican stooge be even marginally better for the cause of liberty than Obama?

And, please... remember...

From Reagan in 84... through W (both times) AND McCain, I've NEVER voted for anyone BUT a Republican... I'm NOT a commie/libertine/leftist.

I'm a conservative Christian that is tired of being lied to...

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:46PM

btw...on second look...the answer is...no. you support the guy you believe in and then when the decision is made...you support it. otherwise....you violate the integrity of the process, you make a mockery of yourselves....and most critically...you have no leg to stand on should any of us decide not to act with honor during a Paul Presidency.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:28AM

Not how you employ the words so sell the dissembling obfuscation to someone else.

You use them as clubs to substitute for real thinking and analysis. the more I read your posts...the clearer it becomes...if you will excuse my French...that you don't have a f'ing clue how things work! there....the escalated response you've been searching for!

at the end of the day....you're no different from any of the other Paulistas.......constantly on the attack...always in the rarified airs of grand...and very often simplistic....principle. from what I can infer from how you people think, marshall ideas, interact....you couldn't manage your way out of paper bag.

break. break.

AMSPEC...someone on staff...a real investigative journalist...needs to author a piece on what a Paul Presidency would really look like. A piece that builds an administration from the personality types we see daily on this blog; a piece that extrospects on what the actual deployment of a Paul administration would look like; a piece that speculates on outcomes, costs and, most especially, concrete details and events....; a piece that projects who would populate a Paul administration, what happens to people impacted by his policies, exactly who would be charged with defining, monitoring and enforcing his policies; a piece that examined probable difficulties with Congress and likely legal challenges.......in short all things that would make it nearly impossible for an individual with no real allies and broadbased support....to succeed.

think of it as a learning exercise. maybe even a use case analysis.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:21PM

@carnot:

Your response here is both disappointing and (relative to you) telling. For a brief moment, I thought you could see through your utter hatred for Paul to "be real."

Unlike you, I won't attempt to act as if I can paint all "non Paul fans" with the same brush; I can't. I'll have to assume that all people that don't necessarily agree
with Paul are the same exact demographic mix as Paul supporters... young/old... dumb/smart... lazy/motivated... rich/poor... educated/not educated. I'm not going to make
this assumption because I believe it's necessarily technically correct... just because it makes broad logical/statistical sense and I have no evidence to the contrary.

That said, I think all objective observers CAN make assumptions about YOU and where you're coming from and YOUR willingness/non willingness to "engage" with others vs.
pontificate.

I am sincerly disappointed in your response because I had (wrongly) sensed that you and I were breaking through the snarkiness to achieve some level of actual discourse and
that we BOTH were going to try to listen and engage...

Oh well, life is full of good and bad surprises.

Now, before I address your screed... let me say this...

Can I be snarky? Sure. But I have worked very hard to not make PERSONAL attacks, name call or assume that people that don't agree with me fall into some definable personality
profile. Hey... is it possible that "thinking/caring people might disagree?" Guess not. If someone disagrees with you (to be more accurate; agrees with Paul) they are
OBVIOUSLY a "fill in the blanks with your arm-chair psychoanalysis efforts." In addition to your military career, are you now, also claiming an advanced degree in Psychology, as well?

I did my absolute best (with YOU, in the above comment, with others in most all comments) to be "real" and open and honest about my motivations, feelings AND where I had no freaking
clue if I was right or wrong.

Please give me an example of where in your NON defense/NON promotion of NOTHING (except against Paul) you have done the same?

So, as a person, I'm sad that I misread that you had the capability to drop the BS pontificating and try to engage/communicate. My bad.

It's amusing that, especially regarding the above comment, you lit into me with your vitriol... because, essentially, I was BEGGING you to share with me an alternative to the
false ideas/hopes you claim I have.

I admitted that I wasn't super confident that Paul was actually going to beat the establishment... this time around... and that I HONESTLY/SINCERELY had certain PERCEPTIONS...

Furthermore I tried to give you the hint that I am not a 22 year old OWS/commie/pinko/leftist/athiest/philistine... but, instead a middle-aged, Christian that, until recently,
considered himself a solid Republican.

Given that your (and many other's here) seem to be trying to persuade "Paulites" that it is evil to consider NOT supporting the establishment pick for the GOP because it will
help get Obama a second term... this was your "soft ball opportunity" to explain to me (and other "Paulites") exactly why we are so silly and evil to not give a damn if Obama is
replaced with the other establishment stooge. My take is that there are MANY other formerly life-long Republicans that feel exactly the same way right now.... so, you and the other
"anyone but Paul" advocates, if you TRULY give a damn (like you say you do) have a responsibility to engage and persuade, no?

If you SERIOUSLY beleive that a 2nd Obama term is equivalent to "the end of days" and that we must do EVERYTHING to defeat him... how does this NOT put some responsibility on YOU
and the others in your camp?

I am here, being open, honest and showing all warts and doubts about my candidate and my reasoning...because I am doing SOMETHING (as insignificant as it may be) to help persuade others
to what I see as "the cause of liberty."

The GOP is in serious trouble if I'm not fooling myself about being being part of a LARGE group of formerly committed Republicans that, NOW, don't give two shits about "The Party" and aren't
at all buying the "Our establishment stooge is better than the evil Democrats establishment stooge" line of BS.

They are REALLY in trouble if people like you don't have the energy/conviction to actually engage/persuade and STAND FOR SOMETHING.

Make your case (please).

Convince me and all of the other retarded "Paulites" why we need to believe that a 2nd term for Obama is "the end of days."

IF you are standing FOR SOMETHING instead of just poking people that like Paul... you might actually consider doing this.

"Not how you employ the words so sell the dissembling obfuscation to someone else."

This is awful conspiratorial for someone accusing Paul supporters of wearing tin foil hats.

Hey, maybe you hadn't noticed, but you and I are engaging in an open forum where every one can see all of our comments. You and I weren't communicating via private messaging.

So, my openness and sincere desire to hear your explaination of where I was going wrong was done IN THE OPEN, along with the several other comments I made in which I admitted
that I "DONT KNOW EVERYTHING" and that "I HAVE NO FREAKING CLUE."

So, unless you feel there's a "Carnot fan club" here that only reads exchanges you are involved in... it would be hard to dissemble and obsfucate in one place and not another.

"You use them as clubs to substitute for real thinking and analysis. the more I read your posts...the clearer it becomes...if you will excuse my French...that
you don't have a f'ing clue how things work! there....the escalated response you've been searching for!"

Guess what? You might be absolutely correct. Let me state very clearly... I might be completely wrong. Now. enlighten me why..... Make your case...

In the posts where you tried to give the impression that you were doing this, it was still, 100% anti Paul BS. You were asking me questions that Paul's secretary of the Interior still
wouldn't know. You have YET to state an opposing case.

For example, since neither you nor I (I don't believe) are paid to figure out the billion effects that bringing back the troops would have, in detail (would you like me to commission
some sort of transporation estimate from a shipping company? "I estimate that bringing back 40, 000 troops will cost approximately $5k per soldier and this will effect the availablilty
of shipping containerage by 46%")... but you and I ARE capable of engaging on the broader issue?

Did your litany of "Faux questions" about "details" imply that you don't support bringing back all of the troops?

If not, why?

What effects do YOU think it will have? Then we can engage.

"at the end of the day....you're no different from any of the other Paulistas.......constantly on the attack...always in the rarified airs of grand...and very
often simplistic....principle. from what I can infer from how you people think, marshall ideas, interact....you couldn't manage your way out of paper bag."

Hey... this stuff means much to me; it's not about partisan horse races. I REALLY believe the shit has hit the fan and that our liberties are under attack. So, if I'm wrong and you
can straighten me out (minimally relieve my concerns) you'd be helping me out.

So, here's an idea...

When you and all of the rabid anti-Paul people are done spouting off about how it's all because of Pot... or gay marriage... or because we're young... or dumb... maybe YOU guys could try
to (as your responsibility as a citizen) move onto some real discussion that might persuade us? Please? Really.... I'm begging you. If my support of Paul is destroying liberty and is immoral...
persuade me... please!

"AMSPEC...someone on staff...a real investigative journalist...needs to author a piece on what a Paul Presidency would really look like. A piece that builds
an administration from the personality types we see daily on this blog; a piece that extrospects on what the actual deployment of a Paul administration would
look like; a piece that speculates on outcomes, costs and, most especially, concrete details and events....; a piece that projects who would populate a Paul
administration, what happens to people impacted by his policies, exactly who would be charged with defining, monitoring and enforcing his policies; a piece that
examined probable difficulties with Congress and likely legal challenges.......in short all things that would make it nearly impossible for an individual with no
real allies and broadbased support....to succeed.

think of it as a learning exercise. maybe even a use case analysis."

To my knowledge (and please...if I'm wrong... enlighten me...), Paul has received very positive feedback, even from establishment sources for being the ONLY GOP candidate to have, in some
detail and specificity, lay out his budget plan. He wants to cut $1T from the base line... not just from proposed increases.

Since any "investigative journalism" on such topics would be speculation, at best, wouldn't it be fair to compare candidates based on, at this point, if they have actually proposed SPECIFICS?

ENOUGH!| 1.14.12 @ 8:30PM

@carnot

You are annoying to read. Instead of staying in a respectable debate mode, you attack people and groups, using straw-man approach to avoid actually responding to the questions asked of you in pursuit of developing argument.

Frankly, I'm impressed by Robert (Pennsylvania)'s and others' tenacity and earnestness to stick with you in a debate. I'm not convinced it's worth it. I want to read opinions on the issues not your scathing remarks and judgments on people and supporters of X or Y.

You denigrate this debate forum.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:38PM

Your country's (Israel) enemies aren't ours.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:46PM

Nah. Never have been. That whole Babary War thing was because of Isra.... oh, wait.

Idiot.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:51PM

that's true.

swiftly...you are becoming the enemy.

PolishKnight| 1.10.12 @ 2:24PM

Happy New Year, OC.

I don't view Islamicism as that much of a threat TO THE USA. A few buildings and a few planes have been destroyed. People have hyper-active notions of air travel safety (they expect it to be perfect while they happily drive 75 in the snow to get to the airport.) Islamicism is more of a threat, indirectly, in terms of cultural impact: As the left has created a sentiment of anti-Europeanism (anti-white males) in the USA and this has spread to Europe which now is almost self-hating, Islamacism is simply moving in to fill the void. It's like the left put out a "hate the USA and Europe" invitation and they answered the call.

Millions of Americans dead? Not very likely unless they set off a nuke (possible) but a vast military isn't going to address that particular threat. All that money could better be spent on border control and intelligence but in the latter, the left wants open borders to bring in more voters and the right loves cheap lawncare. So sending mo' troops overseas presumably to go after Iran isn't going to solve the issue. And if Iran has a nuke, forget it. Conventional military can't do anything that won't be trumped. That's why getting nukes is such a game changer.

BulletGibson| 1.10.12 @ 5:04PM

EEEEEEEEEK! The Iranians is comin! Everyone run for the hills! They have TWO FRIGATES AND FOUR WHOLE DESTROYERS!!!!! SAVE me Washington D.C.!!!! Please take care of me! Only the politicians can save us now!!!!!
Wuss.
I support the troops, and they support Ron Paul.
Don't worry, as you get older they will get hair on em and you won't be so SKEERED all the time.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:54PM

gee wilikers Mr WIlson...do you have a "I support the troops" bumper sticker? your the best.

Please stop tossing the "military supports Paul" nonsense. I know plenty who do not. I live in a military community. I served for 21 years. what the F did you do? for that matter...what the F did Paul do as a flight surgeon. I'm always tempted to ask...would Paul have volunteered ha he not been drafted? I think we all know the answer to that question.

so please....leave the military out of it. that institution doesn't have the coherent, community wide view you are suggesting.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:21PM

Yeah I just bet you served. Your language does not reflect the soberness of man who has served. You have marked yourself as a Neocon.

We've got a couple others that make the same type of claim you make. They too speak the same kind of language that will throw a life away without the slightest thought. I served (during Vietnam and I volunteered to go, but was not sent),as has my son (in Iraq), and my family served in every conflict in this country, and since the US established. going back to 1649 when the progenitor first came ashore in Maine. Empire has never been for us, and certainly not the incompetent form that is now being attempted.

Crawl back under your flat rock and stay there.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:00AM

I flew off some of the finest CVs and CVNs the Navy has to offer!

you need to get a hold of yourself man. how could anyone ever rely on you in battle? you can't even control your emotions in a silly blog. you leap to all sorts of generalizations...well...let me correct that...what you really do is trot out all your own bigotries......without any effort to get at the truth. you don't know me from Adam.

I'll spare you the cheap shot of marking my career of service against yours since you were at least honest enough to share the facts. it's irrelevant anyway. get a hold of yourself....figure out where the real center of gravity is.....and don't waste so much energy spitballing people you neither understand or know.

Hobbes| 1.12.12 @ 9:46AM

Yes, all the markings of a vile NeoCon chickenhawk.

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:00PM

Paul's foreign policy might have worked 50 years ago. It won't now, alas. FDR combined with Truman, LBJ and the Neocons have already seen to that. I doubt, however, we will be able to have any other foreign policy, however, as the fake two party Republicrats have already seen that we are going in the tank economically. We will see what I've been saying for years. To have a strong defense and foreign policy, you must have a strong economy to back it up. We don't, and it is unlikely we will see one in the next 30 years. Worse, we won't be left alone for it either.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:02AM

yes...a strong economy is vital. how do you propose we restore former glories?

Steve| 1.14.12 @ 11:49AM

It is not that all the other candidates are "forcing their views on anyone" as you suggest. No. It is the fact that all the policies they advocate are/will be forced on us at the point of a gun. Your time, and that of the writer here, is over. You are part of the old print and spend Keynesian totalitarian perpetual war murdering machine that thinks you know better how to manage our lives than we do. We don't want the state to look after us. And as these leviathans known as the state implode worldwide, so will you, just like all prehistoric relics from the past did.

Peace be with you.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 8:54AM

"I, as one of these youngsters so disrespectfully referenced in this article"

"I'm a full blown leftist demi"

"Btw Marxism is being pushed by us young folk"

And you support Ron Paul.

The young and the dumb for Ron Paul! Along with the anti-Semites, the Israel haters, and the drooling old fools like Jackass.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 9:41AM

"Young and dumb"? That's cute. Israel can and has defended themselves. We've given them enough of our hard earned money and weapons. That isn't an anti-Semitic statement. The author attacked Ron Paul supporters.... young and old. We aren't the world police. I refuse to donate my taxes to people who wish to murder for religious reasons. Which is what defending Israel entails. Sure, stand up for what's right, but don't propagate the ideology that war is the answer. That's what is leading us to imminent demise. If you don't understand what I'm referring to in marxism you shouldn't attempt to comment on it. Income inequality will cause a separation in this country between new emerging classes.(example) OCCUPY...The 99%.... Please read up before you attack me. I have no problem defending myself against people like you. So you don't believe in welfare or entitlements to a certain degree, I assume, but going around the world handing out our lives, money, and weapons is okay. Get a grip.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:19AM

Ron Paul is also the only GOP candidate who doesn't think government should be in our bedrooms.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 10:21AM

You categorized yourself as young, and stated that you are a "high school dropout". So maybe the comment should be "the young and the ignorant".

Can you name any society where there is no income inequality? At least in our capitalist society, or what is left of it after the government interference, the lower income levels have a decent standard of living.

Do you know that world-wide, 50% of the top 1% income earners live in the US? So world-wide, at least, you may be a 1%-er!

Seems to me what we have here works pretty damned well. We just need to get rid of Obama to save what we have.

My problem with your line of thought is that Marxism does not work, never has, never will.

I'll ask you again, like I did further down the post.
Can you name one place where Marxism has worked? Or are you of the school of thought that you are so much smarter than everyone else who tried it, that you can make it work?

Answer please!

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 10:32AM

@ Chuck...Name one place it was put in effect

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 11:32AM

A few places tried, but failed miserably, because it runs against human nature.

Marxism does not work, and I really don't mean to be rude, or arrogant, but, just damn. If you go around espousing Marxism, you just come off as a dumbass.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 11:50AM

@chuck:

I am NOT (in any way) a Marxist.

But, please (please) attempt to back up your rhetoric with something other than ad hominem. It makes you sound like an unserious person.

I completely AGREE with your rationale that we should evaluate the historical success of Marxism and it is one of the reasons that I would dismiss it, personally, as a viable approach.

And, along those lines, I think that a SOLID case could be made that (in the past) the free market, capitalistic approach to economics was a glorious success. But...

As Ben Franklin said to a woman about our democratic republic when she asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”... He said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

We can't buy into the BS that our past ALWAYS equals our present or future.

Yes, our free market approach DID make us great.

The real question is...

Is what we have now anything remotely like what it was?

I'm an entrepreneur. I have no real complaints at my level, in reality. But, it's still pretty obvious to me that, at the macroeconomic level, we live in a corporate oligarchy.

Banks and businesses survive on the government teat (especially the larger ones) and then, when they make horribly silly mistakes, come to us, the taxpayers to "bail them out."

How is that free market?

I hope, if I start to falter in my business, I'll be able to have the taxpayers bail me out. Oh.. that probably won't happen will it. Why?

Because I can't donate hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to BOTH of the status quo parties... just to hedge my bets... in case I need some "bailing."

Chuck... can you honestly tell me that you believe what we have today is the same free market system you are wishing we had... or, possibly.... used to have?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:02PM

Ahhh, and the Palestinians wish to kill for what reasons, then, young fool.

Marxism is an ideology which has killed tens of millions. No wonder Paulbots support it.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:08PM

"Marxism is an ideology which has killed tens of millions. No wonder Paulbots support it."

In this example, I've seen evidence that ONE PERSON who supports Paul also supports Marxism.

Any chance you could provide some evidence that Dr. Paul's stances do?

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 1:10PM

Going to war for equality seems about right...but that wasn't really their goal eh? So marxism didn't kill people...people killed people.......A normal occurrence that happens all over the globe every day for no reason....You could relate at least 70 percent of heart attacks to capitalism directly by that same philosophy so basically that's killed roughly 16 800 000 people since 1970 not even including wars over oil....So don't play this game.......Palestinians were forced out of their homeland...kind of like we did to the Native Americans except they added the religion clause to the contracts...OH WAIT so did we...Manifest Destiny.... Way to spout nonsense

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:10PM

@Occam's Tool:

Why throw out the Palestinians?

Is the label Palestinian equal to "less than human" and in capable of consideration in any way?

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.11.12 @ 6:05AM

Why, yes. "Palestinian" IS equal to "Less than Human". It could be used to describe something that is "Less than an Animal".

Unless I'm mistaken. Even Animals don't strap bombs on their own CHILDREN.

Wouldn't you agree?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:45PM

@Timothy L. Pennell:

No. I don't.

I find it interesting that those (even on the right) that are trying to use the newsletter issue against Paul because they are "racist" are capable of writing... "Palestinian" IS equal to "Less than Human" at the same time.

I'll tell you this much...

I am about to have my 18 year old join the Navy and I consider it a noble thing and I fully support him, but, in a way, I am (metaphorically) "strapping a bomb on my child" by NOT dissuading him from doing so.

Most patriotic citizens assume that when our children join the military to defend our nation they are offering themselves up for destruction in the pursuit of our defense and liberty... no?

So, when we let them go... are we not offering them up, as well?

I can tell you this...

If there was an occupying force in my town and my son and I were battling that occupying force, I would see his sacrifices/risks against this occupying force as being EXACTLY the same as what is is doing in joining the Navy.

Would you agree?

All you and I disagree about (I think) is whether Israel is an occupying force.

If they are... or if the Palestinians sincerely believe they are... what they are doing to resist the occupying force is NO different than what we do when we send off our sons and daughters to serve in our defense.

The only way you can put a "those animals strap bombs on their children because their evil" spin on things is if you would HONESTLY not allow your children to risk/fight for OUR liberty/defense.

Unless you are implying that using homemade bombs (all they have) is less moral than using drones from a distance...

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:24AM

@Chuck:

What makes you believe these things?

Have you done any research on these issues OUTSIDE of what the establishment Republican candidates and the mainstream media are telling you?

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 11:43AM

Robert,

I know many people support Paul, and like any one with a national following, there will be kooks and nutcases in the entourage. I don't mean to disparage all Paul supporters, but you have to admit that he has more than his fair share of the anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel voters. Why is this? And given that Paul did not write his own newsletters, why are the people around Paul making the comments like those found in the newsletters?

I really like Paul's domestic agenda. It's where classic conservatism meets libertarianism. Paul's right in saying that the Federal government has grown way outside of it's constitutional restraints, and needs to be slashed, burned, chopped, and sliced.

I just don't trust his judgment on foreign policy. I'm not for endless wars, I'm for going into places only as a last resort, only if our national safety or interests are threatened, or if our allies are threatened. Then go in, get the job done, and get out. Use massive force, eliminate the threat, and go home. We've lost our way as a nation in this regard. I can understand Paul's position, but like anyone that is too wed to his ideological position, he goes too far in it.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 12:31PM

There will be kooks and nutcases in the entourage. I don't mean to disparage all Paul supporters, but you have to admit that he has more than his fair share of the anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel voters. Why is this?

Chuck, first, thanks for the respectful/thoughtful response.

An observation...

You are conflating "kooks and nutcases" with anyone that isn't unquestioningly in support of sending foreign aid to Israel and, in a knee jerk manner, willing to consider Israel's defense equivalent to our own? Here's where I'll agree with you. It is true that most of the "LOUD" truly kooky anti-Israel and "anti-semitic" activists are more than willing to make it clear that they support Dr. Paul. Personally, I believe that this has much more to do with his stances on personal liberty and civil liberties than anything else. If you are honest, most of these truly horrible people (unfortunately) are also pretty focused on the "big bad government is going to come take away my guns" type thinking... no? I seriously doubt that any of these people are supporting Dr. Paul because he wants to reduce foreign aid (including to Israel). And, since I believe that a free society will include the freedom of nutty people to express their opinions, I am not opposed to them supporting Dr. Paul; I see it as a recognition of his positive support of liberty... not any bad reflection on his opinions about Israel.

With my life-long back round as an evangelical Christian, I know, more than most, what it means to feel the need to be "pro Israel." For most of my life, I've been in a family and churches where it was an assumption that "good Christians" supported "God's chosen people." And, to some extent, I still believe that this is true, but probably more from a personal angle, as opposed to a national one. And, if I'm going to be honest (if most evangelicals would be honest) this whole "support of Israel" is kinda kooky, itself, when you pull back the covers. MOST of the evangelicals I knew/know were gung ho in supporting Israel PRIMARILY because it quickened the end times and the return of Jesus. This would be fine, if they were honest about the fact that this ALSO means that all of those Jews that they are "supporting," if they don't accept Jesus as their saviour, will be DESTROYED during these "end times." I don't know if you are an evangelical... but if you are... and you deny this... you are being disingenous. I have 40 plus years of Christian upbringing/friends/theology (including a Christian high school education) that tell me otherwise.

So, all of that to say...

Yes, I agree some kooks and bigots like Dr. Paul's stance on liberty and support him.

But, not everyone that isn't blindly on the pro Israel (to the exclusion of all other concerns) band wagon is (in any real way) "anti" Israel or "anti" semitic.

By the way, "semitic" includes both Jews and Muslims... but I digress.

And, in some ways (if you don't let the people screaming "Paul's a kook" stop you from hearing what he ACTUALLY says), there is a good case to be made that his stances are as PRO Israel as
you can get...

Here's an example....

Paul says he is against ALL foreign aid, including to Israel.

This draws accusations of being anti Israel and anti semitic.

But, do you realize that, if we stopped ALL foreign aid, we'd actually be moving Israel AHEAD in the equation?

Currently, we DO give Israel approximately 3B in yearly foreing aid. But, guess what? We also give approximately TEN TIMES THAT AMOUNT to their enemies which seriously complicates matters, doesn't it?

So, what's more Pro Israel ending All foreign aid (including the 30B we give to their enemies) or continuing the silly strategy we currently employ?

Also, Paul is the only (or one of the only) people to have SUPPORTED Israel's right to bomb Iraq's nuclear facilities. He believes that Israel has the right to make it's own decisions. Many of the establishment "supporters" of Israel feel that they need to get our permission to act. Which is really more PRO Israel?

"And given that Paul did not write his own newsletters, why are the people around Paul making the comments like those found in the newsletters?"

If you are going to continue to make the newsletters an issue, please, at least, do some research on the reality of the situation. Search "Ben Swann Ron Paul Newsletters" for one.

That said, it would be fair to say that the actually offensive material was approximately several hundred words in tens (or hundreds) of thousands of words found in the 200 plus newsletters that were published. I'm not making excuses for the actually bad stuff and even Paul has said that him not catching them was a bad reflection on him. I'm simply saying that you can only use the newsletters as a reason to dismiss him IF you really want to (no matter what) and you IGNORE his 73 years of actions.

Again, I think most of the "nuts" "kooks" and "bigots" that support Paul can be explained by the fact that they, like me (and you?) desire personal liberty. What they, I or you do want to do with that liberty doesn't really reflect on Dr. Paul, does it?

"I really like Paul's domestic agenda. It's where classic conservatism meets libertarianism. Paul's right in saying that the Federal government has grown way outside of it's constitutional restraints, and needs to be slashed, burned, chopped, and sliced."

Cool. We're partially there....

I'm truly appreciative of your open and honest tone in this...

And, frankly, outside of the "he's too extreme and dangerous memes" in the above paragraph... Dr. Paul could have written it. You are saying, I agree with everything he says... and everything he's demonstrated in thirty plus years of ACTIONS... but he's "too extreme."

What are the specific things he's actually said/done that you find dangerous? Why would you not trust him? Because he's unwilling to pander to you/us by cranking up a Toby Keith tune and talking about kicking some Muslim ass? Because (and I know you didn't say this)... most every person calling him crazy/dangerous is doing it based on the emotional reaction to his willingness to NOT tow the simplistic "We'll just kick their ass before they kick ours" BS.

Like I mentioned earlier, that would be fine... if we were talking about Grenada... or Iraq. We're not. We're talking about the real potential for WORLD WAR 3 with Russia and CHINA.

And, I'd love to know how we finance a war against our biggest debtor (CHINA).

See, IMHO, Paul is the only one NOT tossing out jingoistic, emotional stuff.

But, what do I know?

I bought a bunch of BS from the "establishment" in the past 46 years.... I could be wrong again.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 1:43PM

Robert,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear from a Paul supporter who can thoughtfully article their opinions.

We probably agree on more than we disagree, and if it wasn't for this entire problem with radical Islam, I would probably support Paul.

What part of PA you from? I grew up in Lancaster, left there 35 years ago.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:09PM

@Chuck:

I live West of Pittsburgh, near the airport.

NO... THANK YOU.

I passionately desire freedom and liberty for our nation (More than the election of Ron Paul).

I hope that, one way or the other, that isn't a kooky pipe dream.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:01PM

and do you have any REAL intelligence on threats to the US? certainly...you don't believe the same newspapers and media you claim are distorting the real persona of your chosen one?

so cmon...spit it out: names, organizations, locations, INTENT, logistics, training, inter-relationships, covert nation state backing, weapons. you all have a policy.....by all means back it up with A REAL, VERIFIED THREAT ASSESSMENT. then...we can get to the follow-on discussion about interests, values and risks....cuz I don't many share common ground with you there either.

Make money not war. got it. check. deep. a twist, I suppose, on sidewalk art from the 60s!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:13PM

@carnot:

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

"Make money not war. got it. check. deep. a twist, I suppose, on sidewalk art from the 60s!"

I was four years old during "the summer of love" so I doubt most would call me a hippie.

Are you saying that anyone that (even slightly) resists the push to war is, somehow, a hippie?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:00PM

nope. I was making fun of the simplicity of the Paul position. it completely disregards the complexity of global relationships, it is void of any real threat analysis, has no real goals/strategy associated with it. "I'm gonna take all my toys home and tend to the corner store" is not a strategy. I get the reactionary component to two mismanaged wars. But a reaction is not equivalent to a strategy that identifies interests, requirements, goals, means and methods." it's simply sandbox whining.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:06PM

I know the Paulistas so well...I have run across them my entire life.

1) they are bright

2) they are successful in a specific field of endeavor

3) they are unfamiliar with, are not trained in, and have not been educated to wrestle with ideas that fall outside the bounds of their specific, narrow areas of expertise. so...they pick up ideas on the fly...read a few books here and there.....but lack the one ingredient that pushed them to success in their chosen areas: real experience, time in the trenches learning, knowledge of the systems they want to change.

4) I suspect that they lack leadership skills as well....but can imagine hoe success in their disciplines have led to a certain degree of command authority. but not the kind of leadership skills that transcend their immediate community (i.e., it's shared culture) into broader, much more highly diverse environments.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:13PM

@carnot:

Wow, I wish I was that good at figuring out millions of "Romneyists" or "Gingrichists" or "Perryists."

Obviously, just by supporting a candidate you can be put into one big obvious character type...

LOL

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:10AM

yea....I did let loose the bonds of discretion. just some extrapolation on patterns I have observed. you're right...much like neocon chickenhawks...I have no real empirical foundation for characterizing millions of Paul applauders.

Paulistas do appear to draw the worst out of folks at times. what can I say?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:38PM

@carnot:

It must be REALLY complicated.

Instead of trying to give us a general idea, you've spent hundreds of words being rude and ornery.

And we're the negative ones?

I have much HOPE that liberty will prevail.

I'm hoping that after we extinguish the Caliphate, we won't have to move onto angry hordes of pissed off monkeys or whatever else the neocons have decided will rile you and Toby Keith up about...

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:14AM

uh oh. you're slipping there brother.

why not affirm the obvious? your and other Paulista's use of neocon, Israel lover, etc., serves similar purposes to throwing the N word in other contexts. it's a tactic....I get it. not very elevated...but a tactic.

crookedwren| 1.10.12 @ 9:48AM

Another "victory" here for our educational system. You have been perfectly indoctrinated and thus are part of the glorious neo-Bolshevik evolution that will complete what Lenin and Dewey and Hiss and so many others helped to begin.

You'll sputter about how you are one of the enlightened, internet-self-educated drop outs and thus could not possibly be considered one of the so-called "progressive" academic victories.

Oh, but you are. They need you to be one of the "workers of the world," ready to unite with others who think exactly as you do. They've taught you to think this way.

In this world, right now, there is a woman attending college right now who is promising to return to some crowded place someday, some public place, with hidden explosives strapped to her and a detonator (only this time, she'll be praying it actually detonates), hoping to kill Jews and Christians and atheists and agnostics and as many infidels as she possibly can.

Atheists are infidels, too.

She's not really a "live and let live" kind of gal. She's not quite as tolerant as those Christians and Jews who, while they may make a law or two you find a bit restrictive, refuse to stone women who commit adultery, refuse to torment and disfigure homosexuals, etc.

You are living in a world where a devoted twelver, one that the Ayatollah Khomeini believed to be too radical(!), is about to get a nuke. And your President Paul would stand back and say "good for Iran." Well, perhaps. Now that twelver, so powerful in Iran, has sworn to rid Israel of Jews.

And Israel is considered by him as the "little Satan." The US is called the "Big Satan."

I have a suggestion. Start reading some books for that education you are giving yourself. Try Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and Whittaker Chambers' "Witness."

You mention raising taxes and cutting spending. In the hands of government, the two are mutually exclusive. California continues to raise taxes. The govt. always spends that much and more. Every time. They don't cut spending until it's too late.

Your progressive Dems have been in charge of Detroit for decades. The city looks like Eastern Europe before the Wall came down. They have made it look like a Third World country.

The CONSERVATIVES are saying that this government can't HANDLE more tax increases.

And what the true conservatives are saying is that more revenue will be created by permitting businesses to flourish -- through less government regulation and interference -- and with a DECREASE in corporate taxes.

The US has a corporate tax rate that far exceeds that of other countries. It's one of the reasons businesses are leaving our shores.

If you want your children to have a future, think about CUTTING those tax rates, keeping businesses here, creating jobs.

Hint: govt. doesn't do a great job at creating jobs.

Educate yourself on the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union. Educate yourself on Cuba.

Hint: If you read progressive apologists, you won't get the part you need to hear: how those economies don't work for anyone but the ruling elite.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 10:19AM

I've got a book for you... Try reading (The Siege of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam's Holiest Shrine and the Birth of al-Qaeda) Maybe it will give you a little insight because it isn't bias....It merely presents the information for you to take. Not everyone in the middle east is radical. Iraq and Iran can't start world war 3 because they can't even govern their own countries. We have what we call separation of church and state in this country. Me and mine hold this pretty dear. It's a choice they will eventually come to. If not...we'll take their immigrants happily with a quick background check. :) For the record when I said "high school dropout" I mean I graduated through a program 2 years early obtaining my high school diploma. 3 years later they lost accreditation. Ruining my chances for college which I hadn't quite saved the money up for, working my measly 7.25 an hour job at burger king................ North Korea has nukes. ...................... Cutting taxes comes after we pay back our debt. What sense would it make if you refinanced your home from a 30 yr to a 50 yr? Where does this logic spur from? " I want to hand over my debt to my children because we can't pay for it." Yes we can. Americans have to learn to be more fiscally responsible. This is part of that responsibility. I'll tell you what makes companies want to create new business in places. RIGHT TO WORK not lower taxes....It's the legality issues that hinder their ability to make money. Businesses leave this country because of labor costs....NOT TAX RATES they just want to slip that in while they're negotiating and I won't tolerate that nonsense..........Read this article if you dare...http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 10:27AM

"I mean I graduated through a program 2 years early obtaining my high school diploma. 3 years later they lost accreditation"

I'm calling BULLSHIT on this one. If it was an accredited program when you graduated, then it follows that you have a valid diploma.

My son graduated from a private high school (his education was well worth the $14,000 a year a shelled out), which went out of business a year after he finished. His Diploma is still valid, as yours should be.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 10:39AM

@ Chuck..... You are being rude and arrogant. Actually, yes, it's possible. Apparently there was some loophole scheme where you could pull up the answers to the final tests as you were taking them. (Computer based testing)

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 11:28AM

Sorry, I thought you went to a brick and mortar school.
It should be a good lesson for you about trusting what you get over the internet.

Think about that one!

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:51PM

What do ya know I did! Learning how to build a strong foundation for this country.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 1:55PM

Let me try one more time, Ilylial.

You earned your Diploma by working hard for it, taking the classes on the internet, and playing by the rules. Then, what you EARNED, was taken from you, and you're pissed. Rightly so, you did the work, and now you have nothing.

Marxism states "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Under Marxism, you would have earned that Diploma, but it would have been given to the lazy, dope smoker who never attempted to do any work. You would, however, be given to opportunity to earn another Diploma, because you have already shown that you are capable of doing it. Of course, this one would be given away as well.

What would you have to show for all your hard work? Nothing. You work, and work, and work, and it is taken away and given to those who can not(will not) work.

This is the failure of Marxism.

I would recommend you read Atlas Shrugged, but let me summarize the main point of the 1100 page tome:

If you think its bad when people compete to be the best, imagine what it is like when people compete to be the worst.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:04PM

Get your free GED fool.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:05PM

whose being naive now?

WW3? maybe not. killing millions? absolutely. they already have.

But I salute your moral ambivalence! must be grand to be you!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:20PM

@carnot:

"whose being naive now?"

I'm being naive about, specifically what?

"WW3? maybe not. killing millions? absolutely. they already have."

http://english.cri.cn/6909/201.....675612.htm

"China strongly opposes the use of military force against Iran or Syria, a senior diplomat said on Tuesday, warning that a war in the region will be a disaster both on a humanitarian level and for the world economy.

Chen Xiaodong, director-general of the Foreign Ministry's Department of West Asian and North African Affairs, also told China Daily that unilateral sanctions intensify the causes of conflict rather than resolve them.

Chen's remarks come a day after Vice-Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai told China-based foreign reporters that sanctions alone cannot solve the Iran dispute and stressed that normal trade relations and energy cooperation between China and Iran have nothing to do with the nuclear issue.

The diplomats were speaking against the backdrop of rising tension between Iran and the West over the purpose of Teheran's nuclear program."

"But I salute your moral ambivalence! must be grand to be you!"

Where's the ambivalence?

Being anything but unquestioningly PRO WAR (in any scenario) is now considered morally ambivalent?

I thought most people thought war was a bad thing.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:17PM

there are many ways to fight a war.

and you fail to respond to the point I was making: what is the difference between a WWIII and the millions who have been killed by Iraq/Iran already? at some...even isolationist Paulistas must be disturbed by the shere magnitudes involved...."it's their problem" notwithstanding.

let's examine this: pro-war...anti-war. it's empty rhetoric. it's not actionable. it's not even a valid observation on political realities. ask 100 million people if they are pro war and 100 million will answer no. again....it's not a strategy. what follows from "I'm not pro war"?

- never engage in wars regardless?

- engage only when attacked? ok...what constitutes an attack? do you sign mutual defense treaties?

- is there a connection between projecting the other levers of power and the likelihood of war? while withdrawing militarily do you also disengage from all other activities that may lead to conflict?

Look...I can't account for a bunch of twenty-somethings with grand-father complexes. ok. cheap shot. When I pull the curtain...I don't see anything behind it.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:47AM

@crookedwren:

It's ironic that you use the term "neo-Bolshevik" since it seems obvious that you have bought, "hook, line and sinker," what the "neoconservatives" that have hijacked the Republican Party want you to believe.

You realize that they are called "neo" conservatives because they were, originally, socialist leftists, right?

Do you realize that their STATED strategy, for decades now, has been to convince the American public that they must subvert their individual liberties to CONSTANT, ENDLESS WAR with (some) enemy (any enemy will do)?

You realize that the fall of the Berlin wall (an objectively beautiful thing for freedom loving people) was actually considered a "setback" to them because it eliminated a "boogie man" to war against, right?

Do you remember when we were being rallied behind "the freedom fighters" battling the USSR?

Do you know who was leading those "freedom fighters" that we were giving billions of dollars of support/training/weaponry to?

Osama bin Laden.

You realize that, shortly before 911, bin Laden was a CIA asset, right?

You understand that the name "al qaeda" was "given to" bin Laden and the other Islamists by the CIA?

It, essentially, means, "the list," as in "the list of CIA assets used to battle the USSR?"

"Hint: If you read progressive apologists, you won't get the part you need to hear: how those economies don't work for anyone but the ruling elite."

You mean like our current situation in 2010 in the United States?

Do yourself a favor and check out opensecrets.org and peruse the donors for each candidate.

Do you find it, at all, concerning that "the ruling elites" (Goldman Sachs, etc.) are the PRIMARY contributors to both the Democratic and Republican establishment candidates?

Do you not wonder why 94% of the time, the candidate that raises the most money wins?

Does it not concern you that "the ruling elites" fund BOTH sides of the two party system, almost equally, but are still the MAIN contributors?

I'm a small business owner and a life-long advocate of free market capitalism.

The problem is (and maybe you haven't gotten the memo?)... what the establishment (Democrats and Republicans) are trying to continue to foist on us has nothing to do with "free market" anything. It is, as some call it, "crony capitalism" of the worst kind. It is where companies like Goldman Sachs and GE have influencing/relying upon the government as one of their primary "business strategies."

If you can (honestly) look at the biggest financial supporters of Obama, McCain and Romney and see that they are the EXACT same "corporate welfare recipients" that are wrecking true free market ideals... you are just closing your eyes to reality, IMHO.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:02AM

Thank you Robert for your time....I appreciate not being the only one fighting this fight....

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:13PM

shhhh...don't tell anyone...we can stumble our way back to something approaching "free market ideals"...and we don't need a 76 year Gynecologist to get there!

you read like a pamphlet handed out at a political rally: exhorting, not convincing. no depth. MOST OF ALL - NO REAL SOLUTIONS. for example, "make government smaller" isn't a plan - not until we get the details on the implementation and accountability.

just a few goals tucked among all the vitriol - that is Paulism. no wonder you folks inspire such opposition fervor! when examined in detail...there is no there there.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:24PM

@carnot:

Maybe I'm not accomplishing my goal of "engaging reasoned discussion." If so, I apologize.

But I know that I haven't thrown out ANY insults or ad hominem attacks like the ten or twelve you've accomplished in the span of twenty minutes.

Okay... let's talk SOLUTIONS...

What is the topic?

Economy?

Personal liberty?

Foreign policy?

I'd LOVE to (respectfully) banter with you.

You go first...

Pick a topic you care about and I'll (try) to state my understanding of Ron Paul's solution.

Ready.....set....go!

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:29PM

ok. Paul is elected. In his first week he declares he is continuing the drawdown of 400,000+ DoD active duty (and all the contractors, government service, etc. that will be added to the list, he shuts down Education, EPA, Energy, shuts down multiple agencies, severely cuts back DHS ....

- how many people overall get thrown to the curb?

- how are these people going to be transitioned?

- how will the private economy absorb these people?

- where does the money come from to fund the shutdown? it's expensive

- what rights and privileges do these people retain?

- where will Paul propsoe to cut back on the workload so that those left behind to execute "essential" functions aren't overwhelmed.

- how will a man who is not personable lead a government whose morale he has just torpedo'd?

- what happens to all the communities in the DC/MD area?

I'm not arguing that cuts aren't in the off'ing...I'm saying the simple-minded rhetoric has overwhelmed the complexity and human costs involved. and those costs matter. they have to be managed. or is the message that Paul and his followers don't really care?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:33AM

still waiting.....

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:35AM

as I thought....they don't care. details are for others to worry about.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 9:00PM

still waiting....

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:51PM

@carnot:

I addressed these, in general, below.

Of course I have no idea of the specific ramifications of the things you ask about.

Do you?

Are you arguing that, you think, in general, the effects would be negative?

If so, this appears to me like an argument a progressive would make.

You want us to focus on the effects that letting go federal employees would have on the economy?

You are against cutting federal departments because it will damage the local DC economy?

If you stopped trying to avoid actually taking a stand on something I'd be happy to engage on the merits...

Otherwise... it's hard to answer rhetorical questions with non rhetorical answers.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:58PM

no....I'm emphasizing what has been obvious all along.....the Paul crowd is off spouting all sorts of platitudes without any plan of action and no thought at all for consequences. it's all will-o-the-wisp dreaming.

I asked very specific questions.....like most (all?) politicians...chuckle chuckle.....you avoided answering the questions and moved off onto to tangents.

those weren't rhetorical questions. Paul has stated he will shut those departments down. he has stated he favors a large drawdown in the military. well...ok then! it's inherent in the pledge that hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs. what's the plan....man of principle? how's it gonna get done and who is going to make it happen? someone has to plan and execute these massive changes.

you have no clue. and that is one more item in the disturbing facts queue.

It's astounding how you folks advocate for these sweeping changes but have no concept at all of the hows, whens and to whoms! let's apply some common sense here: why should anyone trust a political interest group proposing massive changes...but totally unable to describe the plan and course-of-action thinking?

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 10:06AM

It's instructive to notice how many supporters of Ron Paul voted for Obama the previous election -- or would have, had they been eligible to vote. In each case the candidate proffered simplistic solutions to complex problems -- soothing nostrums that did not and will not work.

I'll say this for Ron Paul, however, he hasn't yet promised to control the level of the oceans nor miscounted the states. Small consolation when stacked against his determination to treat isolationism as a workable solution to foreign menace.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:24AM

If Ron Paul is an isolationist, Santorum, et al, are the opposite, global bungling meddlers, who want to spread democracy to every unwilling nation in the world. Then they whine that the USA is becoming a Socialist Republic after only three years of Obama. If democracy is so fragile, why bother to spread it around the globe, and waste trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in the process? Hmmmm?

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 10:28AM

Hi Clintie, I know that's you hiding behind the Hobbes name.

How appropriate though, as Hobbes was Calvin's little made up friend!

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:33AM

Wrong again. As usual.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 10:52AM

@Hobbes....This guy(chuck) is completely cut himself off...He's disrespectful....can't defend himself...ignorant...arrogant...and so on...I'm sure he is incapable of having a debate without attacking someone....I wonder how his wife feels about that.....If you(chuck) can present a point that is valid.....I will be giddy.....Currently, I'm sick of your disgustingly unfounded insults towards me.....

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 11:49AM

Cry me a river, then defend Marxism. You are a dreamy-eyed liberal with a vision of utopia.

Here a few more people who had a vision of "utopia" and the power to attempt to enforce it:

Lenin
Stalin
Hitler
Mussolini
Mao
Pol Pot
Castro
just to name a few.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:49PM

Jesus...don't forget that one. Jesus preached communism too...Marxism...

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:07PM

Yeah, that whole parable about teaching a man to fish sure is right out of Marx's "Communist Manifesto."

Dipshit.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:14PM

I'm trying really hard to not be snarky... but I have to agree.

As a life-long, "born again" Christian, I am truly confused how we've allowed ourselves to conflate Christianity with the "national interests of the US" and "destroying them before they MIGHT do something to us."

If you're going to be a cheerleader for killing all brown people that MIGHT be a threat... just don't try to sully Jesus' name while you do it... please.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:53PM

MIGHT do something?

the Achillle Lauro

rhe Navy diver who was beaten to death

Berlin nightclub bombing

Khobar Towers

Beirut Barracks

WTC part 1

the Cole

WTC part 2

Ft. Hood

Underwear bomber

C'mon, man!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:16PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Let's say I agree that that entire list is as simply explained as "evil Muslims hate our freedom and are trying to kill us."

I thought we were talking about Iran and nuclear threats.

What is the REASONED solution?

Please admit neither side has a simple/obvious/logical answer, do they?

If your goal is to avoid terrorist acts such as those above, preemptively...

A) I don't think it's possible.
B) I agree with Paul that there is SOME case to be made that these were motivated by people trying to "send us a message." So, SOME would argue that a non platitude response would be to, at least, consider WHY they did what they did.

I'm not apologizing/defending these acts. I'm just asking you...

Are you proposing that we will, somehow, outside of a "Pre crime" technology that doesn't yet exist, we have the capability to stop these sorts of things by our actions "over there?"

IMHO, this is an example where putting the military to work defending us HERE would be kind of helpful no?

And, relative to nuclear threats, making platitudes about "stopping Iran" and "not allowing Iran" etc. is all well and good... until you are facing Russia and China.

So, if you would...

What exactly is the simple/obvious answer, please?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 2:47PM

"What is the REASONED solution?"

Gasoline sanctions, tactical airstrikes & covert action. The notion of a full blown invasion would be folly of the utmost. The only problem with air strikes is that, while we can destroy a lot of material & kill a lot of important people to the program, we can't get it all. Not unless we use tactical nukes, which I don't think anyone has the stones to do.

However, I think the Israelis will take care of this on their own, in the end. The Saudis have already given them tacit permission for overflight in that instance.

"And, relative to nuclear threats, making platitudes about "stopping Iran" and "not allowing Iran" etc. is all well and good... until you are facing Russia and China."

The Chinese & the Russians still believe in MAD. The Mullahs have no such qualms.

"IMHO, this is an example where putting the military to work defending us HERE would be kind of helpful no?"

I've been saying for ages that we should move the USMC Desert Warfare Training Center to the US/Mexico border. Conduct live fire small unit drills, air strikes, armor exercises, sniper training, & all that cool stuff. Post a sign in Spanish saying:

"DANGER: US MARINE CORPS LIVE FIRE EXCERCISE AREA"

Not only would we reduce the drug & human smuggling, we'd also probably lock down the border to the Hezbo types who've also been infiltrating through there.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 3:02PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Thanks (really) for taking the time to actually state a reasoned opinion.

Like I said before, I'm no freakin expert, so I have to rely on what others tell me about these situations... which leads me to consider past history and such... consequently, I tend to feel pretty suspect of any "intelligence" being filtered through the neocons/Plan B group.

That said, I think your solutions are A potential answer.

The problem is (I think) that "covert" probably doesn't mean stuff Rick Santorum talks about in a globally televised presidential debate... and EVERYONE knows that the Stuxnet virus and the assasinated nuclear scientists had our fingerprints on them somewhere...

So... when we are borrowing from CHINA to fight China... and THEY know what we're doing and they feel it's a threat to them...

These "Options" are reasonable and thoughtful... but, I doubt, the ultimate, ONLY answer... I think Russia and China complicate things quite a bit, no?

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.11.12 @ 6:12AM

The Navy Diver's name was Robert Stethem. A Navy Ship was Christened in his Honour: The USS Robert D. Stethem.

I thought that you might like to know that.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:16PM

nothing like hyperbole!

you da man!....and such a good one! why...you've told us as much!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:28PM

@carnot:

I get it. You don't like Ron Paul.

How about you tell us about YOUR choice and we can, politely, discuss their positives/negatives...

Or, are your contributions limited to "Ron Paul sucks... nah nah nah nah!"

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:33PM

what? someone is waiting beyond two weeks of primaries to make a decision? say it aint so!

nice try though! whomever I end up supporting is irrelevant to consideration of Ron Paul, his politics, his persona...and the implications of his statements.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:55PM

@carnot:

These candidates/people are new to you?

You don't have a general understanding of the positions/records of the major GOP candidates?

What are you waiting for exactly?

Something they will tell you in a debate or ad?

Unless, of course, to you, this is all about political horse racing... In that case, I could understand "hanging back" and waiting to see who might win.. so I could then put my support behind them irregardless of my personal convictions...

obadiah| 1.10.12 @ 3:00PM

different as night and day, dark and Light.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 11:01AM

@Dai:

It is instructive.

Personally, I'm a 46 year old Christian that never voted for anyone that didn't have an "R" in front of their name, but...

Since the establishment keeps talking out of both sides of their mouth about "who's electable" and "not wasting your vote" and "we have to defeat Obama; it's the most important election in our lifetime"...

Maybe it is instructive to note that Ron Paul is bringing in DROVES of young people that the GOP would have no realistic chance of persuading with an establishment hack like Romney (75% of the standard base hates him).

It is instructive (check out the numbers) that Ron Paul is bringing in and energizing disaffected Democrats, liberals, progressives and moderates and that ONLY he would have a real chance to beat OBAMA in the general.

This is no longer "Paultard propoganda." Do a search on yesterday's CBS poll of Paul vs. Obama.

And, at least from my perspective, "simplistic solutions to complex problems" would sound like this...

"If Iran tries to get nuclear weapons, we'll bomb them into a parking lot."

This would be great if Iran were the isolated, wreck of a country that Iraq was.

It's not.

Both Russia and China have stated VERY clearly that most of the "simplistic" solutions that the "chickenhawk" candidates are proposing will lead to a war with Russia and China.

Russia and China have Iran's back.

China's leaders have started to tell their military to prepare for war with the US.

So, when Ron Paul says, "Hey guys, maybe it's not such a great idea to talk big about Iran... let's see if there are diplomatic solutions"... that sounds less like soothing nostrums to me.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:06PM

I don't think they have their back to that degree, sorry.

And, who cares. Paul is FINISHED, fool.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 12:40PM

"I don't think they have their back to that degree, sorry."

It's your right to your opinions, but, unless I missed something, everyone here is attempting to provide some proof/logic for their positions?

How about this...

"As the United States and other nations grapple with how best to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, a high-ranking Chinese military official has raised the stakes considerably on any possible military action.
On Dec. 4, according to a report in Press TV, a news network owned by the Iranian government, Chinese rear admiral and prominent military commentator Zhang Zhaozhong said, “China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third world war.”

"And, who cares. Paul is FINISHED, fool."

Maybe. Maybe not.

Either way, I'm proud to be supporting the cause of liberty and THAT will prevail... despite the results of the 2012 elections.

P.S. Calling names does not make you seem MORE intelligent.

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 2:22PM

@ Robert

Good words. I wish all commentators would take the time to think and present present their thoughts in a cogent manner without the name calling and gratuitous repetition of "things they have heard."

At the very core of Ron Paul's message is the issue of force. All criticism of Dr. Paul is meaningless if it does not address this issue. The fundamental issue is quite simple, It's always wrong to initiate force (offensive, not defensive) against another. Anyone that opposes This concept is, by definition, supporting some kind of stateism. The first question they need to deal with is what kind of force are they, themselves, willing to be subjected to. If they don't like the idea of a SWAT team breaking down their door with ARs at the ready because of a neighborhood rumor they should not advocate that for others. If they don't like the idea of drones dropping bombs on them they shouldn't advocate doing that to others. If government is not at the forefront in protecting individual liberty at home, there is nothing worth protecting from the outside.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:39PM

@Randall:

"Here, here!"

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:21PM

Russia and China have Iran's back!

Now there's a sophisticated world view pregnant with all sorts of actionable implications! crammed with nuanced ideas on how power is exercised!

where do folks like you come from? you have a depressingly binary view of the world. were it not such fun joining the pot stir from time to time...you'd be jettisoned from more serious quarters.

to turn a phrase...children shouldn't play with big ideas. they will inevitably be burned.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:30PM

@carnot:

You are providing me with much pleasure as I watch Ron Paul take second (so far) in NH to Romney.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:40PM

You know what Tiger says...right? Second place is for the first loser.

you design your own traps and step right into them!

I eagerly await some details on how Paul intends to actually implement his "goals". tell us. don't wait for me or anyone else to lead you down the path. you all want to lead America! why in the world can't you share with we lesser privileged sorts how that Paul led country would actually be implemented. How will the vision actually be executed? and who will help him execute it? from a distance...it doesn't appear as though he has any real allies other than a son or two. eager and open minds can't wait to find out.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:57PM

@carnot:

If I recall correctly, Washington lost a bunch of battles...

Fortunately, he won the ones that mattered.

KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 11:21AM

Ilylial, For the record, Marxism is about equality of outcome, not about equality of opportunity. You know, the old "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" thing. Equality of opportunity reflects Capitilist doctrine. Perhaps if you had finished high school, gone on to college, studied Economics and actually read Marx you would know that.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 11:52AM

china or cuba or north korea are nice this time of year. so what are you waiting for?

yes you are a soicialist who NEEDS others money to survive. just another entitlement loser who cant EARN anything.

the internet is what it is by those who post on it. the FACTS are out there but burried beneath the lefts spamming. try looking anything up and 95% will be pro socialism because the financers like ggoogle are socialists.

raise taxes? that is always your answer because you dont pay taxes.

unborn babies? i bet you arent even pregannt or married. but are looking to get pregnant just for the TAX MONEY it will bring into you.

Ross Kaminsky | 1.10.12 @ 12:08PM

What part of "raise taxes now" do you think is good for your potential future children? Do you have ANY evidence that raising taxes does anything other than increase the size and cost of government? After all, as Milton Friedman pointed out, government will spend as much money as it takes in plus as much more as it can politically get away with.

Raising taxes is precisely the wrong prescription to cure the disease of big government.

Peppermint Tea| 1.10.12 @ 1:30PM

"Right now MY unborn children could be at risk because of national debt."
Funny!
Here's one:
My unborn grandchildren can beat up your unborn children.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:24PM

lmao!

kinda like...."the stimulus package created more jobs than might otherwise have been created"

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:27AM

Typical. Cut n paste the same blurb in every goddam thread. Not an original thought in your head. Paulifarians are more annoying than Jehovah's Witlesses.

Ron Paul - the Republicans' Lyndon Larouche.

Seek| 1.10.12 @ 12:12PM

I find Ron Paul's fanatic youthful supporters to be the essence of the conformist herd mentality, the very essence of the Untermensch. Not a single one of them has a genuine idea. They simply scream, bludgeon and threaten whenever their pious platitudes are refuted in the least.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 12:42PM

@seek:

Would your above ad hominem, non supported, screed be a good example of what you are talking about?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:25PM

they do sound remarkably alike...to the man!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:31PM

@carnot:

Countdown to not taking you serious begins....

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:46PM

and I should be concerned because?

you have yet to adduce one detailed description of how these massive changes in policy Paul proposes will actually be executed. I'm all for many of them. But I have learned with the current guy that it's best to get the details first.

or...is this simply the "Dope and Derange" express?

Brubaker| 1.10.12 @ 3:01PM

If Ron Paul gets the nomination, Democrats will be rolling in the aisles laughing. Paul would be eaten alive by Obama and the piranha that surround him.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:32PM

@Brubaker:

You might be right.

Why, specifically, do you believe this?

And, more to the point, who do you think would do better?

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 9:34AM

What does Ron Paul say about the 2nd World War? Did we DESERVE Pearl Harbour? Did we FORCE the Japanese in to attacking us, with our Embargoes of Natural Resources, that they needed?

What about, GERMANY? Should we have Fought the Nazis? They didn't attack us. The Japanese did. Was it Unlawful to Kill Germans?

Was the Invasion of South Korea, by the Communist North, none of our business? Would we have been better off, doing NOTHING, as Communism engulfed one Country after another?

What about the Cold War? Should we have fought it? Was all of the MONEY we poured in to Defending Western Europe, worth it? Was it IN OUR INTEREST to have a BUFFER ZONE, between US and THEM? Or, should we have just "Minded our own business"?

If we had Ron Paul, back then, does anyone think that the SOVIETS could have been prevented from Conquering Europe, expanding in to Africa, Southeast Asia, and making South America a Communist Fortress?

We'd be all alone, with no allies, and no hope of survival. But, we would have Legalized Drugs, when we needed them the most.

Knock, Knock. How many Brain Cells does it take, to Vote for Ron Paul?
After looking at what Clint scribbles on to the screen, every day?
I'd say: NONE.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 9:40AM

Ron Paul is essentially a semi-anarchist, and young people love anarchistic rhetoric. That's why they love him, not because they understand the finer points of Austrian economics.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 11:20AM

@Vern:

Respectfully...

If you are going to make such statements, please respect us enough to back them up with facts... or, minimally, some logical explanation of why you believe them?

If not, it would give the impression that you are simply parotting what someone told you about Ron Paul.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:28AM

No, YOU are the one who parrots back what the old fool spouts out, unthinkingly.

Ron Paul - the Republicans' Lyndon Larouche.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 12:43PM

@PsychoDad:

Should we consider that reasoned debate?

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 11:33AM

Just read the Lew Rockwell site and it'll tell you all you need to know about Ron Paul and his followers: anti-Washington, anti-Lincoln, anti-Reagan, anti-Buckley, anti-Sarah, and anti-American.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:19PM

@Vern:

Any honest Paul supporter would be lying to say that there aren't "reasoned objections" to ALL of the people you list above; "anti" not so much.

That said, I'd really love to know if YOU know those reasons/arguments?

Do you know WHY Paul/some libertarians have "qualms" about some of the actions/beliefs of Lincoln... Buckley?

Which reminds me.... for those that claim to be conservative and keep calling Paul unacceptable because of his newsletters...

Here's a fun quote for ya...

"The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

-William F. Buckley Jr.

Vern Crisler| 1.10.12 @ 3:17PM

Uh, when did Buckley write that? 1960s? When did Paul write his newsletters? 1990s?

And, yes I know all about neo-confederates, isolationists, and purist libertarians.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:24PM

@Vern Crisler:

My point (I think) was that the whole dismissing someone for mistakes of the past cuts both ways...

Are you implying that there's some statute of limitations on such things and Paul is worse just because he's within that limit?

So, you are under the impression that only people that agree with your positions on these issues are sincere and thinking people?

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:07PM

Dear Lord, Robert: the bastard wants to legalize Heroin. He is a doddering fool.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:45PM

Here I say again...He want's to deregulate it so that the states can stop harming people and start helping them...OR we could just legalize it....I'm all for it bring on the needles...Gotta try me some of that goodness...Oh wait...it's illegal...nah....no thanks... It makes no difference...legal or not...People do as they please anyway and if the taxes for all the drugs ever bought and sold in the us was put into place I think we would be seeing a significant change in our budget...Paul's right...We have the same problems with prohibition as we did with alcohol.....I don't want my money wasted there anymore.....We're getting the mexican drug cartels all over this country because they're welcomed in the underground community.....When your son goes out to buy a bag of weed crack, heroin, coke, whatever you find solace that he could be dealing with a dangerous person. And he will get a bag of something......SOMETHING.......Legalizing could be considered a way of making the nation more secure by ruling out underground illegal trafficking......

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 12:47PM

@Occam's Tool:

So, let me understand...

You have actually bought the "logic" that following our tenth amendment to the Constitution can be boiled down to "he wants to legalize heroin."

I guess he wants to legalize murder too... since it isn't addressed at the federal level... but by the states... as it should be.

Are you a supposed "conservative" or a "liberal?"

I ask because, honestly, I can't tell who's who these days?

With all the conservatives LOVING big government and being anti liberty and civil liberties in general.

So, you're proposing that a big government, federal approach to EVERYTHING is a good thing?

Is that what you're saying?

PolishKnight| 1.10.12 @ 2:28PM

FYI, Heroin, or opium products, are legal when done via a prescription for medicinal reasons. It's interesting that it's harder to obtain marijuana legally for such reasons than opium. I got a few tablets a year or so ago when I had a root canal.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:28PM

no....it's his interpretation of Ron Paul.....his qualitative summary of the man and his followers.

it is amusing...is it not...to project Paul's current foreign policy statements and "principles"...into other historical contexts? at the very least...the evidence...as you put it...doesn't lead to any hard conclusions.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:33PM

@carnot:

Yay!

I was hoping I got to do this...

Countdown continues...

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:50PM

hmmmm...we've jumped from 46 year old Christian to...well.....Yay!!!!

yes...I do believe we are slowly transacting what might be described as a discovery process.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:58PM

@THE GENERAL READERSHIP:

Does anyone understand the overall point carnot is trying to convey?

So far, I've deduced that he is against Ron Paul.

Is there more and I'm missing it?

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:22AM

and we have learned that you advocate several ideas at the 10,000 foot level...but can offer no specific details that indicate how one moves from vision to implementation.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:25AM

let me phrase this in terms you might better understand. I'm a consumer in the free market of ideas and solutions. Haven't decided yet what brand I want to buy. I am going to check the labeling on each vendor's product to get a better idea of the contents.

what's Paul selling? what's the product made of? how do the parts work together? whats the manufacturing quality? can I go on-line to find the detailed instructions on how the product will actually work?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:02PM

@carnot:

Unfortunately, we're not discussing a dish washer purchase or a horse race; we're discussing the future of our nation... and the retention/non retention of our personal freedoms and liberties.

So, Paul's Product is "LIBERTY."

How he's marketing that "product," so far, is by being the only national political figure willing to:

-Discuss the dangers of the Fed
-Discuss the loss of liberties caused by NDAA and SOPA
-Suggest that we "pause" before lurching into WWIII
-Has, for thirty years, supported his rhetoric with his voting.

And the "benefits" of YOUR product/candidate?

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 9:46AM

Ron Paul's stand on this "Hitler scenario" is that we should have an declaration of war before going to war, not to stand idly by. Do your research. Word of mouth is nothing more than word of mouth.

crookedwren| 1.10.12 @ 9:54AM

I could have sworn I heard Ron Paul say -- himself -- words to the effect that a nuclear Iran is just fine. (Sorry -- I have to paraphrase, but surely I didn't misinterpret that.) I also heard him say that Bachmann and Santorum wanted Muslims dead.

Yes, Paul is keen on following the Constitution -- and his stand on the Fed is terrific. Good. Fine.

But his words on defense are not simply Constitutional process issues. He and Barney Frank teamed up with a panel on defense -- a panel which -- of its fourteen members -- has something like eleven who are from Leftist groups funded by Soros. So let's not pretend that Paul is a conservative voice on defense. He isn't.

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 10:10AM

Ron Paul is a great believer in the Constitution as he and he alone interprets it. I suppose our "Professor of Constitutional Law" would claim as much.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 11:36AM

@crookedwren

It is true that a consistent battle for the constitution might create some strange bedfellows (especially if we're talking Barney Frank), but...

Is there any part of you that can see how your left/right R/D thinking is EXACTLY what the establishment wants you to focus on?

I'm a life-long (was?) Republican that is tired of being lied to...

I'm not just being rhetorical when I say a vote for Romney is no different than a vote for Obama. I believe it's a verifiable fact.

Again, look at opensecrets.org to see who are the largest contributors to Obama, McCain and Romney....

You don't find it (slightly) troubling that they are being propped up by the exact same "ruling elite?"

Paul NEVER said a nuclear Iran was fine. What he said was that, to the best of his knowledge, based on what the CIA has said, they weren't MONTHS away from anything.

He did (on Leno) say that Bachmann "hated" Muslims.

Actually, I wish he would have said what you did... "he wants them dead." It would have been more verifiable and accurate.

Obama and the establishment Republicans seem to feel that American blood is more valuable than other blood.

I'd love to hear the Christian/philosophical justification for this...

Is it true that we need to defend ourselves?

Yes. Absolutely.

Paul talks about the Constitution, but he also talks about the Christian Just War concept.

No one, including Paul is advocating NOT defending ourselves.

But, ONLY Paul is advocating some sort of reasoned, moral approach to doing so.

Please give me the "moral" justifications for constant drone strikes that (while we speak) are terrorizing innocent men and women, young and old, religious and secular... all around the world?

If you attack me, I'll defend myself.

If you invade my property/home, I'll feel no qualms about shooting you in the chest.

But what we are actually doing is more like me, in the middle of the night, breaking into my neighbors homes and "Pre-emptively" killing them because I thought they "Might" propose a "possible" "future" threat to me.

For thousands of years, there's been pre-emptive empirical wars... but only, now, it seems, in the US of 2012, have we attempted to provide it with a "moral" (even Christian) rationalization.

KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 12:32PM

Robert, all well and good, but tell me something. You say "If you attack me, I'll defend myself". What do you do if someone says they are "going" to attack you and have the wherewithall to do it? Do you wait for them to attack and inflict harm or act premptively? From my understanding of Ron Paul's position, and I listen to what he has to say, he has no issue with Iran acquiring nukes. Are we then to put into office a man who would wait until an actual nuclear attack occurred rather than take out the nukes beforehand? Occam had it exactly right in an earlier post. I believe Paul would wait until after Americans are killed before he would act. Given the types of weapons that exist today, we simply cannot foreswear premptive action in defense of the homeland. It is suicidal to do so.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:48PM

@KennesawJack:

I wanted to answer you earlier, but needed to take a little bit more time to do so because your point reveals an area where I'm truly not so sure...

"Robert, all well and good, but tell me something. You say "If you attack me, I'll defend myself". What do you do if someone says they are "going" to attack you and have the wherewithall to do it?"

Great question.

I don't know the ultimate answer.

But...

I think that our nation, in a way, should act similarly to how we expect individuals to act.

There's a big difference between having my neighbor (one that I truly fear) tell me he's going to do violence to me or my family and me needing to "Figure out" what to do and how to do it, morally and legally, and inviting him in to do it.

As an individual, it would seem logical to do "intelligence" to find out if A) He's serious. B)Capable C)Inclined.

Then, if I decided that he was all of the above, I would have the need to do what I needed to do to not allow his violence to happen.

As an individual, IMHO, this would mean that I could "defend" myself and my family by fortifying my property/home to the best of my ability. I would find it acceptable (although not currently legal) to mine my front yard with land mines, need be.

I would also make sure that the ammo was stocked and the guns were loaded and close at hand.

It would probably be smart to implement some sort of "early warning system" like cameras or electronic devices to alert me/my family to approaching danger.

Then, at the very SECOND that he crosses into my "personal space," I would feel morally okay with destroying him in any way that is effective and NOT dangerous to my other neighbors and random civilians.

What many of these "let's bomb all Muslims" advocates seem to be saying (to me) is that I would be morally justified in (as soon as I was sure he was a true threat) in dropping a bomb on his home.

I doubt the police and legal system would agree with me, if I did. And, I'm guessing that's because there's some deep/inherent understanding that I had crossed "some moral line."

When you say "preemptively" relative to individuals, it seems less "Okay" somehow than when you say "preemptively" as a nation.

But, when you start dropping bombs on innocent and guilty alike, just because their government MIGHT be a danger, some people seem to think that's "DIFFERENT" somehow.

I'm not really sure.

I suppose that there are good arguments to be made for differences between individual and national morality... but I'm not aware of any obviously good ones.

Thanks for asking a really thoughtful question.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 10:19PM

there's a circularity in your reasoning. once you decide you have to have the resources to act. in order to have the resources to act...you have to have anticipated with reasonable probability the threat, the scope of the threat, the intentions of the threat, your vulnerabilities, the avenues of attack. it takes years to develop and train these resources.

so just how does Paul see the world and what future does he see? making a decision way down the road when it is too late to develop the resources, training, International relationships, etc., to successfully engage is not a very forward leaning. A strategy based on total disengagement detached from real world risks strikes me as having a really high present discounted value for those of us who are wiped out before the Protector-in-Chief can arrest, respond and maybe prevail.

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 10:20PM

once you decide you have to act...you have to have the resources

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 11:01PM

@carnot:

Straw man much?

Please show me one quote where Paul advocates "A strategy based on total disengagement."

If he (or I) were advocating for that... I guess you'd be right.

But, since he/I aren't...not so much.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:29AM

you're right! he hasn't advocated any strategy.

and the larger point I was making was that the wait until it happens thinking that both you, he and Paulistas in general advocate doesn't fit the real world.

what's his strategy? what sort of world does he see through the next quarter century?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:34PM

declaration of war based on what?

do your thinking. yes...follow the Constitution. but this is procedural nonsense that obfuscates the real issue: how does a President make the decision to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war in the first place. there are many who.....having weathered all the Paulista rhetoric on chicken-hawks.....take care of home first....we provoke the violence.....are not longer certain on what grounds (in the nuclear age) a Ron Paul would actually respond...how many...and specifically who...would be sacrificed on the grand anvil of "it's my life and I do what I want."

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:36PM

Ron Paul...by all appearances...would fail at the one thing that matters most: protecting us. his is an entirely reactionary strategy.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:11PM

@carnot:

DAMN YOU!

I thought THIS was going to be the comment that allowed me to completely dismiss you as completely unserious.

Damn. Damn Damn.

Okay... so let's talk...

"declaration of war based on what? do your thinking. yes...follow the Constitution. but this is procedural nonsense that obfuscates the real issue:"

Paul doesn't feel that following the Constitutional MANDATE to only go to war after having congressional approval as simply "procedural nonsense."

Do you?

"how does a President make the decision to go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war in the first place."

I'm not sure. I'm glad I'll never have to make that call.

What exactly are you asking?

Are you implying that, somehow, the constitutional requirement of officially declaring war, in agreement with congress, somehow hurts our ability to
defend ourselves?

"take care of home first...."

You disagree with this?

"we provoke the violence"

Look, despite your recent stalking, I'd love to have a real discussion with you.

Paul has never said we "always" cause the violence. NEVER.

What he has said is that, in certain current situations, some of the problems were predictable.

We (through the CIA) helped to overthrew a the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran and then supported/propped up for 30+ years a horrible dictator (the Shaw) that
oppressed his people.... which caused quite a strong dislike for the US.

Then we propped up Saddam Hussein in Iraq, to counter the mess the U.S.A. in part catalyzed in Iran.

Then we put our military in Muslim-sacred Saudi Arabia, to halt Saddam's attempt at his own empire. And this, in turn, is the essential reason, as they stated over and over again,
for Al Queda's attacks upon America.

Intrusion, blowback, intrusion, blowback.

Are you saying that we have NEVER made a foreign policy mis-step that has had negative effects?

"are not longer certain on what grounds (in the nuclear age) a Ron Paul would actually respond...how many... and specifically who...would be
sacrificed on the grand anvil of "it's my life and I do what I want."

Try to stop "hating on me" for just a few seconds and try to tell me, please...

Do you really feel that my desire to maintain personal freedom and liberty is grand anvil of "it's my life and I do what I want."

Why do you think my desire is any different from our founders that stated we had the right to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

When did we vote that these things were no longer acceptable?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 9:58PM

ok...in short...you don't have an answer.

the question was designed to squeeze out some consideration of what our national interests are; to illuminate the complexity that characterizes the REAL world; and, to gain some insight to how deeply the Paul crowd recognizes these inter-connections.

I apologize in advance...you seem like a decent guy....but you remind so much of the scientology folks who used to accost folks on every street corner back in the day. This far....I don't see anything that suggests to me that there is any depth to the thinking in the crowd you chose to associate with politically.

What would Paul actually do? How does the "vision" get translated into action?

I don't "hate you"...that's grade school banter. I'm not standing in front of a chalkboard and you're not handing me the chalk. as an aside, you have no clue as to the state of my mind and emotions...so why make these silly assertions?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:05PM

More specifically, Paul's PRIMARY point in all of these discussions is NOT the relative merits of any particular military excursion (war or not).

His PRIMARY "beef" is that the Constitution forces the President to work with/get approval from Congress BEFORE declaring war.

He, unlike Emperor Obama, doesn't believe that the President is a king.

He simply believes that the people, through their elected officials, should get a say in the matter before we send their children to die...

Notary Sojac| 1.10.12 @ 11:03AM

Well ya see Tim, when we fought against Tojo and Hitler we declared war, and fought a total war with all the resources of our nation. We dedicated ourselves to the unconditional surrender of the enemy.

We didn't tell Americans to "go shopping" on the home front while at the same time we described the ideology of the enemy as a "religion of peace".

We didn't allow the Nazis' "holy cities" to remain immune from attack, and we didn't get our panties in a wad if some Nazi-enabling civilians got caught in an air raid, either.

If the rest of the GOP candidates on the debate podium would come out clearly and say "No more decade long, nation-building wars fought under the Care Bears Rules of Engagement", I believe that Ron Paul would be but a footnote in this campaign.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 11:10AM

What about the rest of it, tough guy? What about The Cold War Scenario? Where would Representative Footnote, stand on that?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:40PM

hmmm...so your all for bringing back conscription...eh?

btw..."we"? you didn't fight those wars.

you can't even get the podium logic right. the correct statement would be...apropos your historical references.."no more wars unless the goals are total victory and unconditional surrender." no matter how many Dresdens it takes...right? no matter if 70% of your strategic bomber crews don't survive...right?

if you're going to run with historical metaphors....don't be selective.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:14PM

@carnot:

Huh?

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 10:08PM

do I have to spell everything out.

WWII was introduced as the analogue for how we should approach war. ok. but don't cherry pick. those wars were fought on the backs of conscripted service people as well as volunteers. Is the poster proposing to resurrect that institution? that war was based on total victory and unconditional surrender. is that what the poster is proposing should serve as the model for war today? those wars targeted civilian populations as part of the strategy. is the poster advocating this?

I can agree on Congressional approval as a Constitutional requirement caveated by War Powers Resolution exceptions. That's only one check in the block as noted elsewhere. It's a procedural note......

returning to theme...if a poster introduces a theme...he better be ready to live with it!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:08PM

@carnot:

Carnot, are you a secret progressive?

Your arguments are sounding very much like you are okay with "going with the current cultural realities."

Instead of fifteen paragraphs... just answer this ONE:

Do you/do you not believe the Constitution is still relevant and needs to be followed?

old white guy| 1.10.12 @ 10:08AM

a bit off topic but you should see ron pauls predictions given in 2002 in the house. talk about being accurate. everything he said has come to pass. i can't send the link but it is on utube.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:30AM

Amen Brother, He IS the Messiah!

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:43PM

was there a "100% sure I will not succeed in sponsoring ANY major legislation"?

track records are what they are...ya know.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 11:47AM

war mongers?

sounds like a wimpy gutless, spineless BOY calling others who love freedom and liberty names because they are AFFRAID!

Boar Hunter| 1.10.12 @ 11:57AM

"It is Ron Paul for Sanity, Peace , Prosperity and Liberty" in the looney bin lol. Ron Raul is a nut.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 4:45PM

War–perpetual war–is the ultimate means by which the neocons can fight creeping nihilism and promote sacrifice and nationalistic patriotism

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 5:45PM

All we are saying...is give war a chance.

You're so negative young one. You hate so deeply. Today's neocon will be tomorrow's paulcon.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:10PM

@carnot:

"You're so negative young one. You hate so deeply. Today's neocon will be tomorrow's paulcon."

White is black.

Up is down.

The people worried about innocents and avoiding unnecessary wars are the negative and hating ones...

Ugh.

Vly Walker| 1.13.12 @ 8:14AM

Don't Worry! The Constitutionalist, crazy patriots, can't beat the communistic Federal Reserve. The nutty patriots have been defused. Obama/Romney backers have backed all these cooks: Perry, Santorum, Huntsman, so as to split up the Patriot votes. Democrats in States that allow it are voting for Romney in the primaries. Obama and Romney are identical, like brothers: metasexuals, narcissistic owned by the Bankers. The election is already won by the owners of the voting machines. The New World Order is here, relax it and enjoy the fact that your don't have to worry your little head with voting.

Tom| 1.10.12 @ 6:19AM

NOTHING would please Obama and the Demokrats more than for the Republicans to have Dr. Nutjob on the ballot in November.

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:26AM

The Israel Firster Smear Bund Is In The Building.

"Obama's lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points.'

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 11:57AM

pocketlint.

since no one has asked conservatives, just progs, it appears your obama vs paul is just the loser part of the country. so why be surprised that it is so close when it is nothing but gutless cowards choosing between obama their messiah of dumb and paul their messiah of cowardice? they are in a quandry. go with obama and bring about their socialist utopia or go with paul who will keep them safe from wars but in reality will just mean those wars come to America's shores and thus will be surrender monkeys like YOU BOY

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:14PM

Get Bent Girlie Mouth. Devil's Ass Crack.

The Tea Party Kicks The Devil's Ass Crack Again.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:27PM

@DevilDog:

So you don't care about doing whatever it takes to get rid of Obama?

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 7:20AM

Tom, you haven't thought that through.

Obama is a fiscal disaster - anyone who cares about economic issues will not vote for him. Obama has also broken every social liberal promise he made.

Other than name-calling, what issues are winners for Obama against Paul (or any libertarian leaning candidate)?

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 8:21AM

Foreign policy, believe it or not. Obama's is daft, blinkered, and wandering, but he HAS one. He's proved capable of occasionally doing something like the right thing, even if it's by accident or through inertia. Better that than a president who'd abandon all allies and all indirect interests sheerly on cracked principle.

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 8:27AM

Really? Obama doubled down on Afghanistan without ever really describing why. Two-thirds of the Americans killed there were killed since Obama was President. Now we are leaving. Why?

Libya? Why? Are we better off with the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in North Africa? Meanwhile Obama ignores the revolutions in Syria and Iran.

All that - plus a lot of bowing and kowtowing isn't a winning foreign policy.

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 8:30AM

The man's not really batting .300, much less a thousand. Still, it beats staying in the dugout and forfeiting, n'est-ce pas?

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 9:36AM

No - that's the point. We would be billions richer and no worse off if we had cut that corrupt ingrate Hamid Karzai loose years ago.

We would in less debt and be no worse off if Khadafi was still in Libya, or we left it to the Europeans to deal with him.

Obama is batting -.500.

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 10:10AM

Karzai? In the Paulite dream scenario, no one would ever have heard of the man, and Mullah Omar would still be ruling Afghanistan.

And it's pretty early in the day to be totalling up what we've gained or lost by Qaddhafi's overthrow, or what will happen to Libya in the long term. I only know that this sudden, opportunistic nostalgia for the man is odd, and unbecoming.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:43AM

and we don't know what happened to 10s of thousands of shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles.

what a well thought out plan this was!!!!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:12PM

@carnot:

Hey, that's a really great point.

I was wondering, though...

Where exactly did those launchers/missiles come from?

Who manufactured and sold them to them?

Hmmm....

Maybe foreign policy has long-term consequences... one guy calls that "blow back."

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:40AM

bingo!!!!!!!!

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 9:46AM

Really? He has HELPED the Islamists take over in Egypt. Used American Carriers, to hand Libya over to the Islamists. He got out of Iraq, over the Vociferous Warnings from his Military Commanders on the ground, which led, IMMEDIATELY, to Al Qaeda Car Bombings, and Sectarian Warfare. He's done NOTHING with Iran, and LESS, with Syria. And, let's not forget: MIRANDA RIGHTS for those wonderful Taliban, who wish us DEAD.

You're right. He HAS a Foreign Policy.
And it's a NIGHTMARE.

Your last sentance? That's EXACTLY what he's done.

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 10:02AM

I'm no fan, in case I haven't made myself clear. However, one can at least conceive of foreign policies worse than Obama's. Paul's happens to be one of them.

KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 12:37PM

Bit of a dystopian perception, though. Wouldn't you say?

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 12:48PM

Don't understand. No offense, but are you positive that "dystopian" is the word you mean?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:29PM

@Le Cracquere:

Foreign policy might be a strength if we were talking about a Republican nomination.

But, since we are talking about a general election... I don't think you're right.

Obama can NEVER be perceived by the right as being tough enough.

And he has a BIG percentage on the left that feel betrayed because he's too tough.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:46AM

he's not tough.....where did that come from?

a tough leader doesn't trivialize the deaths of all serving personnel by announcing withdrawal plans 18 mos in advance. a tough leader doesn't claim credit for events that have their origins in acquisitions, processes and training that began years before he arrived on the scene.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 9:09AM

Old Soldier,

Sorry, you're wrong. I hate what Obama has done to this country, and anything to get him out of office would be good for the country. ANYTHING!
That said, I could come up with a campaign against Paul that would assure Obama's reelection. Backed by a billion dollars, it would be a landslide.

To the Jews: Look at his statements about Israel, look at the anti-Semitic statements of his supporters.

To Blacks, and all minorities: Read the racist comments in his newsletters!

To women: He wants to destroy YOUR reproductive RIGHTS to your own body!

To old folks: He wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare!

To people who want a strong defense: Look at his foreign policy, we'd be run over by TERRORISTS!

Paul: Wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, says it's okay!

Paul: Wants Israel to disappear!

Paul: Hates blacks! Look at the newsletters!

Paul: Hates social spending! Wants the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill to die!

And I'm just a guy at the keyboard on a rainy morning. Threw in the professionals at the DNC, and back it up with $1 billion for Obama 2012, and Paul, and the Republican party would be destroyed! At the top of the ticket, and all the way down to dog-catcher!

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 9:39AM

I'm not a big Paul guy and hate being the one to have to defend him. I actually liked Gary Johnson much better.

Do you really believe all that stuff? Will you believe it when the MSM says it (or similar distortions) about Romney or whoever wins the GOP nomination?

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 9:59AM

C'mon. Quit screwing around.

"I liked Gary Johnson much better"? Is that because John Wayne's dead?

Look, Old Soldier. You've said nice things about me, and I appreciate it. I really do. But you have got to get a grip. Ron Paul CANNOT Win. It's Impossible. Look what chuck has written.

Now, think what a Marxist SCUM, like Obama, would do to Ron Paul, with a BILLION DOLLARS to run Ads, against him. By the time he's finished, a lot of Americans are gonna believe that Ron Paul talks to Hitler on his Ouija Board, but only when he's drinking from the Toilet.

Trust me.
It's: Anybody but Hussein.
It's just not gonna be Squirrely, down in Texas.

Warrior | 1.10.12 @ 5:23PM

Mr. Pennell:

I agree, Ron Paul won't win the nomination. Since Obama receives millions of dollars of non campaign contribution support from the MSM, the billion dollar smear machine will be in full force no matter who gets the nomination.

I think it's important for the dialogue to move forward. We can disagree on foreign policy and domestic issues, but that doesn't need to make us disagreeable. All Libertarians are not anarchists or progressives. I love your comments on this site and hope to continue to read them. I will also vote for Ron Paul when I get the chance in the primaries knowing he will not be nominated. I just hope that when the nomination is decided, it is the most conservative candidate.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:48AM

nice post.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 10:09AM

Hell no, I don't believe half the crap I wrote there.

But pounded in, day after day, on every radio station, every TV station, it will take it's toll. Not on me, I never bought O's crap to begin with, but with people who would naturally lean to the left, or the center, it would work.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:09PM

Well, I believe what he wrote and what he says. I also lived in his district. Yeah, Paul's an idiot. (I, too, have an MD. Please, I know what it takes. He may have been bright once, but no longer.)

anne| 1.10.12 @ 9:43AM

In this scenario, Dr. Paul would also get a campaign, correct? So after he has refuted all your distortions, what to do?. Ron Paul has a platform which Mr. Obama will have to counter. The more people that hear the truth [not quite this article], the more people become Ron Paul supporters. In addition to distorting Dr. Paul's message, the media has downplayed the many negatives about Obama who will stand on his record whether he likes it or not. Dr. Paul's campaign has money too. I think votes still count unless Obama has issued an executive order stating that whoever raises the most money wins. You better send in your check!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:50PM

@chuck:

That said, I could come up with a campaign against Paul that would assure Obama's reelection. Backed by a billion dollars, it would be a landslide.

As they say, "opinions are like ***holes." But, if we're going to defend our opinions, there's a real case to be made that the best choice to defeat Obama is Paul.

He has the dedicated supporters. The most money and best organization outside of Romney. Based on the FACTS (what we have so far) of the Iowa caucus, he took HUGE majorities of the youth and Independent votes. ONLY he has an actual case to make relative to Obama. NO ONE believes that Romney is all that different than Obama and NO ONE will "kill themselves" to get him elected.

"To the Jews: Look at his statements about Israel, look at the anti-Semitic statements of his supporters.

To Blacks, and all minorities: Read the racist comments in his newsletters!

To women: He wants to destroy YOUR reproductive RIGHTS to your own body!

To old folks: He wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare!

To people who want a strong defense: Look at his foreign policy, we'd be run over by TERRORISTS!

Paul: Wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, says it's okay!

Paul: Wants Israel to disappear!

Paul: Hates blacks! Look at the newsletters!

Paul: Hates social spending! Wants the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill to die!"

Chuck... other's here seem dismissive of copy/pasting. But, I'd BEG you to at least do that...

Please...

Copy and paste PROOF of the above statements, relative to PAUL. I'm sure you can find supporters saying stupid stuff, but please... back up some of your emotional screaming with some PROOF.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 2:02PM

Robert,

You missed the point. I acknowledge that I made that crap up, most of it anyway. But digging up a few statements, bringing up old newsletters, and such, the Obama machine would crucify Paul.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:33PM

@Chuck:

From my obviously partisan position, I respectfully disagree.

I've spent tens of hours scouring both left and right... and conservative and progressive haunts and the bottom line is that NO ONE is happy with Obama.

The difference, this time around, is that the people "LEFT" of the Republican base are pissed at their man.

He betrayed them.

He promised to be about less war and he is more warmongering than Bush.

He promised LGBT rights and, with the exception of cancelling "don't ask, don't tell," he betrayed them there.

He promised to be anti drug war and is worse than Bush was.

He talked about avoiding corruption and lobbying and kow towing to Wall Street and EVEN THEY recognize that he's the biggest Wall Street stooge in history.

I challenge you (and everyone else here) to find ONE example of thoughtful democratic/liberal/progressive/younger people that are arguing the case for anyone BUT Ron Paul.

The Republicans are telling us that all "cross overs" are "operation chaos." Sure, that might be true... to some extent. But my HONEST opinion, based on HOURS and HOURS of lurking is that most of Paul's support outside of the Republican base is REAL... at least real in the sense of picking him over someone that betrayed them.

You can't win a general election with ONLY the support of Republicans.

You surely can't win when 75% of the base HATE the candidate.

You want "shredded" by Obama?

Wait until they start dragging out Romney's "flip flops" and his REAL history as a "business man."

He started with a leg up, was always a silver spooner and is now, objectively, a 1%er.

Maybe I'm being silly to think Paul could beat Obama... but anyone that, without thinking, accepts the Republican BS that Romney will easily beat Obama is allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated.

Lew Dunbar| 1.10.12 @ 4:26PM

I have been a fan supporter of Ron Paul for the last 5 years. From reading all that you have written here today I appreciate your articulate arguments.

Your wrote this: " I've spent tens of hours scouring both left and right... and conservative and progressive haunts and the bottom line is that NO ONE is happy with Obama."

I can agree with this. The problem I see when it comes to election time is a lot of the people that will vote for Obama do not read newspaper, or follow politics much at all, so their voices aren't being heard by you yet. They will just show up next November and vote for Obama.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:51PM

@Lew Dunbar:

Well, beyond what I can "gather" from Internet lurking, my only other evidence is anecdotal.

I think there's something real to the whole "youth for Paul" and overall "enthusiasm for Paul" stuff that might (might) help in this situation.

I've talked to all of my kids and their friends and they are all huge Paul fans (similar or more than that group was towards Obama).

I've been pleasantly surprised, talking to several Democrats that said they were strongly thinking of supporting Paul vs. Obama.

But, total, that accounts for like ten votes... so...

C4LCNCPLS| 1.10.12 @ 6:23AM

The GOP keeps doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

This election will be a repeat of 2008. Obama will get 4 more.

The GOP is now the minority party while the indepedent party is the majority. If the GOP does not change their ways, they will make themselves extinct.

BGinTN| 1.10.12 @ 8:36AM

“Big government conservatives will never truly overhaul Washington because they need the status quo in place to accomplish their objectives. They don’t want to rebuild the machine; they simply want to change the people pulling the levers.”

And comments
http://www.redstate.com/govern.....he-choice/

William R| 1.10.12 @ 10:44AM

Red State. You've gotta be kidding. Bunch of people in a circle jerk. Between Leon Wolf and Neal Stevens banning anyone that doesn't follow the GOP establishment line the site is an embarrassment

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:24AM

First They Tried To Ignore Us Tea Party Patriots, Then They Tried To Mock Us Tea Party Patriots, Then They Tried To Smear Us Tea Party Patriots.

First They Tried To Ignore Dr.Ron Paul & His Supporters , Then They Tried To Mock Dr.Ron Paul & His Supporters , Then They Tried To Smear Dr.Ron Paul & His Supporters.

" Obama's lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

reason111| 1.10.12 @ 7:21AM

Agreed Clint.
It has to be scary for them, to KNOW the actual numbers supporting Paul is larger than anything they've seen, yet they keep trying to ignore it. I'm a 54 yr old widow, so not the 'youngsters' the media is trying to portray.
I think the 'youngster' that is emerging is a demographic of younger Americans beginning to read up on history. They don't understand what happened to be so bluffed by Obama, so they started reading. And as they read, they started asking, "What happened to our constitution and why is the GOP infringing on so many Bill of Rights yet older Republicans aren't concerned about that?"
That's just my opinion, but I believe it to be so.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 8:23AM

Are you people RETARDED?

The only people who you're scaring, is US. You got punched in the face, in Iowa, but, apparently, you didn't get the message.

Look at you. The day after Iowa, we got a semblance of Normality, around here. Clint was beginning to seem coherent, and Jack seemed downright normal. They even wrote comments without Ron Paul's name in them, and without informing the rest of us, of how Stupid we all are, and how we're all: Jew Loving Israeli Firsters and some kind of "Bunt Cake" or was it: We're "Smearing Al Bundy".
It's hard to keep up.

But, as with any addiction, sometimes we Fall Back. Sometimes we suffer a Relapse. Now, appears to be, one of those times.

Clint Is Doing Capital Letters At The Beginning Of Every Word, And It Makes My Eyes Hurt.

Jackass in Wi is trying to use logic, but it's not really Logic. It's more like a Calvin Klein (Jew) Lipstick, called "LOGIC", and he wants us to Vote for the Pig, that he's applying it to.

And, now they've been joined by All Capital Letters and the number 4, and reason111. One of them, doesn't know how to turn off the Caps Lock, and the other probably COULD give us 111 Reasons to NOT Vote for Legalized Heroin/Coke/PCP, and Methamphetamines, if she wrote a longer comment.

One is reminded of Charlie brown, Lucy, and a Football, that never gets kicked.

Yes?
No?

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:41AM

WF Buckley, Grover Norquist, and Milton Friedman were also in favor of legalizing some drugs. Wars on social problems always are lost causes. Read your history, then type.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 11:25AM

Read my History? Buckley, Norquist, Friedman? WHO CARES what they thought about Legalizing Drugs? Is this a Story about RON PAUL? Or is it about your 3 guys?

Read your History?
Get your head outta your ass.

YOU are backing Congressman Newsletter: Kill a Black/Hide the Body. Start a Militia/Hide from the Cops. And you have the GALL to lecture ME, about History?

STFU. You're not qualified.

Why don't YOU read your history, and tell us all, how many Popeye looking goof balls, with a Racist/Anti-Semitic Publication, and a Fortress America Mentality, to go along with his Legal Heroin/PCP/Methamphetamines Plank, have won the Nomination, and went on to unseat an Incumbent President?

We'll wait.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:32PM

It's not to legalize it Tim.... it's to give power to the states to deregulate it so that people can be helped instead of harmed.

He said multiple times that he didn't write the newsletter. I believe him as the most truthful congressman I have ever seen............Apply that to anyone else standing in front of that podium

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:48PM

@Timothy L. Pennell:

Wow.... just wow!"

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:10PM

Some of us have to deal with the problem day by day. Legalization will make things worse, fool.

DRed| 1.10.12 @ 12:49PM

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/...../999.short

We lost the drug war a long time ago, Occam. I would think it's time to try something new.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:49PM

@Occam's Tool:

Is this because you're a doctor?

Please elaborate on exactly how moving the legal aspects of individual drugs will make things worse... specifically please?

Warrior | 1.10.12 @ 5:26PM

Seems like there were similar feelings about alcohol during prohibition.

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:17PM

That's Because I'm A Capitalist, AssHat Pennell.

The Tea Psrty Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 6:33AM

The Ron Paul movement is a rejection of the recent Republican past, but not a complete rejection of the traditional Republican party. It is a mixture of Goldwater/Reagan libertarianism largely abandoned by the GOP in the last fifteen years. .

The skepticism over war is in the same vein as Eisenhower's warning over a runaway military industrial complex and traditional Republican
skepticism over wars. Remember when Bob Dole decried all the "Democrat wars" of the 20th century?

Agree of disagree with Dr Paul his rehtortic is not so far off Old School Repbulicanism as people say.

Le Cracquere| 1.10.12 @ 8:24AM

So Ike's been promoted to the Goldwater/Reagan branch of Republicanism. Who knew?

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 10:19AM

Neither Goldwater nor Reagan were libertarians by any stretch of the imagination. Nor Bob Taft, in case the Paulites start claiming him again. And the main problem with Ron Paul's rhetoric is that he believes what he's saying about foreign policy, even while he plays the hypocrite in most other respects.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:50PM

-Ronald Reagan

Mark W| 1.10.12 @ 6:34AM

I think the difference between Sancrotum and Paul when it comes to religion is that there is a feeling that Sanctorum wants to force his religious views on the states (and even foreign nations) whilst Paul seems more keen on keeping the Federal Government out of it and allowing the states and make the decisions on marriage, abortion etc.

I think the liberal media acknowledges this amd they also do not believe Paul will win the nomination anyway.

Speaking from a neutral spespective, being an Englishman, I think Democrats would be more frighted of losing if the Repoublicans nominated Paul rather than Romney et al. He garners a lot of independant and ex Obama supporters amd the Republicans would, on the whole, support Paul over Obama, despite what some candidates say now.

Eric Adcox| 1.10.12 @ 6:40AM

Good article, but I would like to add that though Paul believe marriage should only be between a man or woman because of his genuine Christian belief, He believes the Federal gov't should stay out of marriage completely and leave it up to the states, which is exactly what the states are beginning to do. Ron Paul also voted for the don't-ask-don't-tell legislation.

Thankyou

Eric Adcox| 1.10.12 @ 6:42AM

CORRECTION: I meant to say that he voted for the REPEAL of the don't-ask-don't-tell military legislation.

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 8:04AM

So what you are saying is that, despite cupcake's assertion (see Ilylial above), Ron Paul IS for forcing his personal views onto other people.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:30AM

Don't ask don't tell took peoples rights away. It only influences negatively gays alone, putting their jobs on the line. The exact opposite of what you're implying. Total failure Vlad.

JR| 1.10.12 @ 2:07PM

When you join the military you have no rights per se. You have become property of the US Government. Personally I would like to go back to before DADT when Gays were not allowed to serve period. From what I've heard our soldiers were tougher then. I've heard a lot of gays talk about serving because it satisfies their perverted lifestyle. I've witnessed these sickos when the straight population isnt looking and it aint pretty.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:54AM

oh BS. the repeal of DADT was effected in a way that did not account for the rights of everyone who is party to the conversation. just ask anyone who occupies a 3-man on the O-3 level on a CV/CVN. not only was DADT repeal executed more as dictat than an observance of everyone's rights (foremost being privacy), but folks like you ALWAYS conveniently the resource redistribution and political part of the agenda.

9thID| 1.10.12 @ 9:23AM

Yes, Ron Paul is Pro-Choice on ALL social issues a la Bill Clinton's version of being a "Baptist"...

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:55AM

would Ron Paul support State taxes funding abortion clinics?

Appleby| 1.10.12 @ 6:40AM

Support of Ron Paul is one more way for the Occupiers to stick a fork in Mom and Dad; its the moral equivalent of the way Canada looks at what Ameridca does and then does the opposite even if it doesn't make a lick of sense and may in fact saw off the branch they are clinging to.

My own opinion is that the only ambition Generation Occupy has is getting its face on TeeVee doing something obscene or obnoxious, even if that is getting handcuffed and stuffed in a paddy wagon. The only good thing about this is that it will further a close relationship between these brats and their grandparents, as they can exchange warm memories of the times they have peed on other people's property.

Ron Paul is a perfect idol for the Occupy Generation. He is their Howdy Doody.

timo| 1.10.12 @ 7:40AM

@ Appleby With national debt of $15T and counting, and often $100K college debt burden per person, with mediocre prospects to find well paid job, young people have the right think that they are screwed for life by the current status quo. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a chance to facilitate meaningful changes. Besides, he has been authentic, honest, and consistent throughout his whole political career. And it's young people that traditionally have driven social and political changes anywhere in the world. You name the period in human history.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 9:26AM

You know what?

If these kids come out of college with $100,000 in debt, IT'S THERE OWN DAMNED FAULT!

They willingly took on the debt, on the gamble that what they were buying, a college education, was a good investment. Now, like all the people who bought the huge houses, with the granite counter tops, and the exotic hardwood floors, and the marble bath tubs, and all of the rest of the useless expensive shit, they are stuck with a mountain of debt, in a crappy economy, and a bad investment.

They packed their own lunch, and it ended up being an excrement sandwich. So, eat it up while it's still warm.

These "occupy" vermin just want a damned handout, "forgive our college loans".

BULLSHIT!

Time are tough, we all been through them. Tough times make you stronger, and wiser. Times will get better once Obama is out of office.

I'm just tired of the damned kids whining about how tough things are on them. Screw'em! Times are tough for everyone. Get a job, even if it's flipping burgers. And be the best burger flipper ever, it might just get you somewhere, someday.

Derek Leaberry| 1.10.12 @ 10:17AM

Very good post. I think you've done an excellent job of nailing down Ron Paul's appeal.

As an older, disillusioned conservative, I am very sympathetic towards Ron Paul without endorsing everything he supports. I have been waiting for the party of small government- the Republican Party- to cut government for over thirty years but not only have the Republicans failed to do so, they have spent money by the trillions in dubious activities, domestic and foreign. Twenty years after the Cold War- which I wholeheartedly supported- came to a close I am waiting for a reduction of military spending and an end to the scores of military bases throughout the world. The Republican Party as a conservative political institution has produced about as much failure as the current Washington Wizards basketball team.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:56AM

Plese in explain in detail:

1) why Paul is the only option

2) how he would actually achieve all these wonderful goals you believe in

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:15PM

@Derek Leaberry:

Derek, please take the time/effort/thought to do something that Carnot is not willing to do.

Ilylial | 1.10.12 @ 7:53AM

You don't understand at all. We mean to lay a foundation to build off of for our generation coming into power. The current system isn't progressing as fast as we need it to. Removing legislation gives room for improvement, as is needed right now. The occupy movement is a direct representation of Marxism. We knew it was going to happen. You pretentious hindrance. You, who has no vision; No vista to gaze upon the world.

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 8:05AM

And there you have it folks. The proof that this "Libertarianism" is just dress up progressive leftist drivel.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:22AM

I don't hide it. I said it plainly. "I'm a full blown leftist demi that believes we have to either foot the bill now or change the laws in place RADICALLY."

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:40AM

Guess we can't help but take the opportunity handed to us and use it against the establishment. Don't get me all wrong here, but if we don't pay taxes how do we pay for the debt? I would eventually like to be rid of the income tax. It's unconstitutional, but apparently current conservatism is out of touch with reality.....I voted for President Obama and I will do it again if Ron Paul isn't on the ballot.....Make me.....I don't mind.....Two different directions converging in the same place. One taking longer(the Obama route).

BGinTN| 1.10.12 @ 8:41AM

Read please,
And comments
http://www.redstate.com/govern.....he-choice/

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 9:03AM

Read. I get it. You don't like him, but his foreign policy is pretty well organized. He also now known as the drone president for putting so much effort into getting our men out of harms way. I can't say much for czars or big government or more spending. We have to bite the bullet on taxes tho. I won't have my children being raised in a country where every dollar is printed out of debt. We have to end the fed. What I'm saying by I'll vote for Obama before any one other than Ron Paul is saying, "They aren't worth the change." They're corporate capitalists looking for only personal gain. I like John Huntsman too, but he doesn't seem to stand a chance. The constitution says the role of government is to protect our property, our freedom, and our money. We are way outside of that now.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 9:15AM

Thank you for your honesty! We've been saying for months that a lot of Paul supporters are nor conservatives, but are actually very liberal.

I just didn't know he was getting the "full-blown Marxist" voters.

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 8:59AM

Vlady,
See my comment in response to Appleby, especially #4. If you are not ready to read, study and think, you have no business making mindless comments.

Use of the "left / right" paradigm is incredibly ignorant. A cursory knowledge of solid geometry or elementary Physics, for example, should have given you a basic understanding of multidimensional vectors. "left" and "right" are two points that define a line - a one dimensional entity. the real world is complex, multidimensional.

Libertarian philosophy is as opposite "Marxist collectivism" as one can get. Both Neocon and "progressive" ideology are closely related expressions of authoritarian statism. Both seek to control the individual via initiated force, denying each of us our self-ownership. Wake up, learn think, and stop taking the koolaid.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 9:13AM

On a personal level, for marxism to work, it has exist in a libertarian society. Making my job a Co-op, per say, helping to govern myself essentially. Not to say that wages should all be the same or anything of that nature, but closer to home. I believe the record number of dollars made in 2011 go up to 1.7 trillion with no correlation to jobs at all. There's certainly a problem there. The feed goes up, not down.

crookedwren| 1.10.12 @ 10:03AM

Wow. "(F)or marxism to work, it has to exist in a libertarian society." Dude, you need to do some serious reading.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:25AM

What do you think it should be eh? Do you think that Marxism should be some authoritarian society? It's about being free....You know who else didn't like Karl Marx? HITLER....... Yea....I've done my reading....perhaps it's you who needs to read....so here you go....live from wikipedia "Marx's theories about society, economics and politics, which are collectively known as Marxism, hold that all societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle. He was heavily critical of the current socio-economic form of society, capitalism, which he called the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", believing it to be run by the wealthy middle and upper classes purely for their own benefit, and predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, it would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new system, socialism.[4] Under socialism, he argued that society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".[5][6] He believed that socialism would, in its turn, eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called pure communism. Along with believing in the inevitability of socialism and communism, Marx actively fought for the former's implementation, arguing that both social theorists and underprivileged people should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic change." Communism isn't a goal...it's an inevitability for the future...as we evolve socially....I see where you've made it to....

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:34AM

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Communism is more emphatically in history's sh1tpile than Mussolini.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:47AM

Oh is it?.....Can't wait to see how world war 3 turns out then.....

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 10:28AM

I look forward to the dictatorship of the proletariat coming up against the libertarian impulses of the highschool dropout generation.

Limbaugh is generally correct when he refers to "young skulls full of mush."

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:44AM

Oh you mean democracy?.....we'll get there soon enough...and if we're in a libertarian society...the social implications will be dire.....sarcasm if you didn't catch it.....OH NO... STATE CONTROLLED LAWS.....More acceptable regulations per region.....YOUR VOTE MATTERS? that's not good right....We live in a republic....not a democracy....As we find new ways to utilize the internet, I'm sure voting will be one of it's many uses as soon as we figure out how to keep hackers at bay.....This will rule out our reps.....The dictatorship of the proletariat has to begin with libertarian ideologies...It's something we all are already fighting for....Capitalism cannot run the world....Look at oil.... I think I'm done here.... I've got a small business to run....

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:59AM

we know one thing...a Libertarian society will share one outcome with a Liberal/Progressive society: it will be totally agnostic toward right and wrong! moral relativism.....just can't get enough of it!!!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:16PM

@carnot:

"Moral relativism" like war for the sake of profits... instead of national defense?

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 11:49AM

Mindless to those without a mind perhaps. Unlike you, I am not making any pretentious arguments about being a braniac nor writing a dissertation proving how smart I am. You want real world? Then throw out the throw away comments your professors gave you in college and/or grad school.

As for the real world being complex, you sound like John Kerrey. Things are nuanced, after all.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:09PM

You've lost sight of the issue at hand....Me saying that I've gained knowledge from the internet focused on that we young people can utilize the internet to circumvent the mainstream media spin and find the truth. Calm down. I wasn't saying " OH EVERYONE LOOK HOW AWESOME I AM".....somehow the attacks upon me throughout this forum have caused me to have to defend myself.....which you now say I'm tooting my own horn.....Yea, I had to because of the barrage of insults.

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:01PM

so...exactly how do you discern an authoritative source on the Internet? please let me know...I need to call their help desk.

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 9:31AM

Ilylial,

So young, so ignorant. (Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and is much more forgivable than stupidity, which is the inability to learn.)

Can you name just ONE time that Marxism has worked?

Or are you of the school of thought that you are so much brighter than the other people that tried it, and failed, that you can actually make it work?

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:11PM

No one has tried Marxism...It's happening now... I just want to let a slew of profanity out into the world and yet, I won't, because as a Ron Paul supporter I have to uphold dignity in the world.

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:11PM

Dumbass, get a GED and go to college. Quit whining.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 12:23PM

Do you people completely reject knowledge and just make it up as you go along? I don't see any of your ideas up on this screen. It's because you have none. You knock me for providing a thought process that's different than your own and aren't able to bring one to the table for me to criticize. Way to catch on late, mr. tool.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:12PM

"Do you people completely reject knowledge and just make it up as you go along?"

This coming from someone who doesn't even have a Good Enough Diploma. Oh, the STAGGERING irony. Don't you have some place to "occupy," little Marxist?

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 2:07PM

Careful Con Chef, Ilylial is awful touchy. He complained that I was rude and arrogant.

We wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of our very own "occupier", would we?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 2:51PM

Sure as hell would!

The Occupados are nothing more than a bunch of spoiled little kids who haven't grown up. In Ilylail's case, never even got a Good Enough Diploma.

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 8:32AM

Appleby’s comments reek of ignorance and venom; if they represent the thoughts and beliefs of a significant portion of Republicans we are doomed.
1. “Seek First to Understand, Then to Be Understood” – Stephen Covey. Appleby, like many likeminded, seem to have made no effort to understand. Hateful name calling is not the same as thoughtful response to a set of issues that one understands.
2. This characterization of Ron Paul supporters is, at best, pathetic. For example, I am 65 years old, father of 2 adults, have degrees in engineering and an MBA, and am business owner. My wife is an executive in a public corporation – and a Ron Paul supporter. I recently meet a group of active duty naval air personnel who are Ron Paul supporters – not exactly the folks Appleby describes.
3. I have read Dr. Paul’s writing and heard his discussions for nearly 20 years. My support is NOT about Dr. Paul the person, but the ideas and integrity he represents.
4. To those with an honest interest in understanding I suggest reading: Frederic Bastia, F.A. Hayek (take the time to check out his bio on Wikipedia – not exactly the description of a lightweight), Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Jefferson, B. Franklin, etc. Oh yes, also read the 10 commandments, especially those that refer to interpersonal behavior, you know, like murder, lying, theft, etc. If you’re so inclined, also get a red letter edition of The New Testament, and read the “red letters”. Both Democrat “progressive” ideology and Neocon mindless ideology violate both the spirit and the letter of all these references.
The “conventional wisdom” has built the biggest killing machine the world has ever known, incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country, continues to erode our fundamental personal liberties, and has built a system that serves the interests of a “power elite” while moving us toward economic collapse. “Republicrates” and “Democans” are equal in perpetrating a statist, authoritarian war against “We the People.” Shame on you.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:49AM

I stand on your side of the line today, Randall. I'm called a progressive liberal Democrat. Although, I see where our views meet. Government shouldn't try to govern beyond it's means and not everyone believes the same things. Clearly why this debate is so heated. That being the case just makes it more obvious to gravitate towards Ron Paul. Thank you for your wisdom.

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:36AM

"I'm called a progressive liberal Democrat."
Who thinks Communism is a glorious inevitability. In other words, you're a Commie. That's OK , we know most Demoncraps are, these days.

Some day, when you're old enough to get a job and earn your own money, you just may change your mind.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:50AM

I own a record label PsychoDad. I don't need a job...I've made a career for myself...since that's what I was forced to do....Luckily I found the backing....Try again

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 12:37PM

Funny, I thought you said you were making 7.25 a hour flipping burgers?

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 4:40PM

I guess it is tough for the trolls to remember their own lies.

I saw the 7.25 a hour burger flipping comment too.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:13PM

If you own a record label, then I'm the 2nd coming of SRV.

Dai Alanye | 1.10.12 @ 10:30AM

Why is it these kooks fail to appreciate the utility of the paragraph?

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:37AM

dont oppress me with your totalitarian grammar!

Boar Hunter| 1.10.12 @ 12:12PM

ROFLOL, all of that to let everyone know you are mentally retarded.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:54PM

@Appleby:

Unless your last name is Romney, Koch or Soros, I don't understand why you take the despising of "the 1%" so personally.

I thought most of the OWS stuff was pretty lame, but are you really still believing that "the 1%" are just honest, hard-working entrepreneurs (like me) that happened to "make it big?"

The 1% is Goldman Sachs, etc. The people we bailed out in a non free market way.

For a complete list of the 1% please refer to opensecrets.org and check the top contributors to Obama, McCain and Romney.

Starchild | 1.10.12 @ 6:49AM

In trying to explain Ron Paul's popularity, and why younger voters in particular back him in large numbers, Robert Stacy McCain seems to avoid considering the possibility that many younger Americans have simply decided they like libertarian values.

"Fiscally responsible and socially tolerant" is an attractive combination that seems to be making sense to more and more people these days, especially those too young to be joined at the hip to one of the establishment political parties.

I suspect that 20-something voters also appreciate Ron Paul's authenticity, and the fact that he *doesn't* look slick, polished, and traditionally "presidential" like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman. If so, this represents a major evolution in the political sophistication of the American electorate. Imagine, evaluating candidates based on who they are and what they believe in, rather than how they look and what they say when they're trying to get elected!

Most people (myself included) can find things in Ron Paul's platform to disagree with, but at least he seems to be someone genuinely committed to what he believes in, with a track record of walking the walk, not just talking the talk. What good is a candidate who sounds good now, if you can't trust that he really believes what he's saying and will act on it after he's in office?

With Ron Paul, there's a strong sense that he's the real deal, and what we see is what we'll get, because he's had a long time in which he could have sold out for more power in Congress, but didn't.

Old Soldier| 1.10.12 @ 7:28AM

Yes. That Goldwater libertarian tradition is the future of the GOP - if they have a future.

I want a small federal government that doesn't spend much and leaves me alone. Why is that so hard to understand?

The worst enemy of mainstream Republicans is their own track record over the past couple of decades. We get reminded of their failures ever day as we watch House Republicans continually cave in to Obama's demands.

Au Contraire| 1.10.12 @ 7:56AM

Well said. It's "back to basics" and a purge of warmongering bigspenderism, or the GOP is over. Paul's strategy is to pick off as many delegates as possible and bring the intellectual fight to the convention.

Jay| 1.10.12 @ 6:51AM

Staying home if Romney is on the ballot. No need to vote for an Obama-lite.

Jay| 1.10.12 @ 6:52AM

If Romney is the nominee, that is.

NedB| 1.10.12 @ 7:46AM

Don't stay home, there are other things on the ballot as well.
You can always write in someone else for president.
Voting is to important to leave in the hands of Acorn and democrats. ;)

Jose Mora| 1.10.12 @ 8:50AM

Why stay home? Ron Paul *will* be on my ballot. The only question is whether his name will be printed on it or whether I have to write him in.

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:53AM

We Tea Party Patriots Oppose TARP, Bailouts, Crony Capitalism, Goldman Sachs Revolving Door In & Out Of Big Government, Insider Trading.

Wall Street Ain't Conservative.They Grease Big Government With Big Money And Big Government Greases Them Back. They Are What They Are.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 7:04AM

This article implys Ron Paul and Santorum have the same mission reguarding marrage but the Ron Paul supporters understand that Santorum would envoke his christion beliefs with the force of law while Paul respects everyones right to their own beliefs without goverment interference by force. Huge difference

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 7:06AM

Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.

Social Conservatives Won't Be Able To Carry Santorum ,The Big Government Statist.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.

Thomas Tux| 1.10.12 @ 7:08AM

The mainstream media and their masters are "haunted" by the idea of a Ron Paul win.

Roger Alicea| 1.10.12 @ 7:13AM

Like a previous poster said, Paul's position on DOMA is consistent with his personal beliefs strictly in the sense that what marriages will be recognized by a state should be left to the state to decide. He is in an entirely different category socially from Santorum who would impose every manner of so-called Christian moral code he could muster fom the federal level. This is why Santorum is targeted by the media in this respect far more than Dr. Paul. Just a little research should have led the author to this conclusion to save an otherwise decent article.

Lovely Lily| 1.10.12 @ 7:14AM

Ron Paul is clear about his views on Marriage. He thinks that marriage should between one man and one woman, however, he is a constitutionalist and if the people make laws to support same-sex marriage, that is the state's rights.

He does not want the federal government to get involved, and to allow the states to give the rights of marriage to whomever they choose, because they are empowered to make their state laws.

John Drinkwater| 1.10.12 @ 7:16AM

This is a pretty decent piece compared to most of the garbage written about Ron Paul, but to assert that Paul gets a 'free pass' from either conservative or liberal media is absurd. Weren't you around for the whole 'newsletter' smear campaign?

The New York Times, aka the 'toilet paper of record, has been running one hit piece against Paul after another for the past 3 weeks. Between being alternatively ignored or disparaged, Paul has received the worst coverage of any candidate by far.

Andrew| 1.10.12 @ 7:18AM

Dr. Paul does believe what this pamphlet states. He is a Christian, he does believe man/woman is true for marriage.... I will take it one step further, he does not agree with abortion or legalized drugs. The difference between him and the rest is that it doesn't matter what he personally believes, he WON'T FORCE his personal beliefs on us. He will stick to the Constitution.
He will not legislate morality, and will not add to the Constitution anything in his personal beliefs to make it law... In fact he would the opposite. He may not personally think gays should marry, but he will not make law or add an amendment to outlaw it... That would be AGAINST the Constitution and infringe on personal liberty.
The REAL story this cycle that NOBODY has picked up yet so far is... Christians will have 2 choices in the GOP this cycle.... A Mormon, or a Christian that won't legislate morality or make new law to force others to live by Christian doctrine.... THAT is a great story!

Nemo| 1.10.12 @ 7:19AM

Ron Paul may be a symbol of "brand damage" but he acts like a manifestation of brain damage.

Rob M| 1.10.12 @ 7:19AM

For the first time the GOP Presidential Nomination is grabbing the interest of the public here in the United Kingdom. Why? Ron Paul. We appreciate his honesty and integrity and hope someone like that emerges here in the UK. Go Ron Paul!

john dubose| 1.10.12 @ 7:25AM

The people who support Ron Paul do it for one simple reason. They think he is mostly correct about his analysis of what is wrong and how to fix it. They are often proud of themselves for looking past his non-slickness. This guy refuses to see that fact.

Au Contraire| 1.10.12 @ 8:00AM

Every commentator keeps trying to psychoanalyze his supporters instead of sticking to the simple explanation--we agree with him, and we don't care that he doesn't look like a Ken doll politician.

bill king| 1.10.12 @ 7:29AM

Great article. When journalists write the truth then this country can recover and her people will be free and prosperous again.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 7:35AM

Good comments on Pauls Marriage views. It reminds me of a quote that Mr Santourum should read and understand. "Morals are things that are chosen and not forced, They should be understood and not obeyd"

We_the_people| 1.10.12 @ 7:36AM

First off its BOTH sides of the aisle that are damaged, not JUST from "the Bush years"....Obama TRIPPLED the deficit spending over that of Bush.

Second, did you REALLY say "the pundits say he has no path to the nomination"...oh ok the same pundits who said he doesn't have a shot at all? The same pundits who siad he has a national cieling of single digits? The SAME pundits who were ready to crown Perry and forgo the entire nomination process just a few short months ago?

THE SAME PUNDITS WHO TOLD US TARP WAS A GOOD IDEA!

Ok, keep believing the "pundits" then.

Ed G.| 1.10.12 @ 7:43AM

We are "fanatical" about him because D.C. is corrupt, and he is not. Supporters follow other candidates around to let them know that we won't let him be marginalized for having the conviction and integrity that they lack.

The author of this article doesn't understand Ron Paul's position on marriage. While Dr. Paul holds personal beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman, he doesn't want to project his beliefs on others. Instead, he asserts that the federal government should have nothing to do with ANY marriage, as it is an agreement between individuals. Really, why should the government care who marries who?

This comes from a 38 year old male, married for 14 years, with 3 wonderful children, who is concerned for the future of his children. Give me a man of character for President...someone I would be proud to have my children emulate. Give me Ron Paul!

Kevin C. Moore| 1.10.12 @ 7:46AM

You ask an important question in the first paragraph. Why does Paul generate such enthusiasm? It seems that you have failed to come up with a good answer, though.
Let me help you figure it out.
1) A President Paul is quite plausible.
2) Paul's supporters do not make the assumptions you presume. They are relatively well-informed.
3) Paul's foreign policy statements are obviously honest and reasonable, even to most mainstream Republicans.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 8:46AM

Really? Have you SEEN the comments left by these supporters of Legalized Heroin, and Meth, and PCP? Do you hear how they defend the PUBLISHER of a Newsletter, that gives TIPS on how to Kill a Black, and dispose of the body?

What am I saying? You already know all those things, because you're "Relatively well informed".

As far as the "Plausibility" of a President Popeye?

C'mon.
Batman will win, on a Write In Campaign, before this Jew Hater, will.

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 2:24PM

@ Timothy

Where are you getting this crap? Are you pulling it out of your "black hole"?

Michael Bergsma| 1.10.12 @ 11:05AM

Most of the Ron Paul supporters I have known live in a conspiracy theory world where Bush caused 911, the Fed deliberately caused the financial crisis, and a 1000 other conspiracies. Their idea of debate is slander. Only a few of the RP types I know have actually helped down ballot candidates and they are unable to raise campaign money. So I do not find them informed or reasonable at all.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:20PM

@Michael Bergsma:

How about Obama is the anti-christ socialist and that the same exact establishment supporting him and supports the major GOP stooges will act completely differently if he is replaced with someone with an "R" in front of their name.

That conspiracy theory is really wacky.

Dan| 1.10.12 @ 7:47AM

For the record: I am a 51 year old married father of one who has been a Ron Paul supporter for many years.

Rosco1776| 1.10.12 @ 7:54AM

I can't wait for Ron Paul to be "haunting" the White House!! 54 years old here and damn glad I found Ron Paul BEFORE the 2008 crash as he helped me save my 401K.

Ron Paul 2012 or BU$T !!

NedB| 1.10.12 @ 7:54AM

Ron Paul does have a lot of good ideas DOMESTICALLY. Not all of them, but enough that people are looking at them.

However, his foreign policy ideas are a nightmare and WILL cause a war, probably with nuclear weapons. He absolutely fails to understand RIF's and what they want to do. (Radical Islamic Fundamentalists) Their goal is nothing less then the imposition of Islam globally, with all that entails.
He thinks this is a recent development and blames the RIF's on U.S. policy. He hasn't studied the history of Islam or he would understand that this has been going on for over 1000 years.

If Paul is elected and manages to go through with selling out all our friends, (Even worse than what Obama has done), we will get hit again and the death toll will be in the millions.

If/when that happens, Paul would be removed from office and more than likely executed.

Nope, Paul should not be president. Put him to work in the treasury instead. :)

Donchi| 1.10.12 @ 8:15AM

You need to study the history of Judeofascism, and recognize how outrageous it is that far-right Zionists dictate U.S. foreign policy.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 9:31AM

Yes, the sinister ZOG controls all. I just emptied your bank account of the last $5 in it. Tonight, I'm coming to kidnap your kids & use their blood for my purim cookies. This, of course, AFTER the Sayeret Matkal hit team pops you a new asshole between the eyes.

You people are laughable.

Andrew| 1.10.12 @ 8:18AM

Wow you are stretching here... Nothing like making some HUGE unsupported assumptions. There are powers MUCH closer to RIFs that would be bigger and closer targets than us... China for example. If YOU did your research you would understand the hate between Godless communists and RIFs.
As far as Paul's foreign policy... I leave you to ponder this, which you will only understand if you are a parent, you DO NOT walk up and down your street buying groceries for your neighbors if you can't even feed your own children. If you did this, buy food for neighbors while your own children starve, people would DEMAND you be relieved of your children, you would be arrested and called irresponsible. That is the current US foreign policy, we are sending TAX PAYER MONEY all over the globe in the form of sustaining wars, foreign aid, weapons, bases in countries (like Germany) that we no longer need AT ALL... Meanwhile, OUR PEOPLE & COUNTRY ARE SUFFERING. It is criminal to send one cent of tax payer money out of the country while tax payers are suffering like we are. I would rather do away with the fed income tax entirely, allowing me more money to raise my children, than send MY money to another country... If I want to help another country, it is something I should do on my own, through charity, not have my government VIOLATE my constitution to take money from me to give to another country.... That does not seem outlandish to me... Maybe you like that kind of thing, but I don't... However, I am sure you will come back with IRAN WOLL HAVE THE BOMB AND BLOW US UP argument... I remember 4 years ago McCain was singing bomb Iran and claiming they were less than a year from having the bomb... 4 years later, still no bomb, & we are ONCE AGAIN being told they are less than a year again... Please, this is so 2007 & 2008!

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:17AM

I would even go as far to say we shouldn't respond even after a nuclear attack....We have to seriously re-establish ourselves in this world and make known our position....This isn't some bar fight where you and your buddy get in a fight with 2 other gentlemen only to find out later your buddy slapped the the other gentleman's wife's tush....Where you still right? NO....Analogy over....

PsychoDad| 1.10.12 @ 11:39AM

Eat a Glock, Commie scum.

Capt. Obvious| 1.10.12 @ 11:51AM

Threaten the internet, supergenius.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:53AM

I believe in the right to bear arms as well. Got a shooting range behind my house, matter of factly. Maybe you should eat my 270.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:33PM

you believe in the right to bear arms but not in the right to use those arms for self defense.

you are one of those who MIGHT have a firearm but would never use one. the perp would take it from you and use it on you.

you dont NEGOTIATE with evil, you stomp it out.

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 11:57AM

You know...I came on here being respectful while everyone spat in my face with complete ignorance and misinterpretation....I suppose I went too far with that last statement and I'm sorry.....

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:30PM

respectful?

you spout commie trash and think that is respectful?

listen up, doing what you call for is called SURRENDERING without ever firing a shot.

i KNOW if mt buddy started a fight or not.

getting NUKED is not, my buddy slapped him BS.

getting NUKED is an act of WAR! millions will die from it but you see it as a bar fight?

i bet you FAILED in kindergarden

Peppermint Tea| 1.10.12 @ 1:46PM

Relax, Dog, Ilylial is just pretending to be an OWS Paulbot and having fun. The parody is way overboard, e.g. not even a dropout ignoramus would write "matter of factly."

Steve Holt| 1.10.12 @ 7:57AM

Author uses the word "mainstream" 4 times. The current "mainstream" policies in this country are taking the country into bankruptcy, less freedom, further corruption, secrecy, and ruin. The "mainstream" media covers for them in this process. Why wouldn't the American people, perhaps, want to change course for this country's future?

Both parties leadership is nearly exactly the same. Because they are being bribed, blackmailed and extorted by the same people, to support the same legislation and policies. It is government for and by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Monsanto, Raytheon, Exxon Mobil, and others. The "Business Plot" of the 1930s continues in its fruition. Romney's platform and record of spending and lobbyist-written mandates is near identical to Obama's. The internationalists that own this country's largest TV and print outlets - who push distractions and distortions and omissions, and who care nothing for the well-being of this country or its people - are terrified of the notion of a President with a grasp of the realities in this country, and the courage to talk about it with the American people. Ron Paul is a historic chance for an America of principle, honesty, and ideas in this election.

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 2:27PM

Well said

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 7:58AM

"You don't have to go to a Ron Paul rally to find Ron Paul's supporters. "

Boy ain't that the truth... Just come on over to the American Spectator. We got a couple of his propagandists right here....

Reid McComments| 1.10.12 @ 8:07AM

Ron Paul supporters are everywhere, all these Ronbots are totally getting brainwashed by his mixed up rhetoric. I mean this guy is worse than David Koresh. First he has great disdain for Lincoln, although racist love him for that, and he's wrong about history and the Constitution. He speaks about the constitution like sinners speak about the Bible, where in the bible does it say I can't look at porn on the internet. DUH!!! Anyways if you want the truth about Paul, and you are thinking about voting for him consider this post:

http://bit.ly/zflwU1

Donchi| 1.10.12 @ 8:13AM

Oh, boy. The guy is worse than David Koresh? Ha ha. You're one of those Lincoln cultists, aren't you? Admit it. Good. It is with great pleasure that I inform you that Lincoln was an evil pig who used men as human pawns and slaughtered them like livestock. War was a "numbers game" to that creep. And he couldn't even grow a mustache.

David Green| 1.10.12 @ 8:32AM

Paul's name was not mentioned in one headline for either of our two largest political news feeds in this country in the week leading up to the NH primary, while even Bachmann and Perry were mentioned. CNN and others physically pushed Paul's wife around and told her to "get out of the way" at an event, while the next morning they gave tons of free time to Huntsman's wife and ate cookies saying they had an "H" on them for Huntsman. During that time they showed a racist video posted by some mystery person (later it seemed likely to have come from someone close to Huntsman) and insinuated once again that it came from a Paul supporter. All this while munching cookies with poor Mrs. Huntsman. I can't imagine why Paul's supporters would think they have to work hard and be a bit more vocal.

Peppermint Tea| 1.10.12 @ 1:47PM

Did they have an "A" on them for Newts' wives 2 and 3?

Donchi| 1.10.12 @ 8:09AM

Wrong. Ron Paul personally felt that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but he wants the government out of the marriage business altogether--and has said so, again and and again. Santorum brought the wrath upon himself with his track record of extreme statements about gays. The person who gets a pass for wanting to keep gay marriage illegal is President Obama, who has said his views on it are "evolving". So, with all due respect: don't be hatin'.

JR| 1.10.12 @ 2:29PM

Extreme statements about gays? I'll give you extreme I wish we could shove them all back into the closet and I'll use my drill gun with 3 and a half in screws and keep it shut. I have seen these sickos when the curtain is open so to speak and it is truly sick! Next Nambla will want special rights and will use the logic of people like you to get them. Name a society that has embraced homosexuality openly that still thrives today. The ones who have are crumbling before our eyes. Evolution cant take place if e are all having sex with someone of the same sex now can we. Homosexuals are evolutions biological misfits.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:13PM

@JR:

What are you basing your moral disdain for homosexuality on? Scripture?

What chapter is that evolution concept in?

katrina| 1.10.12 @ 8:13AM

The other candidates lack enthsiasim....it is a testament to how sad Newts campaign was when he had to hire people to Tweet for him......Romney is so status quo and with the banksters funds he will attempt to buy the election...People ae excited about Ron because he is a breath of fresh air...Saturday night debate Romney was allowed to babble feel good rhetoric to the point of making my head explode.....Ron Paul alway has a solution and thats whatbw the people want to hear....God Bless Dr.Paul he is our last hope....throwing the establishment whether left or

katrina| 1.10.12 @ 8:15AM

Cont......right is a vote against corruption

Chris| 1.10.12 @ 8:14AM

In the same breath that you correctly site Paul's strong third place finish in Iowa, strong second place polling in New Hampshire, and unprecedented national enthusiasm amongst voters, you refer to his nomination as implausible. This is, perhaps, another reason that could explain the fervor with which Paul's supporters support this particular candidate so passionately. That despite his resonance with so many, he continues to be denied a fair shake in the contest with articles such as this one denying his plausibility as a serious candidate in the wake of glaring evidence which suggests he is just that.

Paul's supporters do not simply assume he stands with them on social issues like gay marriage, as you claim. How can you even justify claims that his supporters are both so uniquely passionate and don't know his stance on the issues? Paul gets his support because he doesn't impose his personal moral views on anyone and chooses to leave these issues to the states as the founders intended.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:16PM

@ FELLOW PAULTARDS:

Is it just me... or does it not really matter what happened in Iowa or NH... or will happen between now and the Romney coronation/subsequent annihilation by Emporer Obama...

I am starting to sense a true groundswell for liberty...

Win or lose in 2012... I think the establishment's on the run...

Agree?

27 - M - WI| 1.10.12 @ 8:20AM

This election is less an election and more a revolution. Our country cannot continue to police the world and allow private bankers to inflate and deflate our economy at will. It is killing not only us, but the rest of the world as they are largely still using our dollars as their reserves. People need to put aside their individual prejudice and do what is right for the country and the world and elect Ron Paul. You may not agree with everything he says, but at least it would be a level playing field.

No more paying for Europe's economic woes on the backs of the rest of the world

No more stealing resources from around the world at will

No more manipulating the American people into war after war

It all must end. It all will end.

Ron Paul 2012

katrina| 1.10.12 @ 8:24AM

Im under the impression the media doesn't understand Libertarianism.....they are scratching their heads...."how can someone believe one thing....but not impose their beliefs on others"...while one may call it hypocrisy....We call it Liberty....we don't want government in our lives.....the message is simple!

JR| 1.10.12 @ 2:31PM

I call it being gutless. Really believing in something but doing nothing to further your beliefs means you might as well have no beliefs.

David Green| 1.10.12 @ 8:25AM

"...Such talk is wild, dangerous, radical and extremist stuff..." referring to cutting back on our global empire. It is more dangerous and extremist to try and maintain it. EVERY country that ever existed was brought down specifically for trying this.

I have gone through newsfeeds which are sent out by AP and Reuters to papers all over the country. They have a political feed with only politics going out, and during the past week there were several headlines featuring 3rd place candidate Huntsman, but not one featuring 2nd place Ron Paul. CNN and other reporters even pushed Paul's wife around and told her to "get out of the way" while they were trying to get at Paul last night. However, the next morning, during the time people are getting ready for work, there was loads of free advertising and support for Hunstman, and Huntsman's wife was even brought in to guest host on CNN, and Paul's name was only mentioned negatively during that hour - and basically that was a lie. THEY LITERALLY PUSHED RON PAUL'S WIFE AROUND AND TOLD HER TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, AND THE NEXT MORNING THE SAME COMPANY BROUGHT HUNTSMAN'S WIFE ON TO TALK FOR A LONG TIME. They brought up that anti-huntsman ad (which was shown to have been created by Huntsman's own family) and CNN still insinuated that Paul's supporters created that stupid ad... Paul's campaign asked the person to take that down and whoever posted it wouldn't do it - not a fan of Paul obviously - but not obvious to CNN. Can you imagine what a group of passionate young supporters are now thinking?

Paul's supporters are out protesting because they know what's going on and what is being done to them. This will probably lead to blowback for any common special interest that are supported by these people, companies, and agencies, because their special interests are the sole reason for this, there is no other excuse for their hijacking of this country's information.

Ian| 1.10.12 @ 8:31AM

What a miopic view of the world this clown has. Its terrifying how the average American is forced to swallow article after article of this tripe from "journalists" as ignorant and uninformed as they are. None of the other candidates are actually conservatives, they are bought and paid for like every prresident for the last thirty years. This is cartoonish to anybody with a brain. It's the puppet on the left versus the puppet on the right. I hope for the stability of the entire planet that they elect Paul to end this insane rampage in the middle east and holocaust in Palestine which is partly financed by their tax dollars. This can't carry on any longer either financially or ethically.
Ron Paul, for sanity and a return to your governement serving you and not the vested interests!

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.10.12 @ 8:45AM

Six months ago, I gave Paul 0% chance to win, but like a fungus, the guy kind of grows on you!! His foreign policy ideas disturb me, and that's putting it nicely, but I sure do like his economic ideas. So if he holds on to the #2 position, and the rest of the pack starts dropping off, and it comes down to just Paul and Romney, well that's a no brainer!! Ron Paul will get my vote!! And my money!! I don't want Obama-lite!! And that's Mitt!! But I'll never be a Paulbot though, because they kind of scare me, it looks almost religious to me!! They act like they're brainwashed, like they belong to some sort of cult, kind of like the crowds back in 2008!! Thank God it's a long road to the nomination, because I'm not ready to get on the Paul bus just yet!!

Andrew| 1.10.12 @ 9:00AM

Loving your liberty & having enthusiasm for the Constitution is not a cult. Consider it praise for the messenger, the catalyst... The enthusiasm is not for Paul perse, but for liberty & Constitutional rights. There was a group of people who once cared so much for these things, they started a revolution... Now that is extreme... Yet today we look on them so fondly. It is not cultish or religious to love & show passion for liberty & freedom. Again, it is less for the man, & more for the message & the possibility of freedom & liberty!
I hope it comes down to Paul & Mitt too, so I can welcome you aboard! Keep reading & thinking, keep an open mind... & it doesn't matter for who... Just vote!

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.10.12 @ 9:11AM

Just yet?
You're "not ready to get on the Paul bus just yet"?
Let's talk.

If it comes down to Romney and Paul, you're gonna give Ron Paul your vote, because you don't want Obama-lite? And, it's a "NO BRAINER"?

Triple L. You'll never be a Paulbot? But, you will. It's like the Alcoholic, or the Drug Addict, who's in Rehab. They will always be Alcoholics and Drug Addicts, even if they never indulge, again.

I gotta believe that you saw TRANSFORMERS. The 1st one, where Bumblebee, as the Yellow Camaro, slides up along side Shia Labeouf and Megan Fox, and swings the passenger door open. He looks at her and says: "Fifty years from now, don't you wanna look back and say that you got in the car?"

If Paul gets the nomination? You won't have to worry about Obama-lite. You'll be getting THE REAL THING, only, this time, without the restrictions of getting Re-elected? It'll be Obama to the 10th Power.

As much as I don't like Romney, I at least KNOW< that he's got a WAY BIGGER CHANCE than the Publisher of the Newsletter that writes the "How to Kill Blacks, and Hide the Body" columns.

And, if Romney should win, and an Obama#2 is averted, wouldn't you like to look back and say that you DIDN'T get on that bus?

Not only can he NOT WIN, but, in my humble opinion: He's the ONLY ONE of our Candidates, who can't beat Obama.

Get back in the Barracks, take a Cold Shower, slap yourself in the face, a coupla times, and we'll never speak of this, again.

Dwight Johnson | 1.10.12 @ 1:52PM

The latest polling shows that Romney and Paul both have about the same likelihood of beating Obama.
http://mobile.nationaljournal......a-20120109

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.10.12 @ 5:56PM

TLP: I've been out all day working, so I never had the chance to check back here, but now that I did, WOW!! The Paulbots really come out of the woodwork, don't they? So I just want to apologize to you for my rant this morning, I had just finished running up and down Ardennes St for PT, and I'm always very cranky after I'm done running. So here it is nine hours later, and I'm thinking a lot more clearly now!! Okay? So when it comes my turn to vote in the Primaries, I'll make sure I don't go to vote right after PT's done. I'll wait a few hours!! Sound fair?

Dwight Johnson | 1.10.12 @ 9:00AM

I am not young (58) but I am just as enthusiastic for Ron Paul. People of my generation and that of my parents have let freedom slip away, and now we are witnessing a consolidation of wealth and power in our country. Tyranny is easy; freedom is hard. I do not like the world being passed to the next generation, full of war, debt, and serfdom. Ron Paul gets it. Too bad so many of my peers do not.

Dwight Johnson | 1.10.12 @ 9:06AM

As usual, the only truth to be found is in the comments.

KateS| 1.10.12 @ 9:09AM

Ron Paul would have us in WWIII within days of taking office. I can't believe people are so willing to vote for him over a proven business leader like Romney.

No wonder liberals think conservatives are crazy. I'm beginning to agree with them...and I'm a conservative.

KSmedman| 1.10.12 @ 9:16AM

Paul's organization seems reminiscent of Democratic orginazations. I wonder if there is not some Soros money funneling into Paul's coffers? It makes sense - split the Rep vote, perhaps seed a third party candidate (with no concern that they'd win...).
Perhaps this is the Democratic failsafe? Pay attention to any orgs pushing him to run as an independent. This would also explain why so many of his supporters say they will vote for Obama if Paul is not in the race.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 9:49AM

Ron Paul, Ball Gag Bawney Fwank & George Soros collabrate (appropriate word to use when mentioning Soros) on defense cuts:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/0.....ense-plan/

Dan Phillips| 1.10.12 @ 9:27AM

Older Republicans and "conservatives" support interventionism because they "imprinted" the three-legs-of-the-stool paradigm of conservatism that has been dominant since after WWII and especially after 1980. For them their "conservatism" includes interventionism "because it just does."

The new generation does not support default interventionism because they didn't come up with a Cold War paradigm. They didn't watch Red Dawn (my generation) when they were young or duck under desks in disaster drills (older generation). The dichotomous US against the Bad Guys paradigm does not ring true to them.

US hyper-interventionism is on the wane. It has to be. We are broke and the world situation simply does not justify it. If all was as it ought to be, the conservative party would advocate minding our own business and tending to our own affairs, and the liberal party would advocate interventionism which is inherently prefaced on globalism. Hopefully, as time goes on, the utter ridiculousness of "conservatives" for globalism will finally dawn on some of these interventionists.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 9:54AM

Sorry Dan, I'm an older Republican and I don't support intervention overseas. And neither did the Republican party after World War 2 for the most part

Ike warning about the military industrial complex.

In 1960 JFK was the hawk and portrayed Nixon as weak on the commies.

Goldwater blew it in 1964, but after LBJ ran the DAISY ad Goldwater spent the rest of the campaign screaming that LBJ was lying the country into a needless unconstitutional war.

Nixon won in 1968 by promising to end LBJs war.

In 1980 Reagan talked a a hawkish foreign policy, but his actions show the exact opposite. After the Lebanon fiasco when he pulled the troops out NeoCon Midge Dector called him a wimp.

Enter the NeoCons. They were backbenchers during the Reagan adm. He ignored them. George H W Bush couldn't stand them. It wasn't until his idiot son captured the White House did they move to the front.

Thanks to Rupert Murdoch the NeoCons enjoy front and center status in the conservative media. Fox News and Wall Street Journal.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:32PM

Wisest post I've read here.

Dan Phillips| 1.10.12 @ 5:38PM

William, I'm on your side. My point is that while there was a lot of nuance as you point out regarding policy detail, post-War "conservatism" was in part (largely?) defined as strident opposition to communism. This opposition always took the form of advocating a strong military and sometime took the form of advocating military interventions and support of regimes and insurgencies resisting communism. When people on the right expressed skepticism about certain military adventures it was often in the form of Jacksonian resistance to limited engagement. There wasn’t a lot of principled non-interventionism on the right after WWII. Most of the principled non-interventionist sentiment on the right was between the two world wars. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I think it is unfortunate. But explains why modern “conservatives” can’t not think like interventionists. It is how they have come to understand and internalize “conservatism."

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:38PM

@Dan Phillips:

Well stated, Dan.

Steve| 1.10.12 @ 9:31AM

he doesn't get a free pass you donkey, his voters know that as president he will leave same sex marriage laws up to the individual states. He leaves drug laws to the individual states. The federal government has no business making laws about marriage, THAT is why Ron Paul's supporters who support same sex marriage still support Ron Paul. D'uh.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:40PM

@Steve:

Steve, when did doing things according to our Constitution become wrong?

You are okay with the federal government overstepping its Constitutional boundaries?

Dan Phillips| 1.10.12 @ 9:31AM

BTW, I support Ron Paul, but showing up at other candidates’ events is poor form and does more harm than good because it builds resentment. Several local Ron Paul supporters including me did that to a local Huckabee rally in 2008 and in hindsight it was an unwise idea.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:43PM

@Dan Phillips:

Man... I really want to completely agree with you.

It is probably wrong on some levels, although, strategically and politically, probably not so bad... we're talking about politics.. you know... it's not like they egged his house.

And, given the overt dismissal of Paul in every establishment venue... what tactics are left?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 9:42AM

Everything one needs to know about Paul can be summed up by the idiocy of his supporters. Clit the Valour Thief, Jack "The Proud 4-fer4," an avowed Marxist who claims to value his individualism (how the hell is THAT supposed to work) who's is, by their own admission, a high school dropout (like we couldn't figure THAT out with the whole Marxist who values individualism horseshit), frothing Jew haters who think that the ZOG is controlling America (I really LOVE that one), surrender monkeys of various stripes & willfully ignorant idiots who still think that Islam will leave us alone if we leave THEM alone.

All said, they ain't that much different from the regressives they claim to disdain. Hell one of them posting today IS a freaking regressive. Y'all just keep blowing bong smoke up each other's asses about how your "numbers are growing." And then get back to me after your perpetual candidate finishes as an "also ran." For the umpteenth time. Then tell me how in the world you thought that a Stormfont backed candidate who's a 9-11 Troofer could've ever had a snowball's chance in hell to begin with.

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 10:05AM

For every nut in the Ron Paul camp (and by the way every campaign has them) there is a thoughtful person who simply believes that the best way to restore prosperity, civility, and peace is through restroing the ideas of liberty which dictates a very limited government, embraces free market capitalism, and realises that excessive misplaced foreign interventionism actually harms these things. Alot of people are Goldwater / Reagan type libertarians who have gotten tired of goverment mushrooming over the past twenty years and damaging the future of the country and its good citizens - partly under the stewardship of mainstream so called sensible GOP leadership. They simply believe in liberty and a consistent principled application of it

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 10:30AM

"They simply believe in liberty and a consistent principled application of it"

Then they should also believe in defending it against those sworn to its destruction.

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 5:05PM

The fact is that libertarians DO believe in defending it against those sworn to its destruction. Libertarian theory from Locke on down states that individuals (and by extention groups of individuals / nations) have the moral right to defend themselves against agression.

It doesn't sanction pre-emtive war (as that would be agression) . Nor does it accept that you can "force people to be free" - without making problems ans strive worth. Libertarians take the world as it is - one reason why libertarianism rightly applied in the foreign policy arena (and Im not necessarily thinking in terms of Ron Paul) has some affinity to the Eisenhower/Nixonian realism of the traditional Republican foreign policy.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:47PM

@Con Chef (NB):

"Then they should also believe in defending it against those sworn to its destruction."

We do.

We are just asking if it's okay to pre-emptively cause the destruction of innocents before being 100% certain we are in the right.

There are lots of threats in the world; the world is a scary, dangerous place.

Should we just eliminate ALL possible threats, pre-emptively?

Where do we start?

Where do we end?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:23PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Like the federal reserve and Goldman Sachs?

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:09PM

lets see. how dd the USSR fall? by Reagan OUTSPENDING them. he DROVE them into finanicial ruin.

is this country spending to much? YES!

but dont blame it on defense and the military.

wellfare, SS, medicaire, medicaide, war on poverty and all the other SOCIAL programs are what have ruin our economy along with regulations and taxes.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

“Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it as earned.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

the last quote? something that all the paulistas will never do. all talk and no walk.

come on pocketlint and others, when you gonna crawl out of the basement and DO something?

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 5:09PM

With regard to the last Jefferson comment, active duty military folks are donating to the Ron Paul candidacy in numbers more than all other candidates combined. Plenty more of us are veterans. Offered do do nothing have they?

Michael Tomlinson| 1.10.12 @ 9:43AM

What does his fanatical following really represent? One thing Paul followers are not is conservatives. Ron Paul is the most left wing, big spending, and manipulative DC RINO masquerading as a conservative and Republican.

A hypocrite who talks about cutting government spending and waste Paul is the embodiment of pork spending on pet projects. In the realm of foreign policy he’s to the left of Obama and embraces a hatred for Israel akin to Obama’s spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright and a desire to appease Islam that would make Louis Farrakhan envious.

In the pathetic Iowa caucuses Paul’s support stemmed mainly from conspiracy theorists, Democrats, OWS anarchists, MoveOn.org anti-Semites and leftists who became “last minute Republicans” so they could vote for the Texas charlatan. In New Hampshire’s open primary Paul again is receiving an infusion of support from the left (his real base along with anti-America conspiracy kooks).

For some of those who have embraced his cult of personality he’s a modern day Democrat Lyndon LaRouche or caricature of a 1930’s European potentate. Like the acolytes of Obama, who think they’re intelligent, some are imbued with an obtuse messianic belief that this rather mundane man is a wise leader (he’d be a hit in North Korea). For the Neanderthals in the cult it is a marginally mainstream way to promote their bigotry, bias and prejudice. For the pro-dope wing of the Liberalterians he’s the dude who’s going to end the war on drugs man and let them get high. For homosexuals, like Obama, he’s a closet supporter they know they can count on to push their “choo choo train.” For his fans in the Occupy Wall Street and anti-American conspiracy movement he hates our system of government and blames America the country for everything wrong in the world.

For a few he’s the anti-Romney and they’re possibly unaware or indifferent to the fact that he once published an intolerant newsletter; takes money from foreign interests like Putin’s propagandists; is a closet 9/11 truther; blames America for the ills of the world; is an apologist for Muslim terrorism; defends a nuclear Iran; sympathize with the destruction of Israel; spends taxpayer’s money on pet projects; talks about cutting government, but stands up for the New Deal’s and Great Society’s # 1 Ponzi schemes as is (Social Security and Medicare); thinks our money is encoded to track us; is ethically challenged and blessed with the genuineness of a neo-fascist making out with a neo-Marxist.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 9:50AM

Paul, party of a few thousand, your train for Guyana is leaving the station. All passengers must bring their own KoolAid cups.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 9:55AM

You don't know what conservatism means.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 10:04AM

Oh, I suppose you, as a neo Chamberlain acolyte & supporter of a Stormfont endorsed candidate are going to enlighten us, right?

This oughtta be rich.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 10:15AM

I support Stormfront?? You're a punk kid and a loser in the game of life.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 10:33AM

"...supporter of a Stormfont endorsed candidate..."

Learn how to read, punk illiterate. I didn't say YOU supported Stormfront. I said you supported a Stormfront endorsed candidate. Seems to me that the loser in the game of life is the guy who doesn't even have the reading comprehension level of a 3rd grader.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 3:42PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Are you really trying to make the logical argument that a candidate is responsible for his supporter's beliefs... irrespective of whether those beliefs are the candidates?

Have you actually researched all of YOUR candidate's supporters to ensure that no idiots are in there?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 5:15PM

Dude, I think you & I BOTH know that if ANY OTHER candidate was supported by such a group, the calls for their refutation of that group in the loudest terms possible.

The you have Dr. Dementia's lauding of traitor Bradley Mannng as a "hero."

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 8:55PM

Con Chef (NB):

All of these matters are really (really) complicated.

I DO NOT start with the assumption that all people that disagree with me or RP are idiots.

I do think that it's necessary, though, to DISCUSS and REASON instead of just buy the establishment line (not saying you are... just speaking in general).

Although you might disagree, I'm conflicted on the whole Wikileaks and Bradley Manning thing...

If someone honestly believes that what their country is doing is morally abhorrent, possibly (possibly) there are some situations where that person should be considered the true patriot.

I doubt (seriously) that Manning meets this description; I think he was just an immature , confused person.

But, if we are NEVER allowed to "call out" our leaders... have we not lost significant freedom/liberty?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.11.12 @ 8:55AM

"All of these matters are really (really) complicated."

SERIOUSLY?! Is this the best you've got? You sound like someone who's wife just found the press on nail of another woman on his boxers. "But honey, its COMPLICATED."

Methinks thou dost obfuscate too much.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:25PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Let me understand...

"Paulites don't discuss or admit their doubts... they just lecture and chide like little children."

"Paulites just obfuscate by admitting that they believe some things are complicated/they don't know everything."

Wow... kinda "damned if you do/damned if you don't" huh?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.11.12 @ 9:02AM

"Although you might disagree, I'm conflicted on the whole Wikileaks and Bradley Manning thing...

If someone honestly believes that what their country is doing is morally abhorrent, possibly (possibly) there are some situations where that person should be considered the true patriot.

I doubt (seriously) that Manning meets this description; I think he was just an immature , confused person."

Pure, unadulterated horse crap. He's a uniformed member of the US military passing sensitive info to an unauthorized source who intended to publish that info on the internet for anyone to read. He's no better than Pollard, Ames, Hanssen or the Walkers. Hook them all up to the same IV line & hold a lottery for who gets to push the plunger on the hot shot that kills those traitorous pieces of shit. There is no grey area.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:40PM

@Con Chef (NB):

I'm glad the founding fathers didn't feel this way about their loyalty to King George vs. something higher...

If I recall... in that silly Declaration of Independence thing.... those pussy Paultards said something like....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

After declaring this, they then set out to completely undermine and destroy what they saw as an illegitimate government that had overstepped it's bounds.

Although it would be nice if there were never any grey areas... in reality... there usually are...

What our founders did, relative to what Manning did (if he did it for any morally motivated reason; doubtful), was way worse than what Manning did, no?

Of course, non of this makes sense, when you can't separate "corrupt leaders/illegitimate (temporary) government" from "we the people."

We are NOT the corrupt, liberty destroying current leadership.

It's funny that people are saying followers of Paul have a grandfather complex when it seems like individuals making statements like this have some sort of pathological inability to question authority... if the government (which, Ironically, right now includes Emperor Obama)... says it.. it MUST BE TRUE...

How do you do the logical matrix necessary to believe that Obama is evil/the anti-Christ... but the institutions/establishment that put him in and now supports him... is completely pure and as good as God?

You really believe all we have to do to fix things is switch him out with someone with an R in front of their title?

Fifteen of the twenty-two neoconservative architects of Bush's debacles in Iraq are listed as being on Romney's foreign policy advisory board.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:12PM

punk kid?

i am 51 years of age.
my bio?

H&S CO, Comm PLT, 2ND AAV BN, 2ND MAR DIV
H&S Co, Comm PLT, 8Th Marines, 2ND MAR DIV
Bravo Co, 1st Plt, 4th A.N.G.L.I.C.O.
H&S Co, Comm PLT, 4th AAV Bn, 4th MAR DIV
H&S Co, Comm PLT, GESU, 2nd AAV Bn, IIMEF
BERUIT
KUWAIT
IRAQ
1981-1987 Honorable Discharge
1990-1991 Honorable (medical) Discharge( TBI recieed from landmine in COMBAT!

now lets see YOU'RES BOY! come on william runt, put up or shut up BOY

Nick| 1.10.12 @ 6:16PM

Thank you, for your service, Devil Dog.

I also served in Operation Desert Shield/Storm, in the Army. I didn't see any combat, though. I was a helicopter mechanic, in the rear with the gear.

All of you guys who were on the front lines have my deepest admiration. Semper Fi!
And God Bless!

John786| 1.10.12 @ 9:46AM

Of all the GOP candidates Ron Paul comes across as genuine, real. Romney is completely manufactured. The man has a hole for a head. Ron marries fiscal conservatism, sane foreign policy, personal liberty. It seems a no brainer that real conservatives would be moving towards him in large numbers. He scares them because he doesn't want to turn the world into toast at other peoples expense. The neoconservative want to have one final hurrah in Iran. And this Ron guy is just a real spanner in the works. Ron Paul is change you can believe in If you are a real conservative and not of plastic dithering variety.

Mimi| 1.10.12 @ 9:49AM

Youth vote/Ron Paul
Young people benefit in two things...freedom to use DRUGS unpunished... And never having to sacrifice time, risk danger, or LIFE by going to WAR...So Ron Paul is their guy!
He gets , nationally about 16%...He should be running in the Liberatarian Party, He is NOT a Republican Conservative who also desires Liberty and Freedom , who has the people running that can solve the FISCAL /Budget problems.
He is a distraction with negative consequences to the PROCESS. ......As always, the YOUTH have a lot more to LEARN and a lot of maturing to be graced with. We can NOT take RON PAUL too serious....besides his continuing aging does not equip him for the JOB.
I say this as, a PROUD mother of 8 ages 35-57....fully matured, living professional, moral, contributing lives and great parents to 23. Also as a retired RN Drug and Alcohal Nurse.

Margie| 1.10.12 @ 8:48PM

Awesome, Mimi! I didn't know you were a Mom of eight!!
And I couldn't agree with you more, as always.
The youngsters have been fooled, whether by their teachers in the public schools, where they now learn to blame America first, or by their elders who agree with them, they've been sold a bill of goods.. they're the new 60's generation.. sadly.

But this time around, it's way more serious, because we can't afford this type of mentality in the White House.

May Ron paul FAIL MISERABLY!!

Michael Tomlinson| 1.10.12 @ 9:49AM

Those thinking about supporting the cult of Paul notice the rant of one of his demented followers 27 - M - WI (looks likes Clinton's style of posting).

"No more stealing resources from around the world at will."

That my friends is the left-wing blame America BS that is the foundational principle that undergirds Ron "Hate Amerika" Paul and his anti-America cult.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 9:52AM

BINGO. When it all boils down, Dr. Dementia & his supporters are just another breed of "blame America Firsters."

William R| 1.10.12 @ 10:19AM

CIA why we're attacked on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

Skip| 1.10.12 @ 12:10PM

Thank you, William for proving how "blame America" has become the mantra of the Larouche...I mean PAUL supporters.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:01PM

Kid, you can't refute one thing. The 9/11 report said the same thing. So did Paul Wolfowitz. The idea that we can go around and bomb nations and never suffer any blow back is absurd.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:21PM

What did we do to them during the Barbary Wars that caused "blowback," genius? Islam's tennents call for the death or conversion of all infidels. Maybe you missed that memo, but its recorded history, of which most of you Paulistinians seem woefully ignorant.

In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

Gee, that "blowback's" a bitch ain't it?

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 4:07PM

@Con Chef (NB):

I don't know you. So, I'd probably like you if we were having this discussion over a beer. You might find the same.

Why are so many people that don't agree with Ron Paul so quick to jump to irrational screaming (rhetorically)?

Do you really believe that it's logical to say that, because Paul states that, in some situations, "blow back" should be considered... he is saying that all war is caused by "blowback?"

You realize that's silly, right?

"Blow back" is NOT a phrase coined by Paul. It WAS coined by OUR CIA.... you know, those people that we pay to give us "intelligence" about the "greater world" that Paul knows nothing about?

And, you realize that even the biggest of neocons used 911 as an excuse to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia and did it why?

Because he felt it would be a way to avoid further political/military/terrorist "blow back."

I am not, never have been and never will be an "blame America firster."

I believe that, unfortunately, at this current point in time/history that we are in a similar situation to what other's describe of nations like Iran and China and North Korea in that... OUR GOVERNMENT (possibly, at most, a group of several hundred or thousand at MOST) that are "running the show" that are willing to piss away our glorious achievements for their own desires for greed and power.

Do you really believe that the TINY group of neocons and 1% oligarchy that actually run our current national policy consider YOU or a single one of our young men they are willing to send off to war when they move to achieve THEIR goals?

Here's where the logic breaks down, I think...

Islam is a religion that wants to kill all the infidels.

There are BILLIONS of Muslims across the globe.

How can we ever be "done" with this "war against terror," then?

Must we kill all of the several billion muslims before we declare victory?

I'm not being snarky....

I'm really asking a serious question.

Have you taken this logic out to it's conclusion?

Are you aware of the PNAC report?

Have you heard what Wesley Clark has said about the neocons plans?

Did you not notice that NOTHING they told us about Iraq or Afghanistan was/is true?

Why do you believe what they are telling you about Caliphates?

What do you think of Robert Macnamara admitting that the gulf of Tonkin incident was FAKE?

How about Operation Northwoods?

For those of you on the "Israel is our best friend" bandwagon... have you looked into the USS Liberty incident?

I LOVE the US.

My son is about to enter the military to defend it.

My father, as a proud Marine, did defend it, as did my grandfather in WWII.

My point is not that "America is always wrong" but that a small group of "former socialist/leftists" have hijacked our nation and THEIR motivations are not so glorious.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 5:18PM

Define "neocon"please.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 6:14PM

@Con Chief:

"Define "neocon"please."

First, the wiki definition... really shortened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"The term "neoconservative" was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington,, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.

The "neoconservative" label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[4] His ideas have been influential
since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of
American modern liberalism who had "moved to the right".

Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left...

Many neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, where they opposed Stalinism. After WWII, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to support democracy during the Cold War.
Of these, many were emerged from intellectual milieu of New York City.

Michael Lind wrote:

"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the
1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in
American culture or political history.

In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush's second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs,
proposed the following as the "main characteristics of neoconservatism":
-"a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
-low tolerance for diplomacy
-readiness to use military force
-emphasis on US unilateral action
-disdain for multilateral organizations
-focus on the Middle East
-an us-versus-them mentality".

In foreign policy, the neoconservatives' main concern is to prevent the arrival of a new rival.

Now, a definition via "generally known to be neoconservative":

-George W. Bush
-Dick Cheney
-Henry M. Jackson
-Joe Lieberman
-John McCain
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
-Donald Rumsfeld
-Paul Wolfowitz
-R. James Woolsey, Jr.
-Richard Perle
-Jeane Kirkpatrick
-Scooter Libby
-Condoleezza Rice
-Richard Armitage
-Zalmay Khalilzad
-Elliot Abrams
-William G. Boykin
-Frank Gaffney
-John R. Bolton
-Eliot A. Cohen
-Irving Kristol
-William Kristol
-Norman Podhoretz
-John Podhoretz
-Irwin Stelzer
-Charles Krauthammer
-David Brooks
-David Frum
-Max Boot
-Andrew Sullivan

If you read through that entire wiki definition, you'll see that most that "throw around" the term neoconservative (like me) are using it in a pejorative manner; we are trying to say something
negative with it's use. I will admit to this boldly.

My "thumbnail" definition of neoconservative:

Former socialist/liberals/collectivists that changed the only the "how" of "how do we create a society that is less focused on the individual and personal liberty than how other socialists/collectivists
have chosen to accomplish this feat.

The neoconservatives beleive that society and individuals should be LESS important than our committment to the state/collective (nation) and that the way to do this is to unite the nation behind
fighting some sort of "enemy" (whether real or not).

The neoconservatives were the authors of the PNAC report, the Project for a New America strategy report that laid out how to maintain the US as a virtual empire for the foreseeable future. This
report was MORE about empirical desires than defense or security, IMHO. It is the report that had the phrase that basically said, "We'll have a tough time convincing the people of this
empire building BS, unless there's a new Pearl Harbor. It is this phrase, written a year before 911 that many conspiracy theorists point to when calling 911 an "inside job." Whether you are
inclined, or not, to believe such theories, it's hard to deny that 911 provided the neocons with a really convenient excuse to replace the Soviet Demons with Muslim ones.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 5:24PM

I place NO CREEDENCE in what Bill Clinton's favorite general has to say.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 3:48PM

@Con Chef (NB):

"I place NO CREEDENCE in what Bill Clinton's favorite general has to say."

Granted.

How about the three previous heads of U.S. Central Command?

All of which AGREE with Ron Paul and have warned against a preemptive attack?

- Gen. Anthony Zinni
- Gen. John Abizaid
- Adm. William J. Fallon

How about leading Israeli's that also agree?

- Former Head of Mossad Meir Dagan
- Current Head of Mossad Tamir Pardo
- Former Head of Shin Bet, Israel’s foreign and domestic intelligence agencies Yuval Diskin
- Chief of General of the Israel Defense Forces Gabi Ashkenazi

I guess they are all pussy, "neo Chamberlains" too?

Hmmm... several of these guys worked for GWB...

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:15PM

why were attacked?

so when the barbary coats muzzies were attacking our shipping.......

when they were highjacking our planes in the seventies......

lets start at the beggining.

islam was founded by

WHO?

on what principles?

what has it done thru all of its history?

what is its GOAL?

what has war solved?

American Independence and liberty.
WWI
WWII

remember the alamo!!!!!

but then again, paulista's are the ones in the rear BEHIND the gear

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:23PM

The Barbary Pirates attacked us because we let those insidious Jews live here. EVERYONE knows THAT!

snark, snark

:-)

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 3:50PM

@Con Chef (NB):

Do you believe the example of the Barbary pirates is effective because it has overtones of anti-Islamism?

How is that better than what your straw man "Jew hating Ron Paul supporters" might do?

If you've ever read about Paul's opinions of this situation, he actually sees HIS position as evidence for HIS approach to foreign policy.

We, instead of declaring war and sending our own young men, essentially hired "bounty hunters" to track down the pirates.

Are you proposing that we should be proposing to hire "bounty hunters" to take care of Iran, Russia and China?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 5:20PM

So Lt. Presley O'Banion & his Marines wer mercs. Who knew?

Islam dictates conversion or death for ALL infidels. Tell me when that's changed.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 3:45PM

@Michael Tomlinson:

Michael, are you making the case that 100% of our foreign policy adventures have been solely based on defense?

There wasn't even a little bit of corruption and graft built in to throw bones to the military industrial complex?

None?

The US is the first completely moral/blameless nation in all of history?

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.11.12 @ 10:25AM

I'm on the sidelines rather than being a Ron Paul supporter (or opponent), and I'm not going to spring to the defense of anything that any of Paul's supporters say. However, some things must be said with regard to foreign policy and defense, particularly this:

National defense is about defense, not offense. I know that Washington said that the best defense is a good offense, but he was speaking in tactical terms. As a grand strategy, offensive hyperactive interventionism is not a good defense, it is guaranteed to make enemies and squander our soft power to influence people, and to ultimately bankrupt us.

A wise grand strategy recognizes that a nation's military capabilites rest on a limited resource base, and so both those capabilities and resources must be carefully and prudently conserved so that the nation will be ready to respond to a genuine peril when it inevitably arises.

This doesn't mean that we isolate ourselves in a hedgehog America. It does mean that it would be wise to maintain a relatively compact mid-ocean defensive perimeter guarded by a strong navy and air force, and to pick our overseas allies and engagements very, very carefully. We really must avoid getting drawn into another land war on the Afro-Eurasian mainland if we can possibly help it, as just about every time we've done that it has come to grief.

THAT is a genuinely CONSERVATIVE grand strategy. Surprising how many people who call themselves "conservative" have never even heard of such a thing, let alone believe in it.

I'm not sure if Ron Paul would agree with me 100% on this, but he comes far closer to it than any of the other candidates.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 10:44AM

Ron Paul is great on monetary policy but sadly sucks on oreign policy.
Can we have a candidate who gets this two issues right ?
Rick Perry, may be.

KSmedman| 1.10.12 @ 11:40AM

Here here.
I like Rick Perry a lot, too bad he's flailed in the campaign... perhaps next time he can come prepared.
I would like to hear where Bobby Jindal stands on some of these issues. He, at least, has a track record of turning a state around and reforming corrupted government.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 12:01PM

KSmedman, Thank you.

The GOP race isn't over yet. SC and FL are the two big primaries candidates must win in order to get through the GOP race.

Romney cannot win in SC because of his stances on RomneyCare, abortion, gay marriage, and climate change.

Santorum oppossed "right to work" law, while SC is a "right to work" state, and he gets no chance convincing voters that unions are good for free-enterprise. He'll be sucked.

Ron Paul cannot win because of his foreign policy.

Gingrich needs to explain his stances on healthcare, immigration, and climate change, Otherwise, he 'll be in the 2nd place in the poll, followed by Rick Perry.

Rick Perry has southern heritage and conservative credentials, He can repudiate all the "pious ballony" of Romney and Santorum , and win in SC, even in FL.

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:02PM

Rick Perry is an empty suit.

unknown| 1.10.12 @ 10:45AM

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, run neck-and-neck with President Obama in a general-election matchup, according to a new CBS News poll released late on Monday that shows the two front-runners in Tuesday’s New Hampshire GOP primary running stronger against the president than their fellow Republicans.

Romney posts a two-point lead over Obama, 47 percent to 45 percent, within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. He leads Obama, 45 percent to 39 percent, among independent voters.

Obama’s lead over Paul is just one point, 46 percent to 45 percent, as Paul leads among independents by 7 points.

The president posts more significant leads over the other GOP candidates, but against each he is below the critical 50-percent threshold: He leads former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 49 percent to 41 percent; former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, 48 percent to 41 percent; Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 49 percent to 42 percent; and former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., 47 percent to 43 percent…

The CBS News poll was conducted Jan. 4-8, surveying 1,413 adults, for a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. The poll includes a subsample of 1.247 registered voters.

@jack in wi...just wanted to help you out! ;-)

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:25PM

CBS POLL!

enough said. why do we continue to let the socialists tell us who we like and dont like?

christopher manion | 1.10.12 @ 11:10AM

In a nutshell, from this Old American For Freedom, Mr. McCain's fundamental error lies in this assertion (taking note that his entire article is a series of assertions, rather than rational arguments):

"Such talk is wild, dangerous, radical and extremist stuff, according to most mainstream Republicans, "

Mr. McCain, today the plundering Hot-Tub fat cats splashing gaily in the "mainstream" in Washington have become Stan Evans's "cesspool."

So much for your "mainstream," a favorite term of the WashPost, but not of the Spectator, I pray.

Now to reality:

The only way to unplug the Washington Trough is from the outside. And the only outsider willing to do it is Ron Paul. Inflammatory and irresponsible assertions cannot change that fact, which is why the author steadfastly ignores it - along with the Constitution, a 16-trillion dollar debt, and endless wars which Dick Cheney wants to last into the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 11:29AM

"The only way to unplug the Washington Trough is from the outside. And the only outsider willing to do it is Ron Paul:

Ron Paul has served in Congress since at least 1997. Just how does that make him a outsider?

Paul has some good idea but with me he kills his chances with his foreign policy stance.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:24PM

didnt you kNOW?

having over three decades as an insider makes you an outsider!

ron paul write bills, when they get enough support to pass, he then adds pork and votes against them. knowing his non support will not be enough to derail them and thus CLAIMS he was against the pork HE put in them

Drunken Sailor| 1.10.12 @ 12:41PM

Yea DevilDog. I know that but isn't it amazing how his supporters ignore that fact? Personally I can't wait until after SC Primary. Should thin the herd some. Don't think the good doctor Paul will make it much past NH.

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:34PM

Dr. Ron Paul:.
"I Voted Against Every Spending Bill Except For Veteran's Since The 70's"

" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against appropriation bills (Veterans Exception). So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?

I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."

Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 10:39PM

Wait, you just informed us that you were in Iowa.....how did you get over to the east coast????

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 10:41PM

PS: Waint, I know....you and Ron bicycled from Iowa to the east coast in your SHORT SHORTS, huh?????

rhoetus| 1.10.12 @ 11:35PM

We are going to win in November from the outside in. Can't wait to vote for Ron Paul in the Arizona Primary.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 11:31AM

"But if anyone here, Athenians, is inclined to think Philip too formidable, having regard to the extent of his existing resources & to our loss of all our strongholds, he is indeed right, yet he must reflect that we too, men of Athens, once held Pydna, Potidaea, & Methone & in our own hands all the surrounding territory, & that many of the native tribes now in his service were then free & independent & indeed were more inclined to side with us than with Philip.

If, therefore, Philip had then come to the conclusion that it was a difficult task to fight the Athenians while they held such strong outposts in his own territory & he was destitute of allies, in that case he would have never gained his present successes, never acquired his present power. But, men of Athens, Philip saw clearly that all these outposts were but open prizes of war, that by natural right the property of the absent belongs to those who are on the spot, & the property of the careless to those who can face toil & danger.

It was precisely by acting on this principle that he has mastered & now holds them all. Some he has seized by right of arms, others he has won by alliance & friendship. For indeed alliance & respect are willingly offered by all men to those whom they see as ready & prompt to take action.

And you too, men of Athens, if you are willing to adopt this principle, now if ever before, if each citizen is ready to throw off his diffidence & serve the state as he ought & as best he may, the rich man paying, the strong man fighting, if, briefly & plainly, you will consent to become your own masters, & if each man will cease to accept that, while he does nothing himself, his neighbor will do everyting for him, God willing, you will recover your own, you will restore that which has been frittered away, & you will turn the table on Philip."...Demosthenes Speach Against Philip of Macedon, 351 BC

Iran is certainly today's Macedon/Philip/Alexander

And the idiotic men of Athens are today's Paulistinians.

Kevin| 1.12.12 @ 3:22PM

You need to re-read Thucydides: the Athenian Empire was destroyed by its idiotic Syracuse Expedition -- a foreign war that had nothing to do with Athens' actual interests.

e pearse| 1.10.12 @ 11:42AM

What Ron Paul's following represent is "An Early Symptom of a Deepening Malady in the American Democracy", wrote the savvy Robbing America Chronicle at http://www.robbingamerica.com

They see the eerie formations of an anarchical electorate that lack the maturity and presence to elect its government leaders with the common sense and equanimity of a great nation. They see that our electorate is getting to resemble those electorates of failed third world nations.
They are sounding the alarm which I'm sure nobody will listen.

Skip| 1.10.12 @ 12:06PM

Ugh. And thus the emnity of Branch Paulinians is won.

Worse than Larouche supporters (and since they lack even a passing knowledge of history, I suggest Paul fans look Lyndon Larouche up).

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:21PM

ron paul, iran is no threat

neville chamberlain, hitler is no threat

both are APPEASERS.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:28PM

Simpletons. Go ahead and invade Iran and bankrupt our country. Then invade Pakistan and North Korea too. Your inconsistancy amuses me. Pakistan is the one funding al qaeda and the taliban. Don't you ever tire of being world's (bad) policeman?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:26PM

Who said anything about "invading" Iran. Name ONE candidate who's said they'd "invade" Iran. Or is this more of your pre-pubescent hyperbole?

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:28PM

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 6:47PM

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

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 10:38PM

Will he do so in his SHORT SHORTS???????

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:34AM

GW Bush and his band of neocons: We need to take out Hussein to avoid a nuclear mushroom cloud.

Kevin| 1.12.12 @ 3:23PM

Lack even passing knowledge of history, eh? He he.

bill| 1.10.12 @ 12:13PM

Ron Paul is far better candidate than Romney. Paul will dismantle the federal bureaucracy, eliminating 5 dept.: education, energy, commerce, EPA, HUD, and cutting federal workforce by 10%, and slashing $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year. that's called leadership.

He's bad on foreign polcy, but great on monetary policy.

He's the modern era Barry Goldwater, purist and tough.

Ron paul will never surrender; he's a legend.

Kevin| 1.12.12 @ 3:24PM

That's why Barry Jr. endorses him -- and Dick Cheney, a Rockefeller Republican, opposes him.

DevilDog| 1.10.12 @ 12:17PM

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

and not one paulista was to be found there

MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 1:59PM

This is every bit as relevant today as it was 237 years ago, except this time the tyranny is from within, just substitute Obama and Holder for King George. There may have been no paulista's there, but the spirit of Ron Paul definitely was. His views on the constitution and liberty are more in line with Henry's than anyone else in the field...

Randall | 1.10.12 @ 2:33PM

Well said!

Centurion37| 1.12.12 @ 2:18PM

Think again. Ron Paul would have aligned with Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists and refused to ratify the Constitution as drafted by the Philadelphia lawyers.

... and the beat goes on.

Kevin| 1.12.12 @ 3:26PM

You, sir, are mistaken: the Richmond Convention *Federalists* sold the Constitution as giving the Federal Government only a few powers. That doesn't include power to inflict No Child Left Behind, power to create a space bus, or power to build schools in Afghanistan.

Honestly, before you cast aspersions, read a book.

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 5:43PM

The American Revolution was a war that would have been sanctioned on libertarian grounds - individuals defending their property rights against agression. The "Paulistas" would have been there in the Continental Army

The rest of you would have been sitting with the Loyalist communityu screaming about how those 40 percent of the population who support the patriots are whack jobs conspiracy theorists, and wierdos and sane people ought to be normal seek postitive conservative change in London: " Lets just get behind William Pitt and Edmund Burke" they'll fix it. All whilst quaretering a red coat in your spare bedroom providing them cups of tea.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 6:10PM

Oh, yes. We keep forgetting the patriotic supremacy of the Paultards. Thank G*d y'all are here to remind us.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 6:14PM

Y'all are SO patriotic that you're gonna cast a vote for a guy who lauded traitor Bradley Manning as a hero. TRUE patriots would clamour for that putz to.have his neck stretched. But please, keep telling us how much more "patriotic" you are compared to the rest of us.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:02PM

@Hobo in the Snow:

"Here. Here!"

Shouldn't we just trust everything the King and the redcoats are telling us?

Clint| 1.10.12 @ 7:13PM

In a 1775 letter to Patrick Henry, George Washington wrote: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been… to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:03PM

@Clint:

Didn't Washington realize that those Barbary pirates were on a Caliphate?

Oldefarte| 1.10.12 @ 10:36PM

Clit, don't blink but the news media is reporting that Romney has received the majority of the TEA PARTY vote in his NH win. Obviously their bus has left without you!!!!!

Mistral| 1.10.12 @ 12:50PM

Why "fanatical" Robert? They are devoted and rational followers of Ron Paul. So am I as he is the only one who makes any sound sense in such perilous times. The other candidates are all greatly flawed especially front-running "flip-flopper" Romney.

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 12:50PM

Romney, Gingrich, Perry and Santorum are neocons who believe in the superiority of utopian socialism over capitalism. That simple.

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:30PM

Care to quantify that statement, or is this just more rhetorical flatulence from you?

shipley130| 1.10.12 @ 1:06PM

Fanatical following.....agreeing that the Federal Reserve needs auditing, agreeing that we need to stop starting wars based on false information. So fanatical.

JimH| 1.10.12 @ 1:14PM

Do you think Randy Newman would allow the GOP to use 'Political Science' as it's campaign theme music?

MXLord327| 1.10.12 @ 1:45PM

One thing that not one single so-called conservative commenter her has mentioned is that Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with an NRA & GOA 100% A+ rating on private gun ownership. This is our last bastion against totalitarianism, so in my mind he is the only true conservative candidate. That being said, I am still not 100% in his corner, but by the time my state primary rolls around it will all be over anyway...

AJ Hansen| 1.10.12 @ 3:37PM

Ron Paul is the only pro-gun candidate, period.

rhoetus| 1.10.12 @ 11:33PM

He's the only real conservative period!

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:08PM

@MXLord327:

No one seems to be mentioning the liberty stealing NDAA or SOPA bills just recently proferred...

Or the Patriot Act....

Wonder why?

Could it be that ONLY (between Republicans and Democrats) he's the only one willing to expose them?

I guess we should all sleep well at night knowing that we can trust Obama when he says he won't use it against us...

Oh...wait... don't we all think he's evil?

Real quandry, huh?

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:57PM

Obama channels his inner Ru Paul surrender monkey:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g.....s_soldiers

AJ Hansen| 1.10.12 @ 3:35PM

Ron Paul is the only candidate, D or R who knows and cares what the Constitution says. Obama hasn't pretended to even try to uphold the Constitution from day one, Mitt couldn't answer a fairly simple question during the NH debates (masterfully answered by Dr. Paul, BTW). Mitt's answer to Constitutional questions: "well, let's just let the lawyers sort that out." That's great if you're filthy rich. For those of who aren't, the Constitution should be there to protect us.
We've been told that the Muslims hate us because we are free and wealthy. Since 9/11 we've become a whole lot less free, and we have gotten a whole lot poorer, yet we're still not safe. So now we have NDAA 2012, TSA has expanded their warrantless searches to the highways, train stations, docks and even into downtown areas. On the horizon is SOPA, and the Enemy Expatriation Act (google 'em). Checkpoints are springing up all over the place, where YOU have to prove that you don't have any drugs, haven't been drinking, and that you are a citizen. Please, tell me how this isn't a Police State?
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will try and put the brakes on our slide into tyranny.

lanikfs| 1.10.12 @ 4:02PM

Good article Mr. McCain. While on the one hand, I feel you are a bit dogmatic in your perspective of possible outcomes from the nomination battle, it is nonetheless refreshing to have a non-Paul supporter not attempt to marginalize him or his following.
I think you're absolutely right about the phenomenon Paul represents. Only I don't believe this next generation will be won over by the GOP brand through empty rhetoric. The GOP leadership itself will have to transition to one which embraces the passion for ideas rather than blind party loyalty or else it will marginalize itself in due time.

Robert Cichosz| 1.10.12 @ 4:14PM

This author has no idea how state rights work... if you want to move to a state that doesn't allow gays to marry of course it can't transfer over. What gay couple would want to move to a state that doesn't allow gay marriage anyway? And if they want to move to another state that allows gays to legally marry why would it not transfer over... Your dispute makes no sense...

Cpm| 1.10.12 @ 5:00PM

Kids love their Grampy, but that doesn't mean I want the old fart driving the Ship of State.

David| 1.10.12 @ 5:12PM

Robert C, you are naiive. homosexuals who are legally married in one state would move in droves to states that don't allow it, and then file lawsuits. Don't you understand how the left gets their way? They file lawsuits. They would bury states in litigation costs. That is why there should have been a national law passed either defining marriage as between one man and one woman, or a law banning homo marriage.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 9:10PM

It would be a "gay Caliphate!"

David| 1.10.12 @ 5:14PM

AJ Hansen, I guess because you said it, it makes it so - huh? Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich are also pro-gun. Gets your facts straight pal.

AJ Hansen| 1.10.12 @ 5:47PM

They say they are pro-gun when it is politically expedient.
http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/

sirbourbon| 1.10.12 @ 7:13PM

The GOP leadership is partly right and partly wrong on their foreign policy.

It's one thing for the GOP status to snub so-called rogue states like Iran and not trade with them, but it is quite another to continue this insane foreign aid to Arab nations. One of the most bizarre foreign aid recipients is the notorious Palentinian Authority. Aid arrives to the NPA from Republicans handed to the Abbas regime from "W" Bush and millions of US dollars are handed to the heir of the PLO from the Obama administration.http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/1522

While I feel uncomfortable when Paul says he would rather trade with Iran than impose sanctions I am more uncomfortable with the GOP "establishment" propping and toppling governments in the middleast and creating a backlash" for Europe and the US.

Paul is somewhat more on the right side of the argument in that he wants to end all foreign aid to Arab nations and that these deployments to the middle east suck a huge amount of the budget causing the debt to rise. He is also more right than wrong in declaring that it makes little sense to defend the borders from"insurgents" entering Afghanistan and Iraq (US presense is still very much a presence in Iraq despite the hoopla that US military had departed) and leaving US borders wide open. And that we should stay out of the internal politics of making and breaking dictators. That sort of inventionism in the internal affairs of these nations stirs up the radicals.

The war on terror groups has caused the US congress to overreact in dealing with terrorism by passing laws that attack not terrorists but attack the Bill of Rights and create more bureaucracy like the Dept. of Homeland security,TSA, et al.

Niniane| 1.10.12 @ 8:06PM

Well, I am sure the 51-57 states Obama believe we have will figure all this out. Believe in ghosts and phantoms.

POST American| 1.10.12 @ 9:44PM

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

---BEWARE those Tavistock Institute
subliminal lead implants! (i.e. Ron Paul =
ghost)

MEANWHILE

"Notice folks, as the campaign approaches
the REAL issues disappear."

"The Federal Reserve has pumped
so many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--}
Germany that they dare NOT name
the total."
-Rep. Charles McFadden
(1935)

AGAIN, for the injection addled,
those issues are:

-the 4 decades on CFR Globalist sellout
and economic TREASON viz a viz their
slave borg powerhouse, and future
'world enforcer' --RED China

-the century long legacy of the ILLEGAL,
private, psychopathic, world EUGENICS
mongering, USURY crack house --'FED'

-the 'overturn' of BOTH the U.S. Constitution
of the Bill of Rights with the authorization
of secret arrests, torture, 'disappearance'
and execution of American citizens
---ANWHERE (i.e. NDAA 1031)

-the decades long EUGENICS ops run
out of the deadly sinsiter, ultra rich,
TAX FREE foundations and NGOs
(THINK injections/ GMO food/ aggressive
promotion of SOD-dummy and 'A--bore-shun'
cult-your etc. etc. etc.)

-the systematic cover-up of the FUKISHIMA
world nuclear disaster, CHEM-trails etc.

-the steady unfold of a full-spectrum
surveillance, tracking and data collection
kill grid

-the cover-up of the MURDER of John
Wheeler

rhoetus| 1.10.12 @ 11:32PM

Screw the Eastern-Left-Liberal establishment when RP wins enough delegates to get the nomination.

Claudia | 1.11.12 @ 12:55AM

Ron Paul's popularity is pretty basic as far as I'm concerned. He's essentially a Libertarian. He's for the legalization of drugs. All the pot-heads are single issue voters. His young fans are all about being able to freely smoke dope. I was in the entertainment business for years. I knew a lot of pot-heads and they all vote the same way - Libertarian. It's all they think about, if they think at all. And yes, he's getting a pass from the media on his gay marriage stance and his involvement in the publication he edited which featured racist articles.

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.11.12 @ 9:45AM

There may be some of that. However, if I were in my early twenties and contemplating the future of this country that "the establishment" was handing down to me, I'd be mad as hell, and probably very open to supporting someone like Paul who as "dangerous to the status quo".

Claudia | 1.11.12 @ 4:33PM

Can we just say it like it is: Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE! He's a nut job and a weirdo who looks like a crazy person. He doesn't have a suit that fits and his voice gets so high and screechy the dogs react. There is no reason for his throngs of young fans except that they are for the legalization of drugs - see my post just above, which Paul supports. Libertarians will always have this fanatic fringe. If he runs as a 3rd party we're all screwed. I might even take up smoking dope myself!

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.11.12 @ 9:38AM

I am on the sidelines as an objective observer and am not a rabid Ron Paul supporter. Neither am I a Ron Paul opponent. Paul has said a fair number of things with which I actually do agree, but a few others which I can't endorse wholeheartedly.

Two big facts, though, which need to be carefully considered:

1) Ron Paul is the only candidate besides Romney that is managing to get his name on to all the ballots and to at least be competitive in every race. The search for the "Anti-Romney" is over, and Paul is it, whether anyone likes it or not.

2) There are bigger questions at stake besides just this election. For those of you who are committed Republicans, you had better be concerned about the long term future of your party. If you want the Republicans to avoid joining the Federalists, Whigs, and Know-Nothings in the ash heap of history, then you had better be anxious about bringing in the next generation of Republicans. Who is successfully doing this? Just one person: Ron Paul. As David Gergen said last week, the Republican establishment ignores Ron Paul at their peril.

Mark| 1.11.12 @ 8:55PM

Love him or hate him, Paul has the political establishment feeling edgy. Personally, I'm thrilled that the "old guard" is nervous about him. This nation has been in dire need of a viable third party for decades. American desperately needs a leader who’s willing to show the “Fat Finger” to corrupt, self-serving politicians and special interest groups. Paul may not be the one for the job this year. But it sure is nice to think that status quo conservatives, liberals and dismissive media outlets squirm at the thought of a Paul Presidency.

Centurion37| 1.12.12 @ 2:42PM

Don't hold your breath for a new party. The establishment demopublican duopoly will never permit one to develop effectively. Their power base controls the FEC, ballot access laws and the MSM -- and the MONEY required to beat them all at their rigged, dirty game. Ron Paul learned all this in 1988; Howard Phillips and Pat Buchanan have also tried and failed. I've been there with them all. The system is rigged -- in deep concrete!

Antidote http://www.ronpaul2012.com

Chris Mallory| 1.11.12 @ 11:01AM

It is pretty simple why Santorum has been harassed and heckled. He is quite simply a hypocrite. You can't claim to be a Christian and support the mass murder of people on the other side of the globe. Santorum wants to burn and blast millions of Iranians to death. The love of Christ is not in him. Dr. Paul is a man of peace.

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:36PM

@Chris Mallory:

Romney, Gingrich,Santorum,Perry: Pro life, unless the lives are brown (especially if they're Muslims and...really if they're Palestinian).

Romney, Gingrich,Santorum,Perry: Family first, unless...

Romney: Those families happen to have a job at a company where we can make a few bucks laying them off.
Gingrich: Unless it's HIS family.
Santorum: Unless you need to make political points by voting for supporting Arlen Spector... or you want to warn your friend people figured out you're cheating on your wife.
Perry: Unless you are looking for "on the down low" hookups on Craig's list.

Romney, Gingrich,Santorum,Perry: Liberty first, unless...
Romney: You want a free Internet and no detention of US citizens.
Gingrich: You are a federal judge and disagree with him.
Santorum: You are gay or want to use contraceptives.
Perry: You are gay (how ironic)

ADM| 1.11.12 @ 1:36PM

Ron Paul holds views on foreign policy with which I disagree, and tends to adopt a conspiratorial almost "Truther" view when discussing some issues. These will render him unelectable. But...his general views on the Constitution, on limited government, on monetary and fiscal policy are sound, and the notion that our foreign and defense policies should be considered in light of our budget and actual national interests is sound. The real message of Ron Paul is that a better messenger will take this platform much further than he has. After all, 20 years ago, none of these messages - including especially the domestic ones - were truly part of the conservative conversation.

Jacques Bakke| 1.12.12 @ 1:11PM

Science tells us the human mind does not become fully mature until the age of 26 or so.
With 50% of the votes collected by R Paul were from voters under the age of 30---Isn't it time to increase the voting age back up and beyond where it was from the beginning at age 21? It should be at least to the age of 25.

Centurion37| 1.12.12 @ 1:20PM

Where has this writer been? I'm an 81-year-old retired fighter pilot and investment exec who first voted for Ron Paul's views promoted by Robert Taft in my first vote in 1952. Paul's passionate fans are not all young zealots, but they remind me of those of us who comprised Grassroots for Goldwater in 1963-64 and Buchanan's Pitchfork battle in 1996. We are stll fighting the same conservative vs liberal GOP inside revolt, only now it's closer to paleo vs. neocon. It appears that the NWO corrupt establishment is still in control of the GOP. As a consequence, the November outcome wont matter very much

George Wallace said it eloquently in 1970: " ... not a dime's worth of difference."

Or, how about Hegel well over a century earlier: "The State is god walking the earth."

Centurion37| 1.12.12 @ 2:47PM

Ask any Republican or Democrat: Not only are we all Keynesians now, but we're also all Hegelians.

Jacques Bakke| 1.12.12 @ 1:20PM

All the more reason to raise the voting age to 25!

Drifter| 1.12.12 @ 3:15PM

Ron Paul is a stealth Obama operative just waiting to 3rd party Obama into another term...

Kevin| 1.12.12 @ 3:21PM

To equate Santorum's and Paul's views on marriage law is simply incorrect: Ron Paul, consistently with his respect for the Tenth Amendment, would leave the matter to the states (as the DOMA did); Rick Santorum, as elsewhere in his campaign, wants to impose Catholic theology on every state, despite the Tenth Amendment.

Frank Provasek| 1.12.12 @ 5:49PM

Why the smear against Dr. Paul and perjorative terms like haunting, reedy voice, etc? Same with talk radio and Fox. I support Paul, but not the Tea Party. But I think the mainstream GOP and neocons used the Tea Party in 2010 (just like they used the evangelicals over and over again) just to discredit a Democrat president only to stab them in the back and install a big government "business as usual" Republican. Romney is Bush Jr and McCain all over again.

Helen Walker| 1.12.12 @ 6:01PM

If the writer is not related to John McCain, one would not know. The past few months, the conservative media has shown that they are really controlled by the New World Order/Project for a New American Century neocons that want perpetual war and expanding corporatism. SHAME ON YOU. I finally quit listening to Mark Levin with his lies and smears about Ron Paul, and Hannity takes on a mocking tone and simply hangs up when Paul supporters call in.

David Barry| 1.14.12 @ 1:55AM

I am a veteran of the Afghan campaign (OEF VII), and I completely agree with Paul's assessment.
Thanks to all you neocon chickenhawks for calling me "dangerous" and "unpatriotic." Its really helping your brand.

Bill Stanley | 1.14.12 @ 8:49AM

"Such talk is wild, dangerous, radical and extremist stuff, according to most mainstream Republicans" -- As Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. www.newsandopinions.net

ChaseV| 1.14.12 @ 10:42AM

I am amazed at the media's continuous labeling of Ron Paul supporters as "fanatic". Why are they fanatics? Why not call Mitt Romney supporters "fanatics"? Or Rick Santorum's? Why not call them a bunch of Jesus freaks?

Yellow journalism is alive and well.

Reid McComment| 1.16.12 @ 9:00PM

Lol I saw a left slander version of this article except it focused more on Paul http://www.apleblog.com

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|110 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|122 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|105 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|66 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Campaign Crawlers

Ron Paul Haunts New Hampshire

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (520) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:17AM

Jack in Wi.| 1.10.12 @ 6:31AM

Ilylial | 1.10.12 @ 7:32AM

Vlady| 1.10.12 @ 8:02AM

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:11AM

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 8:17AM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:17AM

Sean| 1.10.12 @ 11:02AM

chuckles| 1.11.12 @ 1:35AM

Warrior | 1.10.12 @ 12:15PM

Hobo in the Snow | 1.10.12 @ 12:23PM

TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 1:47PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 2:02PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:46PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 6:51PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:18PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 3:34PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:11PM

America First| 1.10.12 @ 10:43PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:10AM

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.11.12 @ 9:31AM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:14AM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:41PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:25PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 9:51PM

JFGalt| 1.11.12 @ 12:48PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:40PM

BulletGibson| 1.10.12 @ 5:00PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:29PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 6:58PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:39PM

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 8:57PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:14PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:20PM

lee pefley | 1.10.12 @ 6:13PM

David| 1.10.12 @ 9:11PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:22PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:16AM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 1:58PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:41PM

runningdeer| 1.16.12 @ 1:49AM

Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 12:01PM

KennesawJack| 1.10.12 @ 12:14PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:06PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 1:03PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 4:51PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 7:08PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:49PM

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:04PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:30PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.10.12 @ 10:32PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 11:50PM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 2:03AM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 8:46PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 11:28AM

Robert (Pennsylvania)| 1.11.12 @ 12:21PM

ENOUGH!| 1.14.12 @ 8:30PM

William R| 1.10.12 @ 1:38PM

Con Chef (NB) | 1.10.12 @ 1:46PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:51PM

PolishKnight| 1.10.12 @ 2:24PM

BulletGibson| 1.10.12 @ 5:04PM

carnot| 1.10.12 @ 8:54PM

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:21PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:00AM

Hobbes| 1.12.12 @ 9:46AM

Quartermaster| 1.10.12 @ 9:00PM

carnot| 1.11.12 @ 12:02AM

Steve| 1.14.12 @ 11:49AM

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 8:54AM

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 9:41AM

Hobbes| 1.10.12 @ 10:19AM

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 10:21AM

Ilylial| 1.10.12 @ 10:32AM

chuck| 1.10.12 @ 11:32AM