The American Spectator

Rogue Elephant| 10.10.11 @ 1:24PM

Huntsman? Who's that?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 2:42PM

Just as thermometers from a bygone era were calibrated by marking the freezing and boiling points of water, Huntsman and Ron Paul serve as the "sane" and "absolute crazy" calibration points in the Republican nomination race.

Clint| 10.10.11 @ 3:42PM

"Ron Paul Scores Landslide Straw Poll Victory

Ron Paul’s landslide victory in this weekend’s Values Voter Summit is a reminder of the strong grass-roots support this libertarian physician-turned-politician has developed. Paul won 37 percent of the vote at this gathering of Christian conservatives."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 3:47PM

Ballot stuffing doesn't make Ron Paul any less loony.

Red Phillips| 10.10.11 @ 5:04PM

However, calling someone names instead of intelligently critiquing their positions does make you childish.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 5:23PM

Sometimes a position does merit intelligent critique. And sometimes a position is just such unbridled buffoonery that it should either be mocked or ignored. When a position is so absurd that it's adherents are immune to any attempt at rational discourse then trying to engage them in intelligent discussion wastes your time and becomes fuel for whatever paranoid delusions they use to maintain their little bubble of counterfactual beliefs.

For example, try explaining to Clint why it might not be such a good idea for Iran to have missiles with nuclear warheads.

Red Phillips| 10.10.11 @ 5:40PM

But Notes, the "buffoonery" is in the eye of the beholder. You think non-interventionism is buffoonery. I think interventionism is buffoonery and manifestly not a conservative position. So we are back where we started.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 6:10PM

Actually we're not "back where we started" because you've changed the subject. I was talking about whether or not it is a good idea for Iran to have missiles with nuclear warheads. That's because Ron Paul expressed the view that it's not a bad idea.

You've changed the subject to "interventionism." One could think that it's a really, really bad idea for an unstable country in an unstable region to acquire the ability to nuke other countries in that region, without thinking that intervention is justified. There are also degrees of intervention, so you've not only changed the subject, you've turned something that isn't a yes or no question into a yes or no question.

For example, I and a lot of other people think it's a bad idea that Pakistan has nukes. For many, that justifies putting pressure on Pakistan to implement effective controls on their nukes, without justifying launching a preemptive strike on Pakistan. None of that fits neatly into a "do you like intervention in Pakistan check here [] if yes check here [] if no" level of analysis.

Now, maybe we could unpack what you've bundled up into the word "interventionism." Maybe not. But if we could, then there are many, many other reasons that Ron Paul isn't taken seriously. He says some sensible things here and there, but he also wanders into ... other territory ... far too often.

Red Phillips| 10.10.11 @ 8:27PM

Actually, you changed the subject. Your first two posts said nothing about Iran and nukes. You just made charges of "absolute crazy" and "loony." You didn't bring up Iran and nukes until your third post. The post isn't even about Ron Paul. It is about Huntsman and Romney, but I figured your beef with Ron Paul had to do with foreign policy since that is the subject of the thread which is why I mentioned the generic non-interventionism vs. interventionism. Your unprompted Paul slurs come off as axe grinding.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 9:00PM

My "beef" with Ron Paul is that he's a crackpot who has a few good ideas but can't keep himself from rambling off into loony town every now and then, which is why nobody takes him seriously. His comments about Iran are one example. Here's another:
http://www.redstate.com/streif.....-is-crazy/
Others are easy to find.

William R| 10.10.11 @ 9:58PM

Linking to RedState does nothing for your argument.

Red Phillips| 10.10.11 @ 10:02PM

Notes, you are proving my point. You are just asserting craziness. I suspect most of what many people think makes Paul a "crackpot" and what represents "rambling off into loony town" I agree with and are reasons I support him. For example I support abolishing the Fed. I support sound money. I support originalist Constitutionalism including enumerated powers doctrine. I support non-interventionism. I don’t, however, support his opposition to a border fence. So am I a crackpot? Wouldn’t it be better to just explain why you think the Fed is grand or Constitutionalism is a bad idea, instead of calling names?

Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.11.11 @ 4:08PM

Nope, you don't support Constitutionalism. You don't support legitimate Constitutional functions, and by your own admission, you are an opponent of the Constitution and a supporter of reinstating the failed Articles of Confederation.

Noninterventionism is a mere euphemism for 1930s-style isolationism, and is in any case a foreign policy totally unsuited to, and totally unadvisable for, the world of today.

Clint| 10.10.11 @ 6:30PM

Tell It To The CIA's Former Chief of The bin Laden Unit, Troll.

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer,Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

" On Iran, The President should:

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

2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.

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

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

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 7:17PM

Red, if there was any doubt just read this cut-and-paste job from Clint. I doubt it's a genuine quote but the Paulies have pasted it onto so many message boards that Google isn't much help in tracking down an original source. The reason I doubt it's a genuine quote is that I give Ron Paul enough benefit of the doubt to assume that he wouldn't have an advisor who talks about sending "soldier-children" and so on, sounding like some addled crack pot. Then again, maybe Paul does have advisors like that, in which case all the worse for Paul's credibility.

If Ron Paul didn't exist, George Soros would invent him.

William R| 10.10.11 @ 9:59PM

Scheuer said it rest assured.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 11:11PM

If Ron Paul is being advised by someone who talks about the men and women who serve in the military as our "soldier children" then that says more about Ron Paul than it does about the advisor. And that's just one point on which that slab of cut-and-paste that the Paul campaign seems to be relying on so heavily shows a deep detachment from political reality.

The sad thing is that Ron Paul actually makes sense on some important issues. But by talking like he's gone totally loony-tunes, talking about how a border fence would be used to keep Americans from fleeing the country or how drone missiles could be used to target American journalists on American soil and so on, he taints all of the sensible stuff with the stench of paranoid conspiracy theorist grand tinfoil-hat nuttery.

Again, if there wasn't a Ron Paul already in the race then Soros would be happy to fund someone like him, and also the followers who cut-and-paste things like the "soldier children" quote on message boards and Write In An Odd And ,Barely-Literate Fashion.

William R| 10.11.11 @ 6:33AM

The government has a fence around us already. They fence our money in. If you want to leave the country and move to Switzerland be prepared for the IRS to take 50 percent of your money.

Red Phillips| 10.11.11 @ 7:02AM

Notes, the point is that our soldiers are somebody's children. If they die some mother and father lose a child. Sending them off to fight wars can not be done cavalierly. But being cavalier about life is exactly what all the chest thumping keyboard warrior interventionists do.

Occam's Tool| 10.10.11 @ 4:15PM

Oh, Oh, Notes...you have infuriated the microphallused one.

Did you check out, Clint, how Romney had to protect two women missionaries from Rugby players in France? That's about the speed of most rugby players---picking on women missionaries. I know it's yours.

Clint| 10.10.11 @ 4:20PM

It Takes Balls To Play Rugby, Little Short, Fat, Aging Screwball Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Fanatic ,Tool Job.

That Leaves You Out.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Tool Job's Chubby Face.

Clint| 10.10.11 @ 4:17PM

"The straw poll, which was sponsored by the Family Research Council, was open to anyone willing to shell out $75 for the right to vote, and many of Paul’s voters weren’t necessarily social conservatives. They were motivated to show up, however, and that’s a quality that should boost Paul’s chances in Iowa, where voters have to venture out on a winter night to attend caucus meetings to select a candidate."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 4:39PM

Duh, that's why everyone knows to subtract out the Ron Paul vote when interpreting polls.

Clint| 10.10.11 @ 6:20PM

Duuuuuuuuuuuuhhhh !

"So how to explain Paul’s good showing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend?

Well, there were those young Paul supporters who showed up by the busload to vote for him and cheer his speech.

But that speech no doubt resonated with many social conservatives there as well, especially those lukewarm about Romney and Perry but not necessarily dazzled by Cain.

Paul sounded a biblical theme throughout – from Samuel and Isaiah in the Old Testament to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, from his pro-life stance on abortion as an obstetrician who’s delivered 4,000 babies to how “in the early church, they talk about being very careful about going into war.”

“We are taught in the New Testament about caring for the poor and caring for our families and our neighbors and friends. But never did Christ say, you know, let’s go and lobby Rome to make sure we’re taken care of. It was a personal responsibility for us,” he said. “Christ was confronted at one time by a prostitute, but he didn’t call for the centurions. He didn’t call for more laws. But he was very direct and thought that stoning was not the solution to the problem of prostitution.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 7:18PM

"So how to explain Paul’s good showing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend?

Ballot stuffing.

William R| 10.10.11 @ 10:00PM

No, he just out organized the other candidates.

Notes From Under The Bridge| 10.10.11 @ 11:17PM

If by "out organized" you mean "got several hundred to show up long enough to pay their $75 and stuff the ballot box before they bolted" then ... yeah. Exactly.

I suspect you've missed the point about why this increases people's skepticism about the depth of support for Ron Paul.

William R| 10.11.11 @ 6:31AM

The other candidates couldn't get their supporters to show up??

Red Phillips| 10.11.11 @ 11:52AM

Notes, there is NO question about the DEPTH of Ron Paul's support. His support is by far the deepest of any candidate. It is the breadth of his support that people question.

Wayne| 10.11.11 @ 6:12AM

Romney is a RINO, but Huntsman is a Democrat.

steve in ohio| 10.11.11 @ 12:23PM

Huntsman is pro life and pro gun. He made Utah very business friendly. By Democrat, I assume you mean a Grover Cleveland or Thomas Jefferson sort.

steve in ohio| 10.11.11 @ 12:27PM

I like Ron Paul, but did he really win the votes of those attending the Summit? When I was there four years ago, they allowed online voting. Most in attendance voted for Huckabee, but Romney came in first due to the internet votes.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 10.11.11 @ 4:12PM

Again, James Antle quotes only the articles that he likes and stacks the issue in a biased, negative way. Not a mention from him (or Erin McPike) that under President Obama, defense spending has already been cut FOUR TIMES (2009, 2010, early 2011 under the CR and the Gates cuts, and under the first stage of the debt ceiling deal). Not a mention that defense spending is already at historic lows, both as a %age of GDP and as a %age of the federal budget. And not a mention from this cafeteria constitutionalist about what the #1 Constitutional duty of the federal government is. Yet he thinks he's fit to lecture others on the Constitution and call other people "Cafeteria Constitutionalists".

ys| 10.25.11 @ 1:18AM

slewing ring can also bear the larger axial load, radial load and overturning, can replace several sets of ordinary bearing combination to use function. http://www.1stbearing.com