-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
As expected, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) endorsed former Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN) for the Republican nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Evan Bayh. The winner of the GOP primary will face Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth in the general election.
“I am proud to endorse Republican John Hostettler for United States Senate,” Paul said in a statement. “John was a good friend and valuable ally against big government when we served together in the House of Representatives. I always knew I could count on John to vote his principles.”
The only foreign policy reference in the endorsement is here: “John also understands that we need to fight for a stronger national defense, where we support our troops and defend our country without policing the world or subsidizing the security of other wealthy nations.” Hostettler and Paul were two of the six House Republicans who voted against invading Iraq.
UPDATE: Hostettler’s volunteers are planning a money bomb for April 22. We’ll see if the Paul endorsement works the same magic it did for his son Rand and Peter Schiff.
View all comments (76) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/16/ron-paul-endorses-john-hostett
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- Razing Reagan
- The Demise of Money and Credit
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Spicy Joker| 4.16.10 @ 11:17PM
Great, it looks like Hostettler is the first Paultard with a chance to make the Senate.
Pingback| 4.17.10 @ 2:58AM
As a body like John Cena | Can Crusher | Weight Training Fitness Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Joseph Zrnchik | 4.17.10 @ 6:21AM
Find Out The Truth About Ron Paul at The Ron Paul Library at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Here is why Ron Paul will end up being victorious and the police state of Republocats that used to be America will lose: Ron Paul educates. When Americans know the truth, they will be set free from the domination of the political ruling class and corporate media that frames and skews political debate.
After 9/11 it took about one day for the political ruling class to confiscate American liberty. However, two years after the confiscation of many trillions of dollars of wealth by the Wall Street elite, all the Keynesian central bankers (planners) did was print out more money to be stolen again by Wall Street without placing any restriction on the banksters to prevent them from stealing the retirement funds of the middle class all over again. This failure has allowed bankers to continue to inflate/debase the currency, concentrate wealth, and to destroy wealth through the distortion of our economy by the creation of economic bubbles. How many more times can the middle class afford bail out the wealthy who profit from a bubble economy and then get bailed out when economic reality sets in and “irrational exuberance” wears off?
Obama wrote a book about "The Audacity of Hope" while Ron Paul has written a library about Austrian Economics, interest and credit, money supply, fractional reserve banking, market economy, Federal Reserve secrecy and the harm from creating money for private banks out of thin air, liberty, monetary policy, the federal budget, health care, taxes, the draft, defending the Constitution, free trade, and the role of government. While Dr. Paul was learning science and becoming a medical doctor, Obama was learning how to be a skilled liar, opps, I mean lawyer, at Harvard.
Our press has now become a monster arm for government/defense/corporate interests and newspapers refuse to touch issues like police abuse, murder, or even perjury, misconduct by prosecutors, or acknowledge that are courts provide no justice but seek to maintain and promote corrupt powers of the state at the expense of justice. The media has shut out Paul's destruction of Fox News when Fox asked about if Paul was electable during the presidential debates.
Our economy and infrastructure is crumbling along with any hope for the middle class. The Republicans have set up the middle class for theft by corporations through health care, and the Democrat’s alternative is to use government to steal the same wealth through government-mandated insurance. Either way, it is the middle class that becomes poorer when our system socializes losses and privatizes profits for the benefit of the kleptocracy and plutocrats. The more government intervenes in any market, regardless of it being housing or medicine, the more it distorts, corrupts, and destroys free trade.
Another issue Americans are increasingly waking up to is not whether America should support Israel, but whether America should continue to support an apartheid fascist state that slaughters unarmed civilians and engages in ethnic cleansing, has a nuclear program outside of the IAEA and U.N. inspectors, carries out global assassination and espionage programs throughout the world and against the U.S., sells our military technology to China, and then engages in military activities that get American military personnel killed who are fighting what increasingly appears to be long-term and heavily leveraged quagmires in Muslim lands that results in genocide and harms U.S. long-term interests. That does not even include the slaughter of American by Israel from their attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.
If someone would have told me years ago that America would have become engaged in Trotskyite foreign policy with the likes of people such as Wolfowitz, Perl, Feith, Bolton, and Rumsfeld, and would embrace a centrally planned monetary system whereby money is only created through debt, and debt is backed only by more pyramided debt, that our masters would destroy habeas corpus, engage in torture, use preemptive war, make nuclear first strike our policy, and destroy our liberty while carrying on a massive spy program instituted against the American people, I would have thought you insane.
Things that can’t go on forever usually don’t. This includes America borrowing to fund its out-of-control federal government. Would Americans have ever thought their economy would be service based with the means of production being exported to our economic, political, and military rivals? Would Americans have ever thought we would be so locked in debt and spending that we would have borrow money from China to the point that we are coming close to destroying our own monetary unit? Would Americans have ever believed the Democratic and Republican parties would be bringing us to the point of economic ruin through unsustainable government growth and spending whereby we need to borrow tens of billions of dollars just to finance the interest on our national debt? Ron Paul mentions the absurdity of borrowing from our enemies to “support democracy” in Iraq while at the same time supporting a coup and then a military dictator right next door in Pakistan.
America’s two political parties should lose the right to exist. American government has completely lost any remaining shreds of legitimacy and exists only through the legitimacy conferred upon raw power. Americans, through their sowing of ignorance and apathy, are finally reaping the reward of having blindly trusted government.
Wesley Mouch| 4.17.10 @ 10:15AM
Excellent commentary & one hell of a post. Thanks.
Dai Alanye | 4.19.10 @ 11:58AM
"…the police state of Republocats…"
I believe this qualifies as proof of political paranoia as well as poor spelling.
"…“support democracy” in Iraq while at the same time supporting a coup and then a military dictator right next door in Pakistan. "
To which we add ignorance of geography.
Perhaps I'm hopelessly blind to the manifold virtues of Ron Paul, but all I see is another Ross Perot with an added whiff of racism.
Marggie| 4.17.10 @ 11:22AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU
Truth to Power| 4.17.10 @ 12:49PM
Excellent commentary & one hell of a post. Thanks.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 2:00PM
For the unplugged version, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
Truth to Power| 4.17.10 @ 2:09PM
You have them pegged perfectly. I hope they don't find out that Ron Paul is a Republican. The despair might lead to total breakdowns.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 2:38PM
The thing is, they are trying to take over the Republican party. That's why Rand Paul registered Republican as well. That's the only way they can get elected. Their views are definitely not conservative. Ron Paul was a Libertarian but couldn't get elected. They call real conservatives Neo-cons, and Israel firsters, and have nothing but utter contempt for us. Including Mark Levin, Rush and Sean.
So~ what they are doing is "infiltrating" the party, and want to destroy it with their ilk. Rand Paul is cut from the same cloth, and is closely associated with Adam Kokesh, who is aligned with Code Pink.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHn72mPyxYY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai0DT-TK1iM
These people are militant and quite frightening, they are not nice innocent conservatives. Why would they despise regular conservatives if they were?
Another thing that they do is say that the Republicans are trying to "co-opt" the Tea parties, and "warn" us "Neo-cons" that we "they will not allow us to." The Paulites act as if the Tea parties belong to them somehow and that they are going to destroy the Republican party.
Well, they're trying but by exposing them~ as everyone can see from the above poster's sickening comments, they won't succeed.
It is something people need to be aware of because they are running as Republicans, but the above poster's views reflect the true insanity.
Truth to Power| 4.17.10 @ 3:35PM
Party is by its nature a mixture of people where there is only some overlap. I don't expect purity. When paleocons make excuses for Muslim brutality and try to make equivalences to Israel then I think they are not mature enough to hold office. Given a choice between Ron Paul and Obama the choice is pretty easy. The Republican Party will have more choices and Paul won't be on my list. I put him behind Romney. I did like the excerpts from Bruno where Ron was trying to talk Austrian economics. It demonstrated a very deep character flaw.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 4:17PM
I agree, I do not expect purity, as there is no such thing. I have been called a RINO for that but so be it as I know I am doing the right thing in my own conscience and before God by voting Republican. I like what Sarah Palin said recently. It was something like how we are voting for the ideas not for the person as much. For example, we are voting for the party's planks and platforms that BEST represent our own, which of course ought to be what are best for the country, not our selfish desires. That's why I have voted straight Repub since my very first vote.
There is so much vitriol toward the party and I absolutely understand that it is more toward the establishment types than it is toward what the party stands for itself. It is sad that because nature abhors a vacuum it is being "infiltrated" with the anti-war anti-Israel types, who are entering in like sheep in wolves clothing.
Ron Paul vs. Obama? Yes I would choose the Republican in sheep's clothing only because it will still put our party in power and since we don't have Kings in this country he could be voted out too just like Obama will be, if he practices as he truly believes, which actually seems to be in agreement with Obama's on foreign policy!
Let us pray a Ron Paul presidency will never happen.
Truth to Power| 4.17.10 @ 8:03PM
We are on the same page.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 2:47PM
Alan Keyes, re: Rand Paul:
“Ron Paul’s son is mounting a well funded effort to exploit the rising tide of voters who identify with the conservative name. But like his father, he rejects Ronald Reagan’s ‘Peace through strength’ acceptance of America’s leadership for freedom in the world. Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama’s illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists.”
Stephen| 4.17.10 @ 4:13PM
Rand is winning that primary race, it seems.
Ron Paul's endorsement of Hostettler should help, too.
The upshot? That the "Old Right" is back, and with it Constitutionality and freedom. With a non interventionist foreign policy, Israel can thus stand free from that horrible meddling that has been Obama's hallmark.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 4:44PM
"With a non interventionist foreign policy, Israel can thus stand free from that horrible meddling that has been Obama's hallmark."
Wow. Wonder what he means by "Israel can thus stand free?"
Stephen| 4.17.10 @ 5:07PM
Margie,
"With a non interventionist foreign policy, Israel can thus stand free from that horrible meddling that has been Obama's hallmark."
Israel has been greatly harmed by international pressure, with the State Department being the tip of the spear. How much better off would Israel be today if the Oslo Accords in '93 had not been implemented, with no more "land for peace" deals having been promoted by the forced process?
Israel and the United States are both better of with a classical American foreign policy of non-intervention.
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 6:12PM
The horrible meddling that Obama is doing is snubbing Netanyahu and demanding that Israel give up more land. He doesn't believe that Israel has any claim to Jerusalem. Along with Hitlery Clinton & the State Dept. THAT'S our foreign policy right now.
So~ If you're AGAINST that and seemingly pro Israel then that means you want a return to Israel having the right to defend herself from her enemies and to NOT have to give up any land. A return to declaring Israel our ally, with a strong stance against the Palestinian terrorists.
Right?
Louise| 4.17.10 @ 8:10PM
Margie,
I would say so. Like you, I was a lifelong R - beginning with the first Reagan win. What he said, in general, made sense, even for a young skull of mush.
It wasn't until the 2007-8 primary run that I heard of Ron Paul. He made sense too. But the republican party discredited themselves, when they dismissed RP from the debate. He was the ONLY one that brought up substantive issues facing our country. EVERYONE else was asleep at the wheel.
People, especially R's, that refuse to allow ANTI-war as a debatable topic lose cred with me. When Clinton was in Kosovo -- we HATED it! What's the difference?
Kind Regards,
L
Stephen| 4.18.10 @ 6:10PM
Margie,
"So~ If you're AGAINST that and seemingly pro Israel then that means you want a return to Israel having the right to defend herself from her enemies and to NOT have to give up any land. "
Agree with this much totally and wholeheartedly.
Both Israel and the United States benefit and prosper from our classical non-intervention foreign policy.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 7:58PM
Ron Paul made a big to-do voting against the bill that said we back Israel's right to defend herself. Forget the Res.#
He is a royal loser for doing that. Agree?
That's NOT the type of "Classical non-interventionism" I agree with
Stephen| 4.19.10 @ 4:47PM
That's certainly not what he would do. Check the references.
Margie| 4.20.10 @ 11:28PM
He did. Either you're uninformed, or lying.
Anyone can google the transcript.
Christine| 4.23.10 @ 12:34PM
Margie,
Which portion of this transcript do you object to?
"As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza — a cruel act of war — and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.
There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the US to become further involved in this conflict..."
Dai Alanye | 4.19.10 @ 12:11PM
No doubt Great Britain would have benefited had we not intervened against the Kaiser—right? And South Korea would be a happier place today, etc…
Or to go back farther in history—if only we hadn't intervened against those sweet and kindly Barbary Pirates.
If you can't discern the need for a difference in foreign policy today compared with Washington's time, why bother to study history at all?
Christine| 4.23.10 @ 12:57PM
Dai,
Good question. If you study history more deeply than the superficial revisionist gloss that most textbooks give us today, you'd realize that Churchill's decision to intervene back in the beginning when Germany had no desire to disturb England's peace is the catalyst that brought about one of the most tragic wars in the 20th century. Churchill may have displayed courage in the fight, but part of the blame falls on him for desiring a part in the fight in the first place.
Louise| 4.17.10 @ 8:15PM
Oh -- I forgot to mention... The RP way of dealing with this very difficult issue would be to put it in the hands of Congress, because they HEAR what the people are saying. If THEY want to take us to war, because THEY've LISTENED to their constituents, then so be it.
I made my voice heard during the first TARP, stimulus, cap & tax, healthcare, et. al. My D-Senators paid little more than lip service. Ron Paul is RIGHT -- the POWER is in the HOUSE!
regards...
Margie| 4.17.10 @ 10:21PM
Louise,
First of all, the Republicans couldn't have discredited themselves for "dismissing" RP from the debates. There are rules and he didn't score high enough to get a seat. You have to have a certain percentage of support. I don't know the exact percentage but only that it was very low. And it is precisely because of his mindset.
As far as "he was the only one that brought up substantive issues.." you're kidding right? There were plenty of important issues brought up by all who were there. The party without substantive issues is the Democrat party.
And you are right, the Republican party isn't for you if you want an anti-war debate. The Democrats are the ones who will debate that all day and all night. RP isn't going to succeed at "converting" the Republican party to an anti-war party. Isn't gonna happen. That's a Leftist platform and way of life!
As for Clinton & Kosovo~ Yes we hated it. We hated it because it was wrong. He bombed in a country that was having a civil war and there was need or right reason for doing it. As for RP "putting it in the hands of congress" (if you're talking about Iraq), GW did go to congress and they did give him the authority, so I'm not sure what your beef is there.
Ron Paul's way of thinking is unstable and and dangerous for America. There is enough evidence of that to be had just by going to the link that Joseph Z., above, posted~ The R. Paul Library. Any man that can actually say that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" Is NOT suitable for any office in the United States of America. I'd prefer a different candidate and there are plenty of them to consider, and of course the people will decide, but we need to be aware of what they really believe!
Louise| 4.18.10 @ 11:44AM
Margie,
You speak with authority on the R platform. Can you tell me what other issues are not up for debate?
Remind me of the substantive issues brought up by any other 08 (R) presidential candidate. How many more troops to send? Monetary policy? -- The R frontrunner didn't even know what it was!
Re: GW's congressional authority. Authority to do what? Use force to overthrow another nation without a declaration of war?
The American people have relinquished responsibility for themselves to government decision making and Congress has relinquished their power to the Executive branch for too long. Look where this has brought us.
If peace and foreign non-intervention is a leftist principle that is not even debatable AND you speak for the R party (I suspect you do) -- the American people are indeed on the road to serfdom.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 1:00PM
Dear Toddard, oops I mean "Louise"~
Hoity-toity fresh n' freudy!
Congress gave the authority to GW according to the constitution.
You know darn well that the Constitution gives congress the AUTHORITY to declare war.
Louise| 4.18.10 @ 10:25PM
Margie,
I'm not sure what a Toddard is, but your tone sounds derogatory.
You didn't answer ANY of my questions.
I do know that only Congress has the power to declare war, but they did not -- what did they give GW the authority to do?
Are there any other issues, besides foreign policy, that not debatable in the R party?
I think you are referring to HR 921: Israel's Right to Defend Itself. Who are these 435 Americans that think they have the right to determine whether a sovereign nation like Israel can defend herself? Who are these people??? Do they now rule the world??? This is insane!
Your invocation of Mark Levin is proof enough for me, that if you are the voice of the R party, I'm glad I jumped ship when I did.
Regards.
Margie| 4.19.10 @ 12:35AM
Toddard-- Take 2 and call your Dr. in the morning.
"Regards."
Louise| 4.19.10 @ 7:13AM
Is that the best the R talking points can come up with?
Margie, how much money have you donated to the Jews in Israel? There are plenty of humanitarian efforts that feed, clothe, shelter and preach the Gospel of Jesus specifically for Jews. How much of YOUR money have you given to those organizations?
Uh huh... just as I thought. Bleeding hearts can be found in both parties.
Dai Alanye | 4.19.10 @ 12:17PM
The question for us is not what is good for Israel but what is good for the USofA. Having at least one decent and reliable ally in the Middle East makes sense to me, while attempting to convert Jews is outside my understanding of the national interest.
But to each his/her own obsession.
Louise| 4.19.10 @ 3:13PM
Dai,
I agree that allies are good, but should they have to answer to us before doing what is in their own national interest?
Why do Americans "support" Israel -- because it's biblical?
(not looking for an argument -- just asking)
Margie| 4.19.10 @ 12:33PM
Lying troll.
Christine| 4.23.10 @ 1:00PM
Margie,
Can you do better than name-calling and accusations? You sound like a 12-year-old.
William R| 4.18.10 @ 12:49PM
Margie is the Quintessential Fifth Columnist. If you don't think the United States should fight endless war on behalf of Israel you're sub human.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 1:23PM
William R. you are insane. It seems to me that you view the world through your hatred of Israel. That is what I see. You calling me a fifth columnist well, coming from you I take that as a compliment, because yes, I believe Israel is our best ally in the mid east. I never want to "know" that type of hatred.
Your post is a lie, as it is does not represent what I truly think. For the sake of others reading here, not yours because it doesn't matter what I say at all, just the fact that I stick up for Israel at all is in your mind enough to consider me the enemy), but what I do believe is that we are at war because of so many factors and I believe the United States goes to war because we must. I do not believe as you do, that America is an "Aggressor." And I do not believe that, as your man Ron Paul does, when he actually said, "The terrorists are terrorists because of us." IF THAT DOESN'T BOIL YOUR BLOOD then there is something wrong with you William.
Even the fact that I said I'd vote for him if it were between him & Obama wasn't good enough for you! You are obsessed William. But you get to become obsesed with the truth instead!
You've even previously posted that Mark Levin isn't a "real conservative" ~ You said he's a Neo-Con. That's the lovely derogatory name you Paleo-Cons call us. Well! I am happy to be considered in that camp, then.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 1:25PM
*correction~ s/b "you need to become obsessed w/ the truth instead," above.
William R| 4.18.10 @ 1:29PM
Levin is a big government NeoCon. He talks limited government, but supports big government liberal internationalism. Nation building. There's nothing conservative about it.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 1:48PM
Well, you say big government liberal interventionism. I understand that you wish we could be the same world as we were when George Washington walked the earth, and wow wouldn't that be wonderful, I do too. I "wish" a lot of things but they just cannot be. You cannot turn back the clock.
How could you really believe that ANY of us WANT to have to be at war? No one WANTS to have to go to war. Come on William, you know better than to say that.
You are just so wrong in your thinking on this.
William R| 4.18.10 @ 2:36PM
Iraq was a war of choice. Now we are stuck. Trillions of dollars wasted.
Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf and Robert Gates on Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk
Perfect example why Levin is a big government Neocon.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 2:48PM
Okee dokee.
Better watch out, the Neo-cons are coming for you.
Heehee Haha Hoho. They're coming to take you away!
Oops I slipped there. William, if you think that Ron Paul can save us from the present condition of WAR in this world with his mindset, you're nuts.
That's all I can say.
Christine| 4.23.10 @ 1:05PM
Margie,
You've swallowed all the Republican talking points, and are happy to caricature Ron Paul based on what his enemies say. How about actually reading what HE has to say himself?
As to the "smoking gun" quotation you keep flinging around ("The terrorists are terrorists because of us"), he's referring to the incessant U.S. intermeddling in the Middle East, stretching back to the 1950s when our goverment helped put the Shah in power in Iran--a brutal dictatorship, which oppressed and murdered dissenting Iranians. The Iranians have hated us ever since, and those actions (repeated again and again by our government over decades) has fomented further anger against our country. The Middle East's anger toward us doesn't come from nowhere (as most "conservative" talk show hosts would have you believe).
Open your eyes.
William R| 4.18.10 @ 12:57PM
It wasn't Republicans that excluded Ron Paul from debates. It was FAUX News. After Ron Paul got twice as many votes as Benito Julie Annie in Iowa, FAUX excluded him. The New Hampshire Republican party pulled its sponsorship of debate. To truly see how bad the FAUX News fair and balanced label is, watch Brit Hume the FACE of FAUX lie through his teeth on National TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6UO731mEoc
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 1:41PM
Wow William. What that tape shows is a mightily cut up tape. But over all it shows an irrational Ron Paul. But it was great seeing Fred Thompson again! He was man choice for the nomination to the Presidency. What a drag that McCain got it. Because of the stupid open primaries that allow the Democrats to vote in them, McCain got the nomination. What a shame because we got Obama instead. Don't you agree?
William R| 4.18.10 @ 2:31PM
There's nothing manufactured in that tape. What it shows is Brit Hume lying through his teeth on national TV just to make a candidate FAUX doesn't like look bad.
The Sad Demise of Brit Hume
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....18517.html
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 2:38PM
Not true. Why don't you put up the tape in it's entirety, William.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 3:29PM
Hey obfuscator~ I said it was CUT, so actually yes, that would make it "manufactured" anyway. You don't seem to mind lying, therefore you can't be trusted.
Here is a section of the debate (which oddly you accused Fox news of not allowing)~ it shows how unhinged Ron Paul is, accusing us of "looking for an excuse to bomb Iran." Great comeback by Mitt Romney, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
William R| 4.18.10 @ 5:39PM
Ken Doll Romney. What joke. How Brit Hume still has his job just shows Faux News has no credibility. The idea that a debate moderator would just flat out lie on national TV just to make a candidate look bad is reprehensible. And FAUX did exclude Ron Paul from its New Hampshire debate after he got twice as many votes as Benito Julie Annie in Iowa and raised more money than any other Republican
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....amp;page=1
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 6:23PM
At least he seems sane. (Romney.)
Ron Paul is nuts, IMO. NUTS!
And you lie continually.. as he does. THAT is why (IMO) he'll never become President.
Margie| 4.18.10 @ 6:27PM
UNCUT portion. As opposed to Wm. R.'s CUT video.
Julio| 4.18.10 @ 8:27PM
The point is America is broke and cannot afford to fight foreign wars whether she wants to or not.
There is no industry left, therefore no production here. How is it we are still seemingly a great power. Simply because China still takes our dollars. Once they float their currency (something our idiotic leaders in Washington are encouraging), all our products will go up in price and our standard of living will go down. A 5-year old can see that.
So we are fighting foreign wars with borrowed money. How sustainable is that? If we are going to fight wars abroad, we should at least take the money from our savings. What savings?
Louise| 4.19.10 @ 7:23AM
William,
My point was that RP brought out the issues that no one would talk about and the party at large, the establishment, dismissed him. Whether or not he appeared on a television debate was not my point. Margie proved my point -- that foreign policy is not up for debate if you have an R next to your name.
Kind Regards
Margie| 4.19.10 @ 12:30PM
No you proved my point, "Louise"~ First of all, you're lying. As is typical of you Paulites.
What I said was NON-Interventionism isn't debatable. I did NOT say foreign policy was not up for debate, so quit twisting my words.
"Regards."
Louise| 4.19.10 @ 2:58PM
Margie, Margie, Margie...
I was not lying -- if I was incorrect and you can show me, I will research and retract if necessary, (though normally I would not have even come back to the site, except that I wanted an honest debate.)
I do apologize if I misrepresented your views, but you would not clarify when I asked.
My last comment for you: how can you have an thorough foreign policy debate if non-intervention is not an option?
P.S. I wish you well, but I hope the R's running on your platform fail miserably. And if they don't you can have the second to the last laugh.
P.P.S. You might want to "Take 2 (blood pressure pills) and call your Dr. in the morning."
Wally| 4.20.10 @ 2:31AM
Who you voting for? The commie democrats?
That's a solution. Forget your Doctor--you fascist liberals have ruined that profession, too.
Christine| 4.23.10 @ 1:12PM
Louise,
You're absolutely correct. Ron Paul was the only candidate that discussed substantive issues with *knowledge* and understanding, rather than simply repeating all the Republican talking points. He actually exhibited independent thought, and certainly knows more about economics than all the candidates combined. The positions he holds now he has held on principle from the beginning, unlike some other candidates, who have flip-flopped on the issues according to popular whim. Few candidates have been more authentic or more principled, in spite of the way ignorami may caricature him.
Milker| 4.18.10 @ 10:21PM
2010 World Cup is going to start immediately, and our online Shop world cup jerseys has opened. Here, you can buy the series of World Cup, such as soccer jersey, 2010 world cup soccer jersey, world cup soccer jerseys and football jerseys.2010 world cup jerseys 2010 world cup jerseys
Chinese gifts | 4.19.10 @ 6:43AM
Want to Choose best China gifts for you? Welcome to our Chinese arts & crafts on line shop! We offer Chinese knots, Chinese paper-cutting, Chinese peasant painting, cloth art & embroidery, MaShao facial make-up, Sachets, shadow puppet, straw plaiting and other Chinese crafts. Here you will find the most satisfied things, whether on designs or prices, we make sure you will benefit!
Tim*| 4.19.10 @ 8:59AM
United States national interests trump the foreign nation of Israel's national interests and the foreign Palestinian interests .
Margie| 4.19.10 @ 12:37PM
Yeah *Tim~ you've told us where you stand. You've accuse myself and the best of us normal Americans here of the most despicable name calling. We know you're in the business of calling us "Israel Firsters" and Neo-Cons.
You're a liar and a creep. While you go around posting as some wonderful American!
Bigmo| 4.22.10 @ 5:30AM
Ron Paul is the only true American politician in the 2008 presidential run. The others, democrats and republicans, are Israel onlyers, not even firsters. Cause after Israel there is no second.
These Trotskyist Marxist Neocon revolutionaries are scared to death of the tea party nationalist. Trotsky despised nationalism and wanted bolshevikism due to its universalist themes. But Stalin won in the end. These Trotskyist came to the USA and now took over the GOP. They are not Americans.
Pingback| 4.22.10 @ 3:20PM
Dan Coats afraid of losing, announces OLD news as NEW news so he can have NEWS!?! - links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.3.10 @ 3:49PM
Coats’ Shit Sandwich Tour Continues: Compared to John McCain & Martha Coakley « A Loy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 5.3.10 @ 3:59PM
Coats’ Crap Sandwich Tour Continues: Compared to John McCain & Martha Coakley « A Loy links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: