Ron Paul Forcefully Denies Ever Supporting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
- Posted on January 1, 2012 at 5:46pm by
Christopher Santarelli
- Print »
- Email »
During an appearance Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Republican candidate for president Texas Rep. Ron Paul hastily interjected before interviewer Jake Tapper could even finish asking about claims that the congressman supported conspiracy theories in regards to the September 11 attacks.
“TAPPER: One of your former close aides recently said that you, quote, ‘engaged in conspiracy theories, including perhaps the 9/11 attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time.’ So have you ever expressed in front of anyone…
PAUL: Now, wait, wait, wait, wait. Don’t — don’t go any further on that. That’s complete nonsense.
TAPPER: It’s nonsense?
PAUL: Just stop that.
TAPPER: Not true?
PAUL: Yeah, no. I did not — I never bought into that stuff. I never talked about it.
TAPPER: OK.
PAUL: About the conspiracy of Bush — of Bush knowing about this? No, no, come on. Come on. Let’s be reasonable.
TAPPER: OK.
PAUL: That’s just off-the-wall.”
There have been questions raised in the past on whether Paul is sympathetic to so-called “9/11 Truthers,” and conspiracy theories on the attacks. The latest claims came from former Paul staffer Eric Dondero, who accused Paul of engaging in 9/11 conspiracies, being Anti-Israel and an isolationist, among other allegations in a stunning post on Right Wing News last week.
CBS had reported that during a campaign stop last month, Paul said Bush administration officials were gleeful after the 9/11 attacks, for it gave the White House a pretext to invade Iraq.
“Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,” CBS reports Paul told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa on December 8.
On Sunday, Paul appeared ardent in disassociating himself from any links to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. ABC Video:
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 412 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (551)
schroeder123
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:58pmRon Paul : Close the boarders, small government, Quit spending in foolish ways, don’t start wars, start thinking, get back to the constitution.
Report Post »He has my vote. No Ego like newt and Mitt.
Scottsman
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:11pmI agree.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:24pmHere Here Sir
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:29pmRon Paul: smoke pot, or anything else; endanger American interests abroad; stop thinking about consequences, only about liberty; propagandize about why America should be hated just because we proactively stand up for ourselves vs. terrorists; believe the terrorists’ own claims about why they attacked us, but then don’t believe the threat they claim to pose; oh yeah, back to the constitution and audit the fed…
Report Post »He should have no conservative’s vote. Put him in the treasury dept, but keep him away from the Comm in Chief position.
Funny thing about him denying this stuff. He thinks it’s helping him. Really, he’s losing 1/2 his constituency by denying what Alex Jones and loons of his ilk believe.
JediKnight
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:32pmExcept that he doesn‘t say don’t start wars. He says congress needs to declare war. OK, fine. It’s not that hard to declare war. Under a President Paul, he would force Congress to declare war, but do you really think our current crop of congress persons would have a problem with that? I really doubt it.
Regarding spending, all spending bills must originate in the House. There’s still plenty of progressives in their and in the Senate. Something tells me that even with a President Paul veto threat, they’d find enough votes to continue the spending.
You want to get rid of the Federal Reserve? Clean up congress and get them to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (that’s what got us into this mess in the first place). I’m sure a President Paul would sign that legislation, but a President Paul couldn’t do anything to get it passed in the Congress.
My point? He’s a lame duck from day one even if he gets elected. The Congress must be changed either before or at the same time. Having a strict Constitutionalist in the Presidency will do no good with all the progressives that are still in Congress.
Report Post »brian8793
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:33pmMitt Romney doesn’t have an ego. The man is going top be our next President.
Ron Paul likes Mitt Romney and vica virca, just so ya know ; )
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:38pmRon Paul is a nut . Everyone with a half a brain can see that.
He is just in the race to make sure Romney wins
Report Post »Delta D-5-3
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:51pmDr. “Wack Job” and his 6th grade view of a very dangerous world is the ONLY reason he doesn’t have my vote. It‘s a friggin shame we can’t get a “complete” candidate! Anyone who can set there and say Iran isn’t a threat to anyone must be smoking some seriously good pot. That’s just dangerous and this is now a VERY dangerous world, MORE THEN EVER…….
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:52pmRon Paul is effectively done. It does not matter whether he just had his name on the newsletter or whether he had the same views as expressed therein. He won’t be elected as POTUS.
The left, in the case he gets nominated, will eat him for lunch. They would spin it in numerous ways, and cluster bomb it through the LSM shills like there’s no tomorrow. It is even possible that they would want Ron Paul to get Republican nomination and inject themselves in the process, because they have the “proper dirt” on him. He’s toxic. It’s just the way it is.
Dunno, each of the candidates has something that is far from an ideal, Bachman and Santorum seem to have the least of it.
Report Post »chicago76
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:57pmTotally agreed. Now the msm will start creating news about RP. It is called creative journalism. Romney knows all about that and so does Obama. They are masters of creative journalism.
Report Post »Br@dley
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:22pmhe’s going to win iowa and AT LEAST pull 2nd in NH.
will NH no longer matter if he wins there too?
freaking sheeple make me sick.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:29pmI am glad to see that Ron Paul is NO 911 Truther. I am about 85% sold.
Report Post »GOP if you think giving us conservatives a choice between Romney and Paul is a good strategy, well you may be mistaken. I’ll give Paul a chance. Not my first choice but I will give him a chance.
Paulites out there. Your guy is 1st tier now, be responsible. He may win this thing.
miser9
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:35pmI’m with Ron Paul all the way.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:46pm@Delta D-5-3,
“Anyone who can set there and say Iran isn’t a threat to anyone must be smoking some seriously good pot. That’s just dangerous and this is now a VERY dangerous world, MORE THEN EVER…….”
Apparently, Israel doesn’t think so.
See here.
HUGE: ANOTHER Mossad Chief Agrees With Ron Paul: Nuclear Armed Iran NOT Inevitably A Threat to Israel
Report Post »http://www.dailypaul.com/198088/huge-another-mossad-chief-agrees-with-ron-paul-nuclear-armed-iran-not-inevitably-a-threat-to-israel
Thomas Paine
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:49pm@schroeder123
Paul voted to continue sending OUR money to HAMAS/Fatah/Hezbollah terrorists (our ENEMIES) via their money launderers in the Palestinian Authority (SEE: House Resolution 268.) So much for his claim to be a “non-interventionist” or opponent of foreign aid. I can think of no worse INTERVENTIONISTS than islam/shari’a. Paul likes to pretend that the U.S. itself is not “occupied” by our enemies (mosques = islam/shari’a FORTS! & front groups like CAIR) & blames terrorism on US!?
jb.kibs
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:55pmyeah.
Report Post »I would have asked the interviewer, “Do you still beat your wife?”
Cause4Liberty
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:59pm@Happy, Brian8793, Hipponuts, Delta, 2×4… “He’s done, stick a fork in him, he’s probably smoking pot, He’s a Kook, Looney, tin foil hat wearing old fart, blah, blah.” Romeny supporters, huh?
Dondero was a disgruntled employee, he was fired and decided to join the establishment by calling him the names. The same things they’ve been saying since Day1 of his congressional service. Same talking points, same broken record.
Do yourself a favor, put down the remote control and turn off the radio. Find the book titled “Blowback” authored by Chalmers Johnson. Or better yet, read “Liberty Defined”
Report Post »DieProtectingFreedom
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:01pmAnyone that discredits Ron Paul and labels him a loon, out of touch, too old…I GUARANTEE you have not read or understand the U.S. Constituion or the Federalist Papers. This guy gets it…which is so opposite of what you have been conditioned to believe since childhood or chosen not to learn.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:01pmyeah it doesn’t really matter what people say. Ron Paul IS the only guy who would and can lead us back to a constitutional republic. The campaign contributions tell a lot…
Report Post »Cause4Liberty
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:05pm@Delta. Ya know it’s funny, because Israel is a country, leading the world, in Cannabis Research and medical applications… http://israelity.com/2009/03/22/israel-going-to-pot/
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:12pm@ Thomas
“Paul likes to pretend that the U.S. itself is not “occupied” by our enemies (mosques = islam/shari’a FORTS! & front groups like CAIR) & blames terrorism on US!?”
Surely your not that much of a bigot? Even if you by into this idea that everytime you walk outside a hijacked plane is gonna come crashing down on you, you cant be that ingnorant? To make such a statment? If your so willing to turn in our liberties so the government “make you feel safe” than you really are a fool. You have swallowed hook line and sinker into what neocons in the governemt and our media says. We are the greatest country in the world. And you fools think some little punk country is worth going to war over and giving our rights up. Such statements as the one I pointed out make all conservatives look like racist tools. And its cause of people like you and statments like that.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:12pm@ Thomas
“Paul likes to pretend that the U.S. itself is not “occupied” by our enemies (mosques = islam/shari’a FORTS! & front groups like CAIR) & blames terrorism on US!?”
Surely your not that much of a bigot? Even if you by into this idea that everytime you walk outside a hijacked plane is gonna come crashing down on you, you cant be that ingnorant? To make such a statment? If your so willing to turn in our liberties so the government “make you feel safe” than you really are a fool. You have swallowed hook line and sinker into what neocons in the governemt and our media says. We are the greatest country in the world. And you fools think some little punk country is worth going to war over and giving our rights up. Such statements as the one I pointed out make allconservatives look like racist tools. And its cause of people like you and statments like that.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:12pm@ HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:29pm
Ron Paul: smoke pot, or anything else; endanger American interests abroad;
—————————————————————————————————-
I won’t even bother with the rest of your silly post.
Does drinking being legal, or doctors handing out psychotropic and narcotic drugs like candy endanger us? The answer is obviously yes, but the fact is it’s not the candy dispensers that are the problem. It’s the society that allows dysfunctional Doctors to malpractice, Psychiatrists and Psychologists who are nothing more than witch doctors to diagnosis things they know nothing about and treat those phoney conditions to support a drug industry with pills (psychotropics) that literally destroys the brain, and administer narcotics that appease a complete lack of personal responsibility.
You are wrong. Personal responsibility and self regulation that has been created by the government that is the problem, not the drugs themselves.
What “interests” in foreign nations does Paul threaten? You mean like NOT fostering hatred by sticking our long noses where the hell they don’t belong?
Lets do an experiment. Let me and my brother get into a fight, and you come and try to separate us. What will happen is that we’ll rip you to shreds and return to our fight afterwards. The SOLUTION? Keep your nose out of sovereign Nations affairs.
Report Post »Weiners Wiener
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:13pm@Schroeder — You’re not thinking, then if you support Ron Paul. He has stated very openly that he does NOT want to close the borders, for fear that they ‘would keep Americans in’. He said that during an early debate. It appears you are just a mindless Paul-bot. Are you?
Report Post »www.Cryptoportico.com
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:18pm@Thomas paine
How about checking your BS facts… Ron Paul voted AGAINST HR 268!!!! But hey, just keep on passing on the MSM info and vote for your progressive candidate. Checkout the votes:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-524
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:24pm@Weiners Wiener That’s way out of context.
From his site:
If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
* No Amnesty – The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.
As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:28pmDelta D: “Anyone who can set there and say Iran isn’t a threat to anyone must be smoking some seriously good pot”
Iran is no threat to America. Iran can not threaten America. Iran does not have the capability to threaten America. You are being jingoistic with accusations not backed by fact. You have believed the self-serving Zionist propaganda.
Report Post »Cause4Liberty
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:37pm@weiner head… You’ve grossly distorted what he said. Paul stated that a FENCE or Berlin-type wall, COULD be used to keep out and as well as to keep in. Paul is for CLOSING the borders and putting “boots on the ground” and 21st century technology to use. Building a fence or wall, well, history tells us how that worked out. LoL. Your scare tatics DO NOT work.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:38pm@ 10th, 10:12PM
Report Post »You are wrong. Personal responsibility and self regulation that has been created by the government that is the problem, not the drugs themselves.
-
I think the drugs you support have addled your own brain somewhat. Just a theory based on the evidence in the very post where you attempt to support drug policy (by claiming drugs doctors prescribe destroy brain matter–you DO realize there ARE some good uses for some drugs, right, when properly administered?).
You just let slip a tacit admission that you believe the govt creates SELF-regulation and PERSONAL responsibility.
Your horse-before-the-cart logic can’t make sense of the world around you where it takes morality to maintain the correct balance between liberty and responsibility where a just society understands the need for regulation on substances that immoral people abuse and try to justify abusing. Somehow you think just laws requiring enforcement are responsible for immoral people behaving badly, and want us to believe a guy that thinks like you should be in charge of the executive branch (where the FBI resides!)
Crooks are as crooks do, my silly voting friend. You want the right to choose to be sacrosanct, you have my conservative kudos. But when govt refuses to enforce just laws, your liberty will turn to anarchic chaos before your Dr. Paul can diagnose the problem. The only TRUE support of liberty is a right choosing society, which doesn’t happen where drugs are legal, i.e. CA…
Twobyfour
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:39pmCause4Liberty: “Romeny supporters, huh?”
Nope. Romney’s a RINO. Still better than BHO, but not by much. I have some serious reservations about Paul, but so do I regarding other candidates.
I’m just telling things as they are. Paul apparently made a mistake of not overseeing the newsletter. It is not relevant that his views may differ. As I said, the left will spin it in spades, if he’s nominated. You know it’s true, it’s their modus operandi. They won’t quit, milking it to the last drop. And rest assured it would be effective with undecided voters.
It’s Cain all over again and the result would be the same. Mistakes like these have a heavy price in politics.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:44pmLMAO. add to this since BLAZE is back to picking and choosing. I guess they didn’t like me informing them that one of their advertisers had malicious script and keylog tracker software that every one of the BLAZE subscribers would be victimized by if they clicked to their site.
Oh well, anyway.
I could care less if people think it’s conspiracy or not. George Bush (both of those pukes) were and ARE more than a little friendly with Bin Ladens family. Bush, both of them, and Clinton, were active supporters of Dov Zakheim who is probably the one who funneled, and continues to launder the 2.3 trillion of defense money that Rumsfeld reported missing o 9-10-2001. Nobody thought it just a little funny that the Saudi’s were on Bushs ranch in Texas the day of 9-11 and had to be secretly taken out of the Country? HW lest we forget was at the top of the CIA (communist infiltration association).
Anyone who doesn’t at least suspect that whore family, the Bush family, of knowing about, and perhaps actively help to no less than facilitate is either in denial, gullible, or just a plain idiot.
Not only was it probably orchestrated, but 9-11 was used to virtually destroy America as we know it, by that illegal, and immoral Patriot Act. The Military complex (not the average Soldier) at the Pentagon IS the heart of the problem. America should have listened to Eisenhower.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:47pm@HappyStretchedThin The President has no Power to govern over those matters, he can’t make laws. I believe that in 2012 w’ll elect a TEA Party congress. I don’t expect them to write laws to legalize heroin. That’s a distorted view on Paul’s positions. Where in Article 1, Section 8 does the Congress have power to legislate on those matters? Those are issues for the people of the State to deal with. And just recently, not even California was able legalize Marijuana by a popular vote.
In case you haven’t noticed, we already have a drug problem here in America. What have all these Progressive Prohibitionist laws done over these past 30 years to improve our social problems and immorality? Nothing! Why do we maintain a drug addict with shelter and food, with our tax money (about $30,000 a year for each prisoner), just to have him released in 10 years to commit a worse crime? True religion and morality comes by preaching the Word of God. If you want real change, pick up a bible and preach to the youth. The reason we have these problems now is because the Church has abandon it’s mandate to teach righteousness, to take care of the sick, and to aid the poor. Now, we have Progressives demanding that the Government step in wherein we Christians have failed to uphold God’s commandments! We don’t need more Government, we need God.
Report Post »TurdFerguson1
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:53pmYou meant “close the borders”.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:57pm@ HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:38pm
-
I think the drugs you support have addled your own brain somewhat. Just a theory based on the evidence in the very post where you attempt to support drug policy (by claiming drugs doctors prescribe destroy brain matter–you DO realize there ARE some good uses for some drugs, right, when properly administered?).
———————————-
LMAO, the strongest drug I’ve EVER taken is Tylenol. NyQuil is legal to but you’ll never catch me taking it, or anything like it that causes the mind to be altered.
There‘s not a psychotropic drug peddled by loon fraud doctors that doesn’t destroy especially functions of the cerebral cortex. There are no “safe” psychiatric drugs. Each has numerous harmful short term and largely unknown long term effects. Each psychiatric drug which was orginally heralded as the new “safe” wonder drug, was found to have severe harmful side effects, including addiction, and withdrawal symptoms, among others. Psychiatric drugs obtain their result by causing brain dysfunction.
There are NO good applications for a single psychotropic drug ever created. There are uses for drugs used in surgeries and other treatments, but not in the psycho and psychiatric anything. That’s witchcraft and nothing more.
But it still reverts to personal responsibility and taking control over our own actions. PERIOD!
Psychotropics are this currents societies destructive babysitters.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:57pm@HappyStretchedThin The issue here isn’t “legalization” but criminalization. The founding fathers would accuse each other of doing drugs but would never criminalize each other over it. Even our Declaration and Mayflower sails were made of (industrial) hemp. In some colonies, land owners had to grow hemp in order to sustain themselves and keep America independent of foreign goods. Hemp was used for cloth, rope, oil, medicine and paper, among other things. If you study the history of our modern drugs you will find that Progressives along with big Pharmaceutical, Drug, and Chemical corporations are at the core of these drug laws and administrations. The industry (legal and illegal) is more corrupt than most think.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:58pm@Twobyfour I understand your reasoning and agree with much of it. However, you underestimate the willingness and dedication most of his supporters have to fight off any slander, misinformation, distortion, or lie. Unlike the other Candidates that gain and drop support, Paul is basically the only candidate that has gained support or held a steady percentage through the barrage of attacks from the MSM and radio talking heads. He won’t fade away easily. Most folks that support his constitutional positions and message of Liberty, could care less about the man’s personal opinions, or those of his other supporters. They know what’s at stake. The survival of our Constitutional Republic.
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” Jefferson
Report Post »Cause4Liberty
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:59pm@2×4. IF you agree that Romney aka ROMEny, isnt much better than Obama, how in the heck would you even consider voting for him? I find it pathetic and refuse to settle for the lesser degree btwn two socialists. Romney was a draft-dodger that was educated in France while living in mansion. Almost 90% of his backing is by the big Corps. like JPmorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs (hmm, were they beneficiaries of the bailout?). If that doesnt spell elitist, idk what does. See Here: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/264837/20111209/ron-paul-newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-funds.htm
Btw, the left will only self-destruct themselves over that very newsletter issue. As they already are. They would fullfil Einsteins definition of insanity. Question is: As Paul the nominee, Would Fox news, conservative pundits, and hardcore neo-con Anti-paulists, support him during a liberal (soros) media attack?
Report Post »privacyina9m80
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:07pmI agree, as well. It’s incredible to have something in politics about which to be realistically positive.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:16pmThis blog is blocking information about America‘s bin Laden unit that was established in the 1990’s. What did they know?
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:24pmThis blog is blocking the fact that it was a Jew who first pushed for the war with Iraq, after al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan and not Iraq, committed its heinous act. Paul Wolfowitz, whose sister lives in Israel.
Report Post »Cat
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:29pmRon Paul is the business partner that thinks holding information about the product being produced close to his chest is more important then knowledge of what the product itself is producing for the firm
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:31pmThis blog is protecting the two Jews, Philip Zelikow and Jamie Gorelick, a fact that proves criticism of anything Jewish is not tolerated.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:32pmThis blog is protecting the Jewish run New York Times and its involvement in lying to the American people for its desired war with Iraq.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:35pmThis blog does not trust your intellect to make informed decisions. They are actively making those decisions for you by omitting specific information.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:35pm@ smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:24pm
This blog is blocking the fact that it was a Jew who first pushed for the war with Iraq, after al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan and not Iraq, committed its heinous act. Paul Wolfowitz, whose sister lives in Israel.
Report Post »—————————————————————————————
I don’t disagree except in terminology. Wolfowitz, like Zakheim, Obama, Emanuel, Axelrod, Soros, Gingrich etc, are the furthest thing there is from being a Jew. They are ZIONISTS who smoke the pole of the Rothschild family (cartel).
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:46pm@10th
Report Post »Please forgive me if I have falsely accused you. My point was that drugs are NOT to be trifled with, and that we need experts to help us know which and when are medicinal, not recreational uses for our bodies’ needs. If there are fraudulent doctors out there, I add my condemnation to yours. But I won’t throw the baby of modern medicine out with the bathwater of your mistrust of doctors. More on point to politics, it’s insane to think either: 1. we are all qualified to self-medicate; 2. recreational use of some drugs does harm to no one but ourselves.
@ Colt,
I was talking general philosophy of govt, NOT particulars of legislation under the US Const. I did NOT misrepresent Paul, though. You‘re right that he’s leave it to the states (which is right!), but he DOES think recreational use should be an individual choice. He’s nuts. Drugs and the love of money cause the problems, NOT laws forbidding their recreational use. Criminalization is the dishonest word for it, btw. Criminalizing is something unjust legislators can do to neutral activities. Drug abuse is de facto criminal and immoral, you just won’t admit it. Banning it makes for a just law, not an immoral act of govt, as you try to paint it.
On the other hand, your solution is dead on with one addition: preaching to youth is necessary, but also good parenting. I currently practice both.
smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:46pmWhat we do not know hurts us. This blog will not permit me to demonstrate how Jamie Gorelick and Philip Zelikow both worked against America for Israel’s interest. This speaks volumes about how free speech really isn’t, on this blog.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:48pmI am finding out that this blog is actively protecting three specific Jews, and their involvement in the 9/11 story. These three are Sandy Berger, Jamie Gorelick, and Philip Zelikow.
Report Post »Libertarian B 4 Libertarians Were Cool
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:00amPaul is our only hope….
Paul 2012
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:08amGotta go. Love you all… Happy New Year!
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:28amCause4Liberty: “IF you agree that Romney… isnt much better than Obama, how in the heck would you even consider voting for him? I find it pathetic and refuse to settle for the lesser degree btwn two socialists.
You can keep socialist Romney in check (through Congress if enough conservatives are voted in and have a supermajority), but you can’t keep a commie in check. Romney would uphold constitution when push comes to shove, while Obama will discard it at an opportune moment (it is possible that all our debates are academic and if Obama sees that he won’t win elections, he may pull off a fast one).
In other words, I’d rather see someone else elected than Romney, but would hold my nose if he’s gets the nomination and concentrate on electing conservatives into House and senate.
“Btw, the left will only self-destruct themselves over that very newsletter issue. As they already are. They would fullfil Einsteins definition of insanity. ”
You underestimate their media machine. There is far more people getting information from MSM than through internet. Paul is unfortunately supplying them with ammo and they will use it and there will be buyers. Recall 2008, people were buying hopey changey Obama.
“Question is: As Paul the nominee, Would Fox news, conservative pundits, and hardcore neo-con Anti-paulists, support him during a liberal (soros) media attack?”
Yes. They know that anybody’s better than Obama. Some Paulites, OTOH, would vote for Obama if they ca
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:30am@HappyStretchedThin Thanks for the response. I was not trying to paint these laws as an immoral act of Government, quite the contrary, their pretty moral (within good and just intentions). However, under the Constitution and our Rule of Law, they’re Progressive in nature. That’s my concern. They seek to liberally expand the limited powers of the State or federal Government for special interests or to accomplish a certain agenda. These current laws have not worked to solve our problems. Each year drug use, divorce, teen pregnancy, out of control reveling and domestic violence rise.The most they have done is hide the problem from society, wherefore society (individuals) feel no personal responsibility towards fixing these problems. They see Government as the solution. They see the Government as taking the burden of their backs. I rather have Jesus tell me what is right, then have a Big Government violently force me to do what they believe is right. Come this year, we have to buy a certain light bulb for our own good and safety. These politicians believe they know what is best for you and me. Though their intent may be good, history proves that these laws or powers will be abused and taken advantage of to further control and fiercely govern us.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:31amSome Paulites, OTOH, would vote for Obama if they can’t get Paul. I’ve seen many statements of that sort here.
That’s the difference between Non-Paulites and Paulites.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:38am@HappyStretchedThin and Everyone else. This is exactly what I mean:
“While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.” John Adams
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:59am“There have been questions raised in the past on whether Paul is sympathetic to so-called “9/11 Truthers,” and conspiracy theories on the attacks.”
Regarding the article to which the link-text, “questions raised in the past”, refers, when Ron Paul says, “I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.”, he is referring to Reagan’s response to the assault on a Marine barracks in Beirut.
See here.
Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy
http ://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/09/ron-pauls-reaganesque-foreign-policy/
Regarding the video to which the link-text, “sympathetic to so-called “9/11 Truthers”, refers, where Ron Paul says that he’s got too much on his plate to talk about the “truth” of 9/11, I would like to preface my response with a couple observations.
1. What constitutes “the truth” is not specified. And that which he is denying in the OP is a claim to knowledge that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand.
2. Ron Paul DOES question whether our government is hiding knowledge that 9/11 was blowback (see the “prediction” video further down).
See here.
Trutheriness and Ron Paul
http ://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
Now, the reason he suspects a cover-up is because he believes 9/11 was blowback.
See here.
Ron Paul Predicted 9/11 a Decade Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc
jzs
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:18amDoesn’t this all seem a little strange to you, all the politicians who are suddenly saying that the Bush administration did not know about the 9-11 conspiracy? Out of nowhere, politicians like Paul are saying that Bush didn’t know anything about the coming attacks on the twin towers. Does it make sense to you that suddenly. all at once, all these government officials and politicians are making the claim, in unison, that the most powerful nation in the world didn’t know a thing about this plot? Have you seen the video of the sequence of explosions that blew out the lower levels of the towers?
Scientists have duplicated these events in the lab and are unified in the opinion that the jets could not have brought down these buildings by themselves. These experts say that there must have been some other violent explosions that took place within the building, explosions that resulted from high tech arms only available, as far as we know, by the US government. Former agents testified before Congress that that the Bush administration knew or should have known about the attack, and several have said that their warnings were dismissed rudely.
In other words, all the evidence points toward a conspiracy of the US and the Islamic terrorists. But all the sudden everyone is saying that’s false. Huh?
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:40amThis is a “must see” 13 minute video about The history of the Military / Industrail Complex’s invasions in the middle east since 1953, and the Service Men and Women’s Overwhelming support for Ron Paul.
He is their chosen Commander-in-chief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
The Global Elite’s Military / Industrial Complex, makes money tearing Countries down,
and then their Financial Arms; the IMF and World Bank ( Through their many subsidiaries ), make money on loans to rebuild these countries. A very efficient scheme.
Here is Judge Napolitano, expressing his views on the Patriot Act’s unconstitutionality ( NDAA is just an extension of the P.A. ) and also expressing his support for Ron Paul :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNRSs6LsGeI
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:55amThe Introduction to Senate Report 93-549 (93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973)
“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property (GM); organize and control the means of production (EPA, FDA); seize commodities (Raw Milk producers); assign military forces abroad (M.I.Complex); institute martial law (PA, NDAA); seize and control all transportation and communication (TSA, FCC); regulate the operation of private enterprise (GM); restrict travel (TSA, Agenda 21); and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.”
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:01amGLENN BECK SUPPORTS RON PAUL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE!!! WATCH GLENN SMACK DOWN A CALLER ABOUT RON PAUL AND ISRAEL.
THIS IS YOUR REAL CHOICE, AMERICA!
WATCH, AND WAKE UP!
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:25amThis was never in your school textbooks.
It never Appeared in your Hometown paper, or on your Television.
So that must surely mean that it is not true. Correct???
If the MSM never confirmed this, It must be a Conspiracy, Right????
http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:25amLet’s actually put up the entire interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZkXS9qgv-Q&feature=youtu.be
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:38amHIPPONIPS, What a name. I think I told you this on another story, so I guess you are just another Paul basher that does not listen to anyone else. That makes you closed minded and not trustworthy to listen to. Definition of Neolibertarian: “Neolibertarianism is a post-9/11 ideological offshoot of libertarianism that incorporates neoconservative ideas on foreign policy, including the use of preventive military force.” Sounds more like Santorum and Bachmann. The main word here is NEOCON and Paul is no such thing.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:41amLAKE JACKSON, Texas (AP) — The last time Ron Paul’s congressional district was redrawn, he ended up with NASA’s Johnson Space Center as a new neighbor. A group of Houston businessmen soon invited their new congressman for a primer on the value of the space shuttle.
Paul’s reply came in a note they thought was a joke. “He told them space travel isn’t in the Constitution,”
Report Post »Paul is a kook……….
V-MAN MACE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:50amConcur, concur.
RP 2012.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:58am@RepubliCorp LOL, Thanks for sharing that. The man can’t be bought. Businessmen or lobbyists beware.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:21amCOLT1860 “The man can’t be bought. Businessmen “. So Businessmen are automatically evil? Sounds like OWS …… Thanks for your input
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:46am@RepubliCorp,
“Paul’s reply came in a note they thought was a joke. “He told them space travel isn’t in the Constitution,”
“Paul is a kook……….”
You misunderstand the significance of something being absent from the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment says:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What this means is that if the power is not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, the federal government may not do it.
The logic behind this prohibition is found in the Federalist Papers.
See here.
Federalist Papers #78
http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
So, Ron Paul was not only right, but the short response that he gave was all that was necessary.
Report Post »burnteye86
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:56amWe (US) don’t start wars. We react when attacked. We will attack first if an attack on us is imminent, but we don’t start them.
Report Post »SomeRandomPerson
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:37amAnyone that supports this nut bag is an idiot. His stance on Iran disqualifies him to even be considered as an option. If it wasn’t for that, he’d be pretty decent, but his foreign policies suck.
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:50amI saw Liz Trotter on FoxNews completely miss-report this. In the interview, RP DID adamantly deny it, but there was no time given to him to explain.
Report Post »As I watch all the pundits and members of the “ruling class’ tell us how kooky RP is, it causes me to take another look at him. The establishment HATES RP!
KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:53amHe has my vote too,
The only real candidate that is going to fight for our freedom, liberty, and fiscal sanity.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:58am@ Colt,
Report Post »Your Adams quote is perfectly apropos. Where we seem to disagree is on the small but important point of what to do. You want to say the war on drugs is a failure. Of COURSE it is. But you seem to think that means we should drop the war entirely.
If I’m right about what you mean, you’ve misdiagnosed the problem. The laws against drug use don’t CAUSE abuse. The laws themselves are right and just. But they are INSUFFICIENT to win the war. The solution must include both correct teachings, and the freedom for people to govern themselves, until they break a just law, and then they should go to jail.
Adams was arguing exactly that: NOT that morality is the only law necessary, but that law alone is insufficient to maintain a just society. He supports my point, not what appears to be yours.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:42am@A Doctor’s Labor,
Report Post »You have my respect on many points, but I’m afraid if your logic (and Paul’s) were strictly followed here, Article I, Section 8 doesn’t provide for an Air Force either.
The Constitution doesn‘t claim to predict what future technologies may become an integral part of a govt’s operation (yes, planes are now necessary for a worthwhile military, just as space exploration is necessary for derivative technologies that support national defense–and since most countries haven’t yet figured out how to launch their own missiles, that SHOULD be a strategically state-controlled industry). Broadly, NASA (and the Air Force) derive their justification from: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
You and Paul are simply wrong. It IS in the constitution.
While your (and Paul’s) principled desire to limit govt to the strict Constitutional minimum is laudable, your (and Paul’s) refusal to see anything good in some powers assigned to the feds by this kind of derivation leaves your understanding of the world we live in solidly and dangerously pre-9/12, if not pre-Oppenheimer.
grumpyt
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:54amME, hopefully, along with 168,328, & 2 !
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:03am@JZS, Oh No say it aint say Joe! Now you’re a truther? Well I guess it does make a lot of sense in explaining many of your other posts. Paranoid, delusional, insecure and irrational.
And of course the evil and incompetent GW Bush planned all this with just a few months in office…
This post makes me less likely to take you seriously in the future.
Report Post »ProbIemSoIver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:09am@SHANE74
Excellent Clip. Thanks.
Yes, Beck is supporting RON PAUL 90%. All we need hi to do is watch this 13 minute video about our middle-east foreign policy and the Military men and Women’s overwhelming support for RON PAUL, who received more contributions from them, than all other candidiates combined.
I GUARANTEE anyone who questions RON PAUL’s foreign policy will change their mind after watching this video.
I Guarantee if BECK watches this, he will Change his mind also.
I also Guarantee BECK will cry like a Baby at the end of it.
I am a “tough guy” who cries once every 5 years or so.
Well this clip did it for me:
LEARN THE TRUTH, PLEASE !!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:28am@HappyStretchedThin
Tell us…what does it feel like to look in the mirror only to realize that as you attack Ron Paul, your positions mirror those of Obama?
Your poorly thought out Boggie Man is what has brought us the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the TSA strip searching your mother, your spouse, your children, and strip searches simply for your right to enter a football game.
It must also be very difficult to accept the fact that your position is exacly the opposite of founding fathers such as Jefferson and Washington, so what on earth will it take to wake you from your position in life as being a good little sheeple?
“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”
George Washington
“peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:02am@Freedomluver
Report Post »My policy preferences resemble those of Reagan, not Obama. Make a specific charge or your accusation is worthless.
Being pro-law enforcement doesn’t make me sheeple, it makes me sane, and it makes you a perpetrator of projection (yup, you’re the one deluding yourself into thinking you think for yourself). It also doesn’t make me pro-TSA. That’s just more baseless illogic hurling on your part.
Your cherry-picked Washington and Jefferson quotes you understand barely a word of, and have never seen in their context. Both are NOT claiming the US should have no military presence elsewhere as YOU claim they claim. Read the speeches in their entirety, understand the obvious distinctions between a time when no other democratic republics existed, and when their most fearsome weapon was a cannon, and our day, and the US’s position of strength in the world compared with then. Both founding fathers you cite poorly wanted the US to grow in power and influence, and thought remaining independent was the best way to do that. They did NOT mean for the US to remain non-interventionist, or isolationist, only an independent player is all. The context you’re missing shows those very quotes prove my point, not yours.
Freedomluver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:36am@HappyStretchedThin
Like it or not…your position on Iran pretty much mirrors that of Obama’s and that IS is a specific claim. If not…how exactly does it differ? You are welcome to find any quotes from our founders that back your vivid imagination, and I can assure you that you will not find them in the Federalist or Anti-Federalist papers, so where on earth are you finding such ridiculous notions in the founders writings?
Your Boggie Man is indeed what brought us the Patriot Act and the like, which tramples all over the constitution that you claim to have such a deep knowledge of. You…have simply been hoodwinked by progressive lies. Let me guess, you actually bought the lie that Iraq had nukes or was very close…right?
Now as for your position of obviously being a self righteous moral busybody…certainly using your logic, alcohol should be banned and those who consume it imprisoned. Did the founders advocate such, or did they indeed enjoy a “drug” and actually produce it for themselves? The only logical way that you could not include booze is to hold to a HUGE set of double standards.
I’m certainly not for drugs of any sort, and I do find myself once again in agreement with Jefferson on this issue.
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them.”
Report Post »T
jzs
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:16pmOokspay, nah, I was just being a troll.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:26pm@burnteye86,
“We (US) don’t start wars. We react when attacked. We will attack first if an attack on us is imminent, but we don’t start them.”
I used to think the same thing. But this is false.
See here.
Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?
http ://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html
And here.
Rethinking the Good War
http ://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance181.html
“World War I was not our war. In a memo written at the end of World War II, Churchill wrote:
“This war should never have come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer onto the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable.”
Also, in 1953, our CIA ousted the popularly elected Prime Minister of Iran so that Britain could maintain control of Iran’s oil fields.
Our government has, and does, start wars in our name, and without our knowledge.
See here.
The Gunwalker Scandal: Overview and Timeline
Report Post »http ://rinosandrats.com/2011/09/the-gunwalker-scandal-overview-timeline/
OniKaze
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:27pmRon Paul is a nut-job, and so is anyone who seriously supports him.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he says some great things from time to time, and has some great ideas.. However, any man who would seriously say he doesn’t see the problem with Iran (ie: one of the craziest countries on the planet, thats run by a whole bunch of psycho muslims) having nukes, like it was no bigger a deal than their leader going out and buying a new toaster, is completely crazy. You don’t have to be a psychic to know what Iran would do with nukes.. They have said it… Israel First, America Second…. Ron Paul is a wacky, and silly choice for candidate, who may be just as dangerous as re-electing Fuhrer Barry..
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:55pm@Freedomluver,
Report Post »Your inability to read seems trumped only by your quickness to name-calling. I made no statements on Iran, but I DO differ from Obama because I want to send the Iranians more than a sternly worded letter.
Those “ridiculous” notions you refer to are the founders’ messages found in the very contexts you stole your misapplied quotes from, namely: Washington’s farewell, and TJ’s 1st inaugural. I’d recommend you find and read them (they’re all over the web), but I’ll save that recommendation for others following this thread, since clearly you’re incapable of understanding their words, let alone intents.
On my anti-drug logic, there’s no inconsistency. Everyone, even YOU knows alcohol is bad, that‘s why we’ve made it a controlled substance. Rampant failure of enforcement doesn’t make the law unjust, and the existence of degrees of control appropriate to the nature of the drug in question doesn’t invalidate the need for any and all controls as you advocate.
And with another misapplied TJ quote, you again prove utter ignorance on something you profess to know and love. TJ was NOT arguing, as you claim, that individuals always choose what’s best, even when well informed, he was showing that the judiciary isn’t the ultimate power in the constitution, the VOTE is. Again, in context, makes my point not yours: majorities TEND to choose just laws, and drug laws are JUST! (And Paul’s nuts on that point)
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:05pmSerious questions for people thinking Paul understands terrorism.
Report Post »Scenario 1: Bully tells your kid he’s gonna beat the crap out of him after school. Should your kid take the threat seriously and tell an adult?
Scenario 2: Bully hurts a kid, and when teacher tries to get his story, bully claims he was provoked. Do you believe the bully is telling the truth about his motivations?
Paul fails the Scenario 2 test on a geopolitical scale every time. Paulies, please explain to me how this is not EXACTLY Paul’s position on al-Qaeda.
colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:16pm@RepubliCorp That’s taking it out of context. I was being humorous and sarcastic. I guess that just proves you do try to spin or distort things around. Sorry.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:33pm@HappyStretchedThin I don’t think we should drop the war entirely, I just think that the federal Government has been a MASSIVE failure and should rethink (as in the the Prohibitionist era) what the heck it’s trying to do and what the actual results are. Add to this the actually unconstitutionality or Progressive nature to all this, it makes for a very legitimate concern and argument.
You’ve misunderstood me. I don’t believe drug laws cause drug use. Absolutely not. I believe that they in a way hide the problem of drug use, that is, they take the responsibility away from individuals, and give the impression to society that Big Government will take care of this. That is completely different then thinking that drug laws cause drug abuse. As with alcohol, of course, whenever anything is abused and used to cause harm to others, or to endanger the public, Law enforcement should step in that the violator of other people’s rights and safety may go to trial and face appropriate judgement.
Adams was supporting my position, and I guess yours also, that “law alone is insufficient to maintain a just society.” That was my point also. Adams said what I said. Our Constitution doesn’t contain the powers necessary or desired to combat immorality or an irreligious people. Wherefore if our society does become thus, our Government will be corrupted, distorted and liberally (unconstitutionally) expanded to deal with such problems. So we better have a moral and just people.
Report Post »Freedomluver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:39pm@HappyStretchedThin
You are more than welcome to provide the quotes you feel would bring about the proper context to back your reasoning, and your failure to do so simply proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Take a look at what John Quincy Adams had to say…and then let’s see you twist yourself out of the knot you find yourself in. Here’s your “context”.
http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/2478450-OUR-FOUNDING-FATHERS-FOREIGN-ENTANGLEMENT
Now as far as the silly line of circular reasoning you attempted to foist regarding alcohol, please tell us, just what “restrictions” did the founders place on this drug? As for your claim of lack of enforcement…good God man…we have the highest per capita incarceration rate on the planet because of your kinds silly laws, and the money that results from such insanity funds criminal organizations and even terrorists for Pete’s sake.
And as for the majority opinion…you are a walking on dangerous ground because that is nothing but tyranny of the majority.
“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong”
James Madison
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
John Adams
Your version of what the founders stood for is the exact opposite of reality, so take off your distorted set of g
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:44pm@HappyStretchedThin Regarding your questions.
During WW2, was there a constitutional Declaration of War passed by the US Congress? During WW2, did we actually face a potential threat or actual attack from a foreign Nation? During WW2, was there an actual threat or possible breach to our National Security? During WW2, did we fight a third world Nation, or a highly civilized, technologically advanced, and militarily developed Nation? During WW2, did we have an ally in actual danger and risk of being defeated? During WW2, did our allies ask for help and aid in fighting against their enemies? During WW2, did we go to war, fight the enemy, win the war, and return home? During or after WW2, did we engage in nation building? Was WW2 preventable? Was WW2 a regional conflict or unavoidable worldwide conflict? Was WW2 fought over ideology and religion, or abusive Government and mass centralization of Power? During WW2, were we as a Nation and People respected and admired throughout the World because of our trade, friendship and Christian charity?
The George Bush you forgot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc
This video here explains Paul’s (constitutional) foreign policy a bit better (you may disagree with it, but it’s a better analysis of his positution): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Report Post »Texas Chris
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:44pmIt’s hard for people used to politics as usual to recognize humility. That’s why some folks oppose Ron Paul; they can’t see humility, and they have no trust in their fellow man, or themselves.
Report Post »RomneyWordsworth
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:50pmI agree Schroeder, and will be voting for him! However, when I give the EXACT RESPONSE that RP gave in regards to 911, to many of the other ardent RP supporters, I am called a Foxnews sheep, naive, warmonger, ignorant, blah blah blah, fill in the blank. Newsflash: RP may have outside the box foreign policy positions (many I agree with), but you better get used to the fact that he is simply not a “Tin Foil Birther”
I’m convinced that many of his “supporters” don’t want to see him elected, for the simple fact that he would no longer be their conspiracy candidate, and him being elecetd would also mean that LOTS of “sheep” voted for him, making him the new mainstream.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:54pm@HappyStretchedThin Obama has the same basic (interventionist) foreign policy and (Big Brother) domestic policy as all the other Republican candidates running right now.
Obama has practically extended every domestic (terrorist) security measure and expanded every foreign (war on terror) military action taken by Bush. This is what most Paul supporters mean by when they say, they’re all the same. We’re not saying Paul is some special, unique man but that he’s the only Candidate, running right now, that does not follow the same Wilsonian progressive foreign policy of this past century. And that’s a fact.
Here‘s a short read on Buckley’s input about this leftist foreign policy. http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/25/was-bill-buckley-a-foreign-policy-leftist/
Paul wrote a bill after the attack on 9/11, a constitutional Letter of Marque and Reprisal (like Jefferson did with the Barbary Pirates), to initiate a search to catch or kill Osama Bin Laded and any other associated member of Al Qaeda. He supported Israel‘s bombing Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981 when most didn’t. He warned Congress that Bin Laden was in Pakistan when most doubted it. He wants pilots armed. He wants as the Constitution says, to have Congress pass a Declaration of War, then go to war, fight it, win it, and come back home. These are sound, and most importantly, constitutional means by which to deal with our foreign problems, without arbitrarily infringing our rights in the name of safety.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:55pm@OniKaze,
“However, any man who would seriously say he doesn’t see the problem with Iran (ie: one of the craziest countries on the planet, thats run by a whole bunch of psycho muslims) having nukes, like it was no bigger a deal than their leader going out and buying a new toaster, is completely crazy.”
First, see here.
HUGE: ANOTHER Mossad Chief Agrees With Ron Paul: Nuclear Armed Iran NOT Inevitably A Threat to Israel
Report Post »http://www.dailypaul.com/198088/huge-another-mossad-chief-agrees-with-ron-paul-nuclear-armed-iran-not-inevitably-a-threat-to-israel
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:06pm@Colt. Glad we agree.
Report Post »@Freedomluver
1. Do I have to do all your work for you? YOU were the one citing founders as if you understood them in context! Here’s the full text of your own first two quotes: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/inaugural/infinal.html
2. I’ve said nothing contrary to your JQA quote. You‘re the one who doesn’t understand it (as with ALL the other quotes you cherry-picked-kudos that this one is full text). No one disagrees the JQA that we shouldn’t pick fights. It doesn’t even take a founder to understand that common sense. But YOU‘VE twisted that to mean we don’t have a right to defend ourselves and our interests beyond our own borders. And that’s where you and Paul are stuck in the 19th C.
3. YOU‘RE the one who claims drug enforcement isn’t efficacious. Highest per capita incarceration rate is a symptom of highest per capita freedom rate-some people choose poorly, silly. Are controls on alcohol just or not? Be honest.
4. Why don’t you complain about tyranny of majority on murder? On theft? Majority or not, those laws are just! Of course the majority can’t take away minority RIGHTS, or even arbitrate morality, but minorities can’t determine LAW for the majority either. So again: alcohol is a vice or not? Be honest. Of course it is, and of course it requires controls: not tyranny, just justice. No one has a RIGHT to alcohol, adults have the privilege. Drugs are stronger, require banni
Jaycen
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:08pmObvious Progressive Socialists:
Romney
Gingrich
Hunstman, Jr.
Perry
Less-obvious Progressive Socialist:
Paul
Constitutional Conservatives (yet also overly-religious people who scare lefties and centrists):
Bachman
Santorum
You don’t have to be a Romney supporter to dislike Ron Paul and his left-of-center politics. Shout on-and-on about ending the Fed all you like, but that doesn’t change the rest of his terrible political stances.
Romney isn’t allowed to want Socialist Healthcare at the state level, becuase that’s just as bad as shoving it at the Federal level. It’s WRONG at any level. And what makes you think he’ll be against something on a larger scale that he supports on a smaller scale? Is that how most humans behave?
My wife refuses to vote for a woman, though I don’t have a problem with it. That‘s why I’m backing Santorum. I wish he’d shut up about his religion. He puts 51% of America off when he spouts it. I believe in God, but I don’t need my President preaching to me. I also wish he’d stick to the important issues:
Steadily high unemployment
Another 5 Trillion in debt
Supportive of anarchists and marxists
Supports cronyism
Leave it at that, and leave everything else alone. Just chant those lines over and over till the election, Santorum. That’s all you need to do, bro.
Report Post »VicTheconservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:12pm@HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN
I don’t have the time or energy to go back and forth with you but I will simply provide you with a link to an essay by G. Edward Griffin. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf
It is a great read and hopefully it can help open your eyes to the bigger picture. Foreign wars involving the death of American citizens deserve a declaration of war by the people (Congress) don’t you agree? That’s what the Constitution says. Don’t like it? Amend it. Until then follow the rule of law. Doesn’t get more Conservative than that. America financially supported Saddam, AND Bin Laden. that’s a known fact. The status Quo is unacceptable. Get your head out of the mud and get on the right side of history.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:30pm@ Colt 1:44PM
Report Post »Thanks for considering my questions. But their central distinction has gone unanswered. I sincerely think your lens of “progressivism” is giving you political tunnel vision, and blinding you to real-world distinctions that need to be made.
Paul’s problem is that he trusts the EXCUSE the terrorists give for their behavior, but he doesn’t trust the THREATS they make. Even the concept of blowback in your video doesn’t quite get there. Paul completely reverses the order of trust one needs in dealing with bullies on the playground or on an international scale. That alone disqualifies from CIC, IMO.
As to your constitutionality arguments. Fair deal, but it’s semantics. Bush saw a new kind of threat, not attached to a specific nation-state. He pursued an authorization from Congress to pursue it (under the same constitutional mandate as the Letters of Marque and Reprisal you cite: Art 1, Section 8, no?), obtained it, and has operated under its authority, building an unprecedented coalition of nations to do so.
As to your questions about WW2. Can’t answer them all in one post, but it’s always tempting to play the “what if we had X” game with history, isn’t it? WW2 was necessary, should have been engaged earlier, and garnered us widespread goodwill. But the Marshall Plan wasn’t imperialistic occupation as Paul would have it. We let other nations self-determine, and support them in that goal when our military’s done.
colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:38pm@Jaycen Progressives would unconstitutionally expand the powers of Government to achieve some goal. Socialists would allow Government to take control of private industries to achieve some goal. That’s the opposite of Paul.
I believe the three candidates that would best adhere to the Constitution are Paul, Santorum and Bachmann.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:42pm@HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN I absolutely recommend that you read, The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. Glenn Beck even had an interview with the author:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmW3ytfhZ9M
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:53pm@ Colt 1:54PM
Report Post »Seriously, the progressive label prevents critical category distinctions.
Bush never claimed to want to use US force to “spread” democracy as Wilson DID. Will and Buckley BOTH misrepresent the Bush policy. We went into Iraq for a national defense reason, and THEN refused to leave until Iraq self-determined.
Paul certainly has more in common with the early, “neutrality” Wilson than with the post WW1 “League of Nations, 14 points” Wilson. But that doesn’t mean that Bush wanted US sovereignty to decline like Wilson did and Obama does. This progressive label can’t help you understand why no conservative was for invading Libya, for example, and why the other candidates all agreed with Paul on the subject.
Our foreign problems include states with vast resources able to sponsor non-state entities and arm them with WMD. Do you doubt this? Does the technological situation of instant electronic and cellular communication not demand appropriate tools for law enforcement and security agencies to deal properly with the threat? Franklin DID think sacrificing SOME liberties for LASTING and significant security would be necessary, when you take his quote in context.
V-MAN MACE
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:54pmAnyone supporting the Status Quo are progressives.
Ron Paul 2012.
Liberty or Tyranny?
Liberty or Tyranny?
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:55pmI’ve been trying to respond to @HappyStretchedThin regarding his Washington and Jefferson position for some time, but I’m having trouble finding what the filter is preventing.
Just get rid of the filters and the character limits, please, The Blaze.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:00pmTesting the filter:
Third Annual Message to Congress by Thomas Jefferson
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:09pm@HappyStretchedThin,
“Both founding fathers [Washington and Jefferson] … wanted the US to grow in power and influence, and thought remaining independent was the best way to do that. They did NOT mean for the US to remain non-interventionist, or isolationist, only an independent player is all.”
I know this wasn’t for me, but before I address your argument above regarding the Air Force, I want to address this one, because I believe your position on this informs your other one.
Jefferson SPECIFICALLY advocated persistent non-interventionism, with the knowledge that people were dying.
See here.
Third Annual Message to Congress by Thomas Jefferson
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?docu*****ment=664
(Remove the asterisks in the above URL. Again, I have no idea why these asterisks work where they do. LOL.)
“We have seen with sincere concern the flames of war lighted up again in Europe, and nations with which we have the most friendly and useful relations engaged in mutual destruction. While we regret the miseries in which we see others involved let us bow with gratitude to that kind Providence which, inspiring with wisdom and moderation our late legislative councils while placed under the urgency of the greatest wrongs, guarded us from hastily entering into the sanguinary contest, and left us only to look on and to pity its ravages.”
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:14pmROFL!
The word spelled “d o c u m e n t” is being filtered.
My goodness. That was frustrating as hell.
The Blaze’s filter is like the Soup Nazi. :)
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:24pmColt1860 is this taken out of context? http://www.myspace.com/video/peace-freedom-are-achieved-through-understanding/ron-paul-meets-the-student-scholars-for-9-11-truth/28483925
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:24pm@Happystretchedthin The problem in your scenario is that America is the bully.
In scenario 1 yes the kid should be able to talk to an adult and try to get some protection. In Iran’s case, they have China and Russia, so hopefully they will be protected from the bully.
As to your second scenario, no I do not believe the “bully” is telling the truth about being provoked. If the bully continually provokes others around the playground and then one of those kids hits him back and gives him a nosebleed the bully got what he deserved. Will there be consequences from the bully, yes, but to say the bully didn’t cause the reaction and the eventual nosebleed is far from the truth, the bully is ultimately responsible because he’s a bully.
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:03pm“Surely your not that much of a bigot? Even if you by into this idea that everytime you walk outside a hijacked plane is gonna come crashing down on you, you cant be that ignorant?”
Bigotry has nothing to do with and your example is overwrought.
Islam has as its stated goal the ascendancy over all the planet. It is not some bigoted statement. It is not some bizarre conspiracy. It is their holy obligation to Allah.
That some in the West and and America understand the civilizational threat posed by the Islamic Empire is not bigotry. It is sober assessment of an enemy that seeks our destruction.
If you took the time to read up on the history of jihad, you would come to the same conclusion.
Islamic Civilization is and always will be the existential threat to Western Civilization.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:31pm@RepubliCorp That was a great video.
Paul responded to the 9/11 group, “I‘ve heard of that but I don’t know too much about it… Well I don’t automatically trust anything the Government does when they do an investigation.” I don’t trust this current Government either! That doesn’t mean jack squat in that I support the OWS, truthers, birthers or whatnot. I don’t believe everything Big Brother tells me, not with Obama, Bush or any other modern politician in office. That’s lunacy to do so. The rest of his speech was great. He talked about personal liberties, the free market, and the Constitution. He later responded, to a proposed idea, that he would consider a detailed investigation of the 9/11 attacks. That makes one a truther? LOL. I’d like to have a detailed investigation into Obamacare also. So what? This video was from 2007, and Paul has not espoused anything that the 9/11 truthers believe. Heck, after 9/11 he wrote a bill to catch or kill Bin Laden and Al Queada members.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:34pm@Cptstubbing
Report Post »If you believe America is the bully in the scenario then you have illustrated in what way Paul would have plenty of good company in Jeremiah Wright’s church alongside Obama the grand apologizer. That’s also what bin Laden believed, btw.
Terrorists are the REAL bullies in the scenario, picking on innocent people going about their business in order to make a political statement (I’m in charge here and can take whatever I want).
You have failed to justify Paul’s foreign policy on those grounds, and I find your moral relativism deplorable.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:44pm@HappyStretchedThin,
“You have my respect on many points, but I’m afraid if your logic (and Paul’s) were strictly followed here, Article I, Section 8 doesn’t provide for an Air Force either.”
Thank you, sir.
There is no Constitutional authority to provide for an Air Force, correct; But not only could the states supplement the need for an aerial resistance with their respective Militias until Congress appropriated funds to train more, but if we understood how the rule of law works, it could easily have gone through the Amendment process once the defense benefits for such a thing were realized.
Something further to consider is the fact that our Constitution does not authorize the federal government to maintain an Army – only a Navy to patrol our border (as opposed to patrolling you and me).
Standing armies were rightly feared by our Founders for their tendency to steal the peoples’ freedoms through mission creep and taxation. The state Militia was intended to prevent the need for a federal army, and the Constitution actually limits the duration for the funding of an army to two years.
So, we WOULD have had a type of Air Force, if we understood the Constitution, but it would initially be in the hands of the state Militias (not to mention individual citizens, because prohibition of arms for the defense against possible government tyranny is in the Constitution, as well).
Report Post »walkintruth
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:46pmMaybe he has no ego but he has poor policies for security. He did say this country had something to do with 911. He blamed the US for it because we deserved it after killing so many people in the Middle East. I would be careful not to put someone like that in the WH. He is very extreme and many times he has liberal agendas. Keep listening to him before you decide.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:05pm@Doctor’s Labor
Report Post »Thanks for the link. Sorry the Blaze censor gremlin didn’t like your terrible language (how COULD you?! D o c u ….Oh, I just can’t say it!) :)
Look, of COURSE we should be non-interventionist as a general principle. It’s when it becomes dogmatic like Paul makes it that it becomes a problem. Jefferson himself in the 1st inaugural prefaced his famous “no entangling alliances” comment by saying basically: this is the general rule and some exceptions are going to have to be made. He made several himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
The point is that foreign policy has to be principled AND take into account modern reality. Before nukes, cell phones, the combustion engine, GPS, email, air travel, oh and the massive political turn from forms of tyranny to representative democratic nation-states in most of the world, etc. we could keep our noses pretty clean on the international scale. Now, the reach of those seeking to topple the big kid on the block require us to take a defensive posture including the ability to rapidly deploy anywhere. Conservatives aren’t war mongers. We avoid conflict until there’s no other recourse. Just like Jefferson in his context. It’s just that sometimes peace requires the threat of force. Not all govts are responsible to their people, yet, and those ones don’t always play fair unless their alternative is a threat of force.
colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:17pm@walkintruth This video shows pretty much the opposite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:17pm@ Doctor’s Labor,
Report Post »I sincerely appreciate your consistent reasoning. It’s refreshing.
I’m sympathetic toward the amendment model of providing for constitutionality of new military branches.
But the State Militia concept has the same problem as before: doesn’t take into account modern realities. Since the end of the industrial revolution, the power to consolidate and secure the resources, technologies, and secrets necessary to provide air support to modern operations would be cost-prohibitive for any single state (even CA and TX).
A central federal authority for such a program is necessary.
p.s. the hesitancy to support a standing army was also expressed in a context where much greater state autonomy was envisioned. Since the Civil War, the matter is pretty much settled, and a professional volunteer army has proven not only vastly beneficial, but well checked by its civilian oversight. It’s the civilians involved that have creeped the missions and taxes, imo.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:26pm“… because prohibition of arms for the defense against possible government tyranny is in the Constitution, as well”
This came out wrong. I meant to say that the government may not prohibit any kind of arms, including aerial arms.
Report Post »TPartyXpress
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:33pmRon Paul is out there in the Twilight Zone. I have his have whacko beliefs on video, courtesy of Huntsman at Real Clear Politics. He can deny all he wants but his history is an open book. URL:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/02/huntsman_does_twilight_zone_themed_ad_on_ron_paul.html
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:40pm@TPartyXpress LOL. That’s taking things way out of context. The guy is against a World Government, and that’s crazy? Heck, Beck is against a Word Government too. I’m pretty sure he got called crazy by the MSM also. The music in the background was pretty funny though.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:46pm@HappyStretchedThin,
“p.s. the hesitancy to support a standing army was also expressed in a context where much greater state autonomy was envisioned. Since the Civil War, the matter is pretty much settled, and a professional volunteer army has proven not only vastly beneficial, but well checked by its civilian oversight. It’s the civilians involved that have creeped the missions and taxes, imo.”
I believe I was right to assume that the perceived need to project military power is at the crux of many of your preferences for a consolidation of power in other areas; So let me, for the moment, attempt to forego what I would consider to be secondary considerations in favor of this primary one.
True, a military force the management of which is consolidated in the hands of a federal government is formidable. But as our Founders noted, such a military is an ever constant threat to liberty.
See here.
Federalist Papers #41
http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
“Not the less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments.”
What good is a strong military if it takes away your freedom?
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:53pmI know that’s what Bin Laden believed, that’s why he attacked us. I don’t understand how you can think our continued presence in Saudi Arabia was anything less than an insult to Muslims. Or sanctions placed on Iraq resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would do anything other than build ill will toward the U.S. We are the bully in this scenario. We are the biggest kids on the block continually poking our nose in other people’s business.
“picking on innocent people going about their business in order to make a political statement (I’m in charge here and can take whatever I want).” That’s the United States motto.
“I find your moral relativism deplorable.” You’re the one who thinks killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s through sanctions is a good thing, then going into their country and killing hundreds of thousands more is even better. You seem to think it’s okay to continually drop bombs on Pakistan killing terrorists, even though those bombs kill innocent women and children instead. Killing 3,000 Americans was paltry compared to the number of Muslims we have killed in return. And you question my moral relativism?
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:09pmcolt1860
Progressive Socialists are also internationalists, and that‘s how I’d rank Dr. Paul. I want the United States to stay out of foreign issues and avoid being “the world’s police force”, but we must protect our allies when they need it. I want us to cut off foreing aid to countries that openly chant for our death, but not necessarily all aid to all countries.
Say what you will about the Founders, but they recognized that we would not exist if it weren’t for aid from France and to a lesser extent others. If Israel is willing to stick their necks out on our dime to interfere with countries that are openly hostile to America, the West, and Democratic Republics, then I’m happy to funnel some cash to them.
Generally, I don’t care what other countries do, so long as they don’t bother us, but Iran consistently encourages their populace to chant “Death to America” and burn our flag and our Presidents in effigy. You know full well nothing happens without government authorization there. If they get a nuke, they will use it on us. They’ve said so. For any Presidential canididate to state “Why shouldn’t Iran get a nuke?” is to be dangerously irresponsible. That ranks up there with “nutty” in my book.
Ron Paul is not a good candidate. He’s not even a bad candidate. He’s really not a candidate at all, is he?
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:10pm@Colt I don’t think it was taking anything out of context. 600,000 Americans did die in a senseless civil war.
Hamas was encouraged by Israel.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2002/06/18/Analysis-Hamas-history-tied-to-Israel/UPI-82721024445587/
They did attack us because of our continual presence in the middle east.
If our nation was surrounded by other nations with nuclear weapons we would want them too. It is completely natural for Iran to want a nuclear weapon. Every nation with a nuclear weapon is given more respect. Even North Korea.
When did reality become the twilight zone.
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:20pm@Jaycen, Israel doesn’t want our help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5UrPB-xA
Do you know anything about Iran. I think Rick Steves talk on Iran is very illuminating about life in Iran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU
I especially like the part where he describes traveling somewhere, and the driver says “death to traffic.”
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:26pm@ Doctor’s Labor,
Report Post »Thanks for demonstrating comprehension while maintaining debate. It’s refreshing in this forum. Sorry if I fall prey at times to the ease of accusing before showing I’m not distorting.
Your link went to #78 (on an independent judiciary), but I found the right one #41 easily enough. Thing is, Madison’s rather making MY point. the very next line after what you cite sums up my position: “A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision.” When read carefully, even in your quote, Madison’s saying the lesson of Rome was expansionism, not the army per se. And liberties in Europe are purchased THROUGH the maintenance of a standing army. This is because tyrannical monarchies are irresponsible to their people in the USE of the military. Condee was right: democracies don’t go to war with each other. And Madison is right in Federalist #41 when he concedes that the existence of military establishments in the hands of our enemies necessitates our own peaceful nation’s buildup as a prevention measure.
@CptStubbing:
If you honestly can’t tell the difference between the US aiming for enemies and inevitably catching innocent others in the crossfire, and terrorists who specifically target innocents, the more the better; between the US who laments each untargetted loss and the terrorists who celebrate all innocent kills, I’m done speaking with you.
Jabboe9
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:47pmI truly appreciate the dedication and passion you Paul supporters have for your canidate…but… the old guy is a complete loon! (Deep down inside you guys have to know this, but because of blind loyalty and sheer idiocy, you refuse to acknowledge it!) His belief system and ultimate message is one based on the dream of a fool! You cannot possibly believe that by simply “minding our own business,” (Paul’s words, not mine,) we will successfully deal with the deadly threat of Radical Islam! Wake up Paul supporters, ’cause this guy refuses to accept the reality of our situation as a Society and Nation, and you all are betting on a losing horse!
Report Post »CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:20pmYou’re telling me that invading a country and killing people who are trying to stop our unjustified invasion was okay? The terrorists didn’t just attack innocents, they attacked our financial system in the form of the trade tower, and they attacked our pentagon. As much as terrorist do like to attack and kill innocents and probably don’t lament the death of Americans. Their attacks on 9/11 were specific and with purpose. Our financial intuitions and our military institution.
And don’t for one second tell me that Americans lament untargeted loss. America doesn’t even acknowledge the loss. Nobody talks about the Iraqi causalities. They repeatedly bring up the 5,000 troops who were killed, but don’t mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as innocent bystanders or were attempting to repel an invading force.
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/opin/pr_sjm.html
And now you want to do this to Iran. Are you people %#$%ing crazy?
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:23pm(Continued from prior post)
As for the Civil War, Lincoln “settled” the matter by violating States’ rights.
It may (or may not) help to clarify what Lincoln’s intentions were, since we have been falsely led to believe that liberty – even liberty for the “black man” – was his goal. The fact of the matter is that Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant.
See here.
Another Big Lincoln Lie Exposed
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo211.html
[Lincoln:] “… there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Report Post »…
“After the Emancipation Proclamation … was issued, Lincoln was hard at work on his various colonization projects.”
CptStubbing
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:41pm@Jabboe9 so when do we go in and start taking out northern Africa and Indonesia.
I get it we go into Iran, then from there we have a staging point into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we already have troops in Afghanistan so taking out Pakistan should be easy. Of course once we have those two countries it will be even easier to invade India to take out their Muslim population, oh wait I am getting ahead of myself. before that we move into north Africa and kill all of those pesky terrorist Muslims there.
Of course our troop buildup in Australia will help to bring the Indonesian Muslims under our thumb.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/down-under/indonesia-australia-us-troops-darwin-down-under
So now that we have most of the bigger countries in the middle east under our control, we have north Africa under our control and Southeast Asia under control we can systematically work our way through the rest of the nations of the world whittling out the Muslims who have eluded us up to this point.
Of course the U.S. Population, is only around 300,000,000 and the world Muslim population is around 1,500,000,000. That doesn’t matter though we have superior fire power, they should go down easily enough.
Again I ask, are you people #$%@ing crazy?
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:43pm@HappyStretchedThin,
“Thing is, Madison’s rather making MY point. the very next line after what you cite sums up my position:”
Apologies for the mis-link.
Madison argues for the occasional necessity of a standing army, as you say. (And please forgive the appearance of proof-texting that a character limit necessitates.)
As well – as I have alluded – the Constitution allows for the same in its two-year limit for the appropriation of funds toward this end.
But your concern for a ready, even modern, defense, is allayed in the form of the state Militias.
See here.
Federalist Papers #29
http://constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
“If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.”
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:04pmDoctor’s Labor,
Report Post »Why are you working so hard to destroy the good that came of the Civil War and the figure of Lincoln in particular? Of course he’s been mythologized. Of course in his context of the times he’d have attitudes which, judged by today’s standards with 20/20 hindsight he’d appear racist in his opinions. It’s more damaging mythologizing to claim, as DiLorenzo does, that he was a mere puppet to the powerful abolitionists in his party; that the war between the states was purely to establish federal control (people don’t volunteer to die for THAT cause, silly), and to forget the entire Gettysburg address in a concerted effort to make Lincoln’s admittedly EVOLVING views on race somehow diabolical. Lincoln died believing strongly enough in Black’s equal potential that he forced the South, over much loss of blood, to abandon the course of slavery that was the REAL immorality at the root cause of the war. The Union could not be maintained without that exercise of federal authority, and our society is better off with the feds as guarantors of basic human rights. As a student of the constitution, you should know better than to forget what the preamble’s “more perfect union” compromises were referring to.
The salient act of Lincoln was to Emancipate. The preservation of the Constitution demanded it.
HappyStretchedThin
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:18pm@ Doctor’s Labor,
Report Post »Again. State militias with a mile maximum artillery range is one thing. ICMBs or other WMD in the hands of a non-state entity, quite another. Madison’s principles are not in question, it‘s your misguided application of them to today’s realities. All his caution about not empowering the Executive with the means to pursue it‘s own purposes to the subversion of the peoples’ should be considered today no matter what technologies are at our disposal, yes. We’re in complete agreement.
But to make that caution a paralysis by refusal to USE what power we have when it’s Constitutional (yes Iraq WAS, see above on Congressional approval), and when it IS in the proper defense of the people (Saddam materially supported terrorists who targeted our innocents), is dangerous and doctrinaire. Paul’s brand of non-interventionism is consistent, just consistently wrongheaded, sorry.
I have to move on to other important matters here. Sorry to have to abandon an interesting a fruitful thread.
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:55pm@HappyStretchedThin,
I understand you have other obligations to which you must attend. I also have considered our discussion fruitful.
Nevertheless, I respond; Perhaps I will have the opportunity to do so again when you are available to critique my words.
“The Union could not be maintained without that exercise of federal authority, and our society is better off with the feds as guarantors of basic human rights. As a student of the constitution, you should know better than to forget what the preamble’s “more perfect union” compromises were referring to.”
If I may suspend a direct address of the Preamble for a quick moment: The purpose of the Union was not, as you suppose, to make the federal government the guarantor of human rights, but rather to secure individual rights via a republican form of government.
Indeed, Jefferson recognized the rights of states to secede.
See here.
Thomas Jefferson on Secession (1803)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/8508.html
So, Jefferson was actually for local self government – a republican form of government, in other words.
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:22pmIt’s amazing how many people want a crazy coot like Mr. Magoo as their POTUS.
I pray daily that he simply fades away or volunteers to help with our monetary policies, but as leader of the free world… NO WAY IN ****.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:26pmBr@dley
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:22pm
he’s going to win iowa and AT LEAST pull 2nd in NH.
will NH no longer matter if he wins there too?
freaking sheeple make me sick.
===========================
Yep, and the Ron Paul Sheeple are the undisputed worst of em!
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 11:58pm(Continued from prior post)
As for the Preamble, the words “a more perfect union” refer to the less than perfect union then present under the Articles of Confederation which were intended to unite the several sovereign states in the recognition of individual inalienable rights.
The whole point, therefore, of the Constitution, was to strengthen the [waning] union already in existence under the Articles of Confederation.
Federalist Papers #15
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa15.htm
“In pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the discussion of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the “insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union.”"
The Constitution formed a MORE perfect union than which was had under the Articles of Confederation. But the same KIND of union was envisioned under both.
(Continued on next post)
Report Post »bobbiejean
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 12:35amYeah, Schroeder123, (and others who appear to be devout Paul supporters) and what would you call it
if Ron Paul doesn’t get the Rep. nod and decides to go 3rd Party? Would his ego play a part in that or
does he truthfully think he can stop the Obama ”Chicago style thug” machine?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 1:06am@bobbiejean Same thing could be said about any candidate. This are just assumptions. Obama and the MSM will go against any candidate.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 3:06am(Continued from prior post)
You said:
“The salient act of Lincoln was to Emancipate. The preservation of the Constitution demanded it.”
Tom Woods offers this assessment of the Emancipation.
See here.
“There can be no minimizing the abolition of slavery, and that it was an enormously significant result of the war. But one may certainly ask whether the abolition of slavery had to be brought about in a manner that resulted in 1.5 million people dead, wounded, or missing; overwhelming material devastation; the undermining of the concept of civilized warfare; and the destruction of the American constitutional order in a way that forever strengthened the federal government at the expense of the self-governing rights of the states. Every other country in the Western hemisphere that abolished slavery in the nineteenth century did so peacefully. It is rather unflattering to assume that Americans were so savage that they were the only people for whom a negotiated settlement of the slave issue was simply impossible.
Indeed, the history of America is that collectivists deceive it into unnecessary conflicts in order to consolidate power.
See here.
Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?
http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html
And here.
Rethinking the Good War
Report Post »http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance181.html
Vechorik
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 9:45amRon Paul has a great chance of beating Obama — polls say so — and most people haven‘t checked out Paul’s platform yet:
Here are the facts Mr Morris
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ…ntial_matchups
mod: and here is the RCP average of candidate polls against Obama http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo…andidates.html — you have to go through the different candidate charts but the averages are:
Obama over Romney +1.6
Obama over Paul +7.7
Obama over Gingrich +8.9
Obama over Perry 12.5
Obama over Huntsman 10.7
Obama over Bachmann 15.0
And while Santorum wasn’t even polled head to head enough to have an RCP average, in every head to head poll I’ve seen him in that I recall, he was dead last against Obama.
Report Post »Rangdog
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 2:38pmHe has some good points but he is still the Crazy Uncle in the room.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 3, 2012 at 11:01pm@Rangdog Better than brain dead Obama.
Report Post »str8blues
Posted on February 23, 2012 at 5:19am@HappyStretchedThin Couldn’t have said it better myself. Ron Paul targets young voters. MOSTLY ones who have never been in the work force and those that are just formulating their views without real world experience. Legalizing pot is a huge issue for his young supporters. Those of us who run businesses…..not so much. BUT……the way I look at it, if Ron Paul’s biggest and loudest advocate is Alex Jones conspiracy lunatic……and Ron Paul supporters quote Wiki leaks and Russia Today (Russia’s State Run Propaganda outlet) as their sources for accurate info on Ron Paul……then he just isn’t a candidate I could ever support.
Report Post »MARKMYWORD
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:55pmRon Paul & Obama have a lot in common, they both lie ,they both think they can fix the world 1 day ,they both hate israel ,they both compain about hope and change ,they both love Islam,they both think they are the chosen 1 ,they both believe conspiracy theories ,they both have got a lot of young voters ,they both have a no experience ,etc…the only difference is ron paul has not been tested yet .
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:02pmAnd you have said everything in common with the MSM and radio talking heads. Keep up the good work. Someone has to drink the kool-aid.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:04pmWhat!?
“the only difference is ron paul has not been tested yet .”
Like I said — look at candidates RECORD, not their talking points!
Ron Paul is the most-conservative man in Congress since 1937!
You have to scroll to the bottom of this list to see his name:http://www.voteview.com/is_john_kerry_a_liberal.htm
I‘d say it’s Mitt Romney that hasn’t been vetted yet. He’s kept his head low the entire process. His time will come on the hot plate — watch how he dances.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:09pmRon Paul has never said he can fix the world in 1 day, so once again your lying. He said things won’t change dramatically, he clearly explained the transition. But you don’t listen to him, you listen to the media.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:12pmIf desiring to balance the budget, bring our troops home to secure our own borders, end birthright citizenship, end benefits to illegal aliens, close five federal departments, cut $1 trillion in Government spending, secure our gun rights, appoint Conservative judges, pass pro-life bills, criminally charge Holder for the ATF scandal, respect Israel’s sovereignty and self determination, end welfare, allow pilots to be armed, end the EPA, seek free market solutions, sign no special interest laws, veto huge bail out bills, lower taxes, raise no taxes, and create no new taxes defines Obama, THEN PLEASE contact his administration immediately to tell them that he’s not sticking to his platform. Thank you!
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:13pmMarkMyWord and Obama have alot in common… they both lie. But MarkMyWord lies about Ron Paul too.
Report Post »Mr.Fitnah
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:20pmI don’t think he hates Israel , I think he wants to stop paying them to keep them on a leash.
Report Post »SlickAtlas
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:40pmLol
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:43pmSo true… Ron Paul is a neo libetarian….Neo libertarianism is the perversion of right sided principle and talking points for a liberal end
Report Post »Everything Ron Paul wants will accomplish the same things other far left liberals want.
Endiing the fed, would bring down our financial system , destroying it
Going weak on foreign affairs will weaken america stance
Legalizing drugs will make more people dumb and suspectible to retarded ideas.
LibertarianRight
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:22pm“Endiing the fed, would bring down our financial system , destroying it”
No, it really wouldn’t. The Fed has been slowly destroying the dollar and our financial system since its inception 100 years ago. They are directly responsible for both a 96% decline in the worth of the dollar – destroying the savings of ordinary Americans to save corrupt banks from failing – as well as every recession and depression since, and including, the Great Depression.
As for those saying that his foreign policy is dangerous – put up or shut up. Head to the enlistment office and enlist to fight the wars for the corrupt politicians, or shut up and listen to the veterans that overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. (His three highest sources of funds are members of the US Army, Air Force, and Navy.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:26pmJews for Ron Paul
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q37qyfHZ1c
jcannon98188
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:27pm@Hipponips
“Legalizing drugs will make more people dumb and suspectible to retarded ideas.”
Yeah, retarded ideas like calling yourself Hippo nips. -_-
Report Post »jjrglobal
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:38pmName one thing RP has lied about. He‘s the most principled man in DC and he certainly doesn’t hate Israel.
Report Post »Cosmos102
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:38pmGood grief Colt! Kool Aid? I think that little dixie cup of purple water is in YOUR hand.
Report Post »ArmedPrincess
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:46pm@Markmyword
I will try to stick to comments on the substantive errors of your post, and I will try to leave the egregious grammatical errors out of this debate.
First off you said “Ron Paul & Obama have a lot in common.” Their similarities end with similarities of night & day. One is a Libertarian and the other a big government social marxist. One wants to restore the constitution, the other burn it.
You said “They both lie”. I know this to be true about Obama, but please show me one example of Dr. Paul lying? I haven’t seen one yet.
“They both hate Israel.” Paul does not hate Israel. He wants to be an adult and let Israel worry about Israel. As Americans in pretty bad times, we should be focused on the home front.
“They Both get a lot of young voters.” I actually don’t see this a negative for either. Getting the youth involved in politics is a good thing. Apathy is a fate worse than death.
“They both have a no experience” Um yeah, again true about Barry. However Dr. Paul has served twelve terms in Congress, graduated medical school, delivered more than four thousand babies, &
Report Post »served 5 years in the military. What experience is it that he dos not have?
colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:33pm@Cosmos102 What are you talking about?
Don’t worry, I’ll vote for the two tongued, greedy, lying, two face, gun grabbing politician Newt Gingrich:
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/flip-flop-newt-still-not-coming-clean/
And then, we’ll both be drinking from a little dixie cup with purple water.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:36pm@HippoNips – The Fed is printing our money so our Dollar is worth nothing. How can you say the Federal Reserve is helping our Country. That’s absurd. And legalizing drugs would make people dumb? What about pills doctors are perscribing legally? People are turning retarded that way. What about Alcohol. I’ve seen more people act like idiots being drunk than seeing people high on marjuana. So once again, your comment is by far loony!
Report Post »privacyina9m80
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:16pmRon Paul gave us Kool-Aid and told us we had a CHOICE whether or not to drink it.
The Neo-cons gave us Kool-Aid and told us that if we didn’t drink it, the financial system would collapse and Iran would nuke us.
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:08amHERE’S GLENN BECK SMASHING YOUR THEORY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
A MUST WATCH GLENN CLIP!
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:43amHipponips, again what a name, look above as I put my post to your comment on neolibertarian above. You need to research a little, or maybe you just are bad at it.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 4:08amC0MM0NSENSE Jews against Paul
Report Post »http://www.pjvoice.com/v32/32104paul.aspx
flipper1073
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 7:25amOne Loves America
Report Post »One Hates America
str8blues
Posted on February 23, 2012 at 5:24am@Vechorik Wow……I didn’t realize Ron Paul had been in Congress since 1937. He’s older than I thought. He’s very weak and fragile……I guess so huh.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:52pmHappy New Year, everyone!
May 2012 bring us peace and prosperity!
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:02pmTo you as well, a toast to the second collapse of the Roman empire…
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:03pmAnd to you as well Vechorik… I look forward to many more heated discussions with you in 2012, LOL! Cheers!
Report Post »lvjohn
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:46pmPaul is a 76 year old loon!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:50pmThanks you LVJohn for your important contribution to the conversation. LOL
Report Post »dukielouie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:01pmGo to cspan and listen to paul’s interveiw with the newspaper in Iowa. It is in depth and not sound bites. Paul Wolfritz wrote a policy paper back when H Bush was in stating that Iraq was the place to build a democracy in the middle east. This is what Paul is refering too.He is for defense. Read Foreign Affairs Magazine and see what the where the Globalist Republicans are taking us.
Report Post »THXll38
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:03pmJust another shepple that gets their talking points from consertative talk show hosts and Fox News.
Report Post »Sicboy
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:08pmHe can’t be 76.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:10pmLet me guess.. Fox told you? Or were you too busy looking at Meagan Kellys legs & just heard Loon & Paul in one sentence.
Report Post »Scottsman
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:16pmYep, the 76 year old is probably gonna live another 25 more years running everyday. You only think he‘s a loon because you can’t understand real freedom, LvJohn.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:30pm“Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.” – Ronald Reagan
Report Post »Libertarian B 4 Libertarians Were Cool
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:01amPaul critics: always 0% substantive critique and 100% ad hominem attacks!
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:17amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
Glenn Beck lays the smack down! YOU MUST WATCH.
Glenn deals with a caller.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:17amCOLT1860 Paul is no Reagan. Paul is nothing but mouth, Reagan actually got things done. Former Polish president and anti-communist leader Lech Walesa unveiled a statue of Ronald Reagan honoring the late U.S. president for inspiring Poland’s toppling of communism. Paul was sending out a nice racist newsletter and buying gold stocks with the money
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:32amRepublicorp:
This video is for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
Look! What do you say now?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:46am@RepubliCorp No one will ever be like Reagan. What Reagan did was courageous, but he understood that at the end it was economies that most determined the future of Nations.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:47amWhen Beck was falling off his bar stool I voting for and supporting Reagan. Beck is a johnny come lately
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:00amRepublicorp: Then you admit that you are a johnny-do-nothing-but-allow-the-end-game-to-play-out-while-we-all-lose-everything-we-hold-dear.
At least from your reply, those who may have ever entertained the notion that you had anybody else’s welfare in mind can see that you are the enemy. Complacent. Happy. Watch as it all goes down, and keep repeating the lies of the captain and crew while the water reaches your neck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
^For those who missed it: Why YOU MUST SUPPORT RON PAUL, BY GLENN BECK.
You MUST CHOOSE. (Or people like Republicorp will allow your choice to be made for you.)
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:13amSHANE74 Okay Dr Ruth
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:08pmRepublicorp, If Obama = Jimmy Carter then Paul= Reagan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdwxnjV-nM
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:27pmRepublicorps: Whatever you say, Dr. Strangelove. Just keep pretending that you LOVE America, while the plan to wipe us out continues.
Good job, you evil ****.
Report Post »Tommy Jefferson
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:26pmBin Laden? “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” — George Bush, March 13, 2002
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:55pmLittle Tommy Jefferson… is that really you? Lol.
“If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it,” Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said on his website. “For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, ‘not necessary,’ is simply nuts.”
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:39pmAfter the attacks on 9/11, Paul wrote and sponsored a bill in Congress, a constitutional letter of Marque and Reprisal (like Jefferson did with the Barbary pirates), that would initiate a search to catch or kill Osama Bin Laden and any associated member from Al Qaeda.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 2:14amYepimaprogressive, “If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it,” Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said on his website. “For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, ‘not necessary,’ is simply nuts.”
Who cares what Judson Phillips says? He is not a true Tea. He tried to make money with his Tea group, he also thinks that voting should only be allowed to property owners. Give me a break. You just still don’t get it do you?
Report Post »Babeuf
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:10am“Ron Paul wouldn’t have approved Osama bin Laden operation”
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Then he goes further:
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters in to London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
So we should trust Pakistan officials?
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:27amBabeuf
Report Post »Paul voted to for Afghanistan, If Paul would have been in charge he would not have let Osama walk into Pakistan. I’m beginning to think we never went there to get him. He is dead and we are still there, why?
Dudley Do-Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:24pmStudent: we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account
Paul: Well I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever
Student So I just wanted to say, you know we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation
Paul Into 9/11?
Student Yeah, into 9/11 I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support You know what I mean So you wouldn’t be the only one
Paul It’d be bipartisan too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues
Student So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11
Paul Yes I think we have to look at the details of it
There could be a better investigation because there’s a split in government So I would certainly consider that and think it could be worthwhile If you do the same thing over and over again, you’re just spinning your wheels. But I would certainly work with Dennis So I’ll talk to Dennis and he’s in a position now in the party majority, so he might have a better chance with it
Student Yeah, he has subpoena power and everything, so
Paul And we’d have a better chance of getting a new investigation Too often investigations on almost any issue is usually a COVER-UP
http://michellemalkin.com/2007
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:25pmHere’s the link
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:32pmYou posted this elsewhere – can you not understand the article? NO TRUTHER elements contained – all about his DISTRUST of government. How is not trusting the government the same as saying the government was behind 9-11? He is attacking their investigations, not backing the thought that the government killed its own people. It is pretty clear – posts like this give me further insight into why we are where we are.
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:05pmFrom the Alex Jones show
“CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there‘s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH0nLNNtfEg
He’s a 911 Truther!
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:12pmRon Paul never said building 7 blew up with a bomb. Ron Paul never said the U.S CIA flew the planes into the buildings. Ron Paul has never said they were drones that hit the building. Ron Paul said it was caused by blow back. That’s not 9/11 truther Pal.
Report Post »Dudley Do-Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:42pmCaller: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism.
Paul: AND LIKE YOU and others, WE see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less COVER-UP and no real explanation of what went on.
The caller clearly states that he didn’t believe terrorists were behind 911 and Paul agrees with him alleging a cover-up by the government. He’s a truther!
Report Post »tharpdevenport
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:52pmAt least that YOU know of. I’m sure other campaigns have been holding back the good stuff for when Paul hangs around like a dingleberry upon the butt of conservative progress, just like the numbero f things that have come out this passed month that generally nobody was talking about until now.
However, his supprters remain as batguano crazy as ever. They’ve not changed AT ALL, they only seem to have refined their Ron Paul radio-call-in talking points, as they were all over the place in 2008 when they were calling in all the time and driving Neal Boortz crazy. But it was fun to hear him rip them apart for the morons they were.
Report Post »Ballot_Box_Revolution
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:46pmtharpdevenport
Report Post »No one has given any real reason to change our minds. Why should we? Because the media….or you say we should? In your own comment you give away where your thoughts come from…
There hasn’t been anything yet that puts a really bad light on Paul. He has explained the “Racist” news letters many times now…Speaking of that, weren’t we all here on the blaze some time back “sick of the race card”? But now a lot of you are using the race card yourselves. Nothing makes sense anymore….not even the blaze. I thought this was a group of people who stood for something, but now I realize they will resort to the same tactics that we have been criticizing for some time now, when it suits them. I used to value the opinions here, but now I see what we are.
This is in no way a slam to the blaze, or to Glenn …not trying to discredit either one….love them both.
Is Paul a truther? He has given me no reason to believe that. Does he distrust the Government? Yeah.
Would our government twist information (take advantage of a crisis) to suit their agenda (covering up the truth)?
rock-n-roll-rebel
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:56pmHe said that the administration was gleeful because they knew they could further their agenda in Iraq without much resistance and that is somehow supposed to translate into he is a truther? You mutts would follow the mainstream media without question just like those on the left would. Not much difference if you ask me. Both sides are blinded by bs.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:04pm“You mutts would follow the mainstream media without question..”
If one is a Paulie, they think everybody follows someone or something without question because that’s the only thing they can understand.
Report Post »rock-n-roll-rebel
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:11pmKeep telling yourself that qpwillie. It‘s people like you that don’t believe the government when it comes to anything that has to do with domestic policy but when it comes to foreign affairs you drink it up like very sweet koolaid. What is wrong with that picture?
Report Post »windwardtack
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:12pmThat isn’t fair to the others here. We are all on the same side, I should hope, when it comes to the country.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:29pmLook, what I see is a lot of people that just listen to what they hear others say about a candidate. I just returned home after talking with an Obama supporter. He was saying that we have to give him another four years to finish out his plan. I talked with him for two hours about Paul and what Obama has been doing. Showed him the evidence and low and behold, this guy is now sold on Paul. Another one saved from the media cattle reunion. Paul is not what the mainstream wants you to think, like Dick Morris, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, The hacks on the liberal networks. They all are lying to you. They are all part of the elite, can’t you see that? They cannot find any flip flops on Paul so all they can do is try to pull the race card, or the conspiracy card, can’t you see it? They are afraid of Paul getiing the Presidency as he will stop all the corruption, wars, hold over the people and make the government run like it was supposed to be running all these many decades that progressive ideologies have dessimated. Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:53pm@West Coast Patriot
It’s certainly no surprise that an 0bama liberal could switch to being a Paulie. Often, it’s hard to tell which one is which.
Report Post »Ming The Merciless
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:55pmGood post West Coast P!
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »Ming The Merciless
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:56pmQP – your remarks show your ignorance on the subject. You’ve been brainwashed by the media.
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »cous1933
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:14pmWillie,
Report Post »You should be embarassed. WCPs post proves that even an Obama liberal is more rational than you are. He (the Obama liberal) became persuaded by the truth while you keep your head buried and continually spread falsehoods and ad hominem nonsense about the most decent man to run for president in decades.
qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:17pm@Ming The Merciless
I don’t know what you mean by “the media”. I don’t watch cable news. My information comes from many sources. All yours comes from Ron Paul propaganda websites and Ron Paul books. ….and you can’t honestly deny that.
The quickest way to spot a brainwashed person is, they think there is only one person who can save the country and ALL OTHERS are equally evil. In other words, they see him as their messiah.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:19pmWhat makes people think TV is telling you the truth? I caught them in one lie, means they lie again.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:23pm@cous1933
Of course you think 0bama liberals are rational. Hell, you think Paulies are rational.
Report Post »Captainshays
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:25pmThats not it. I have experience with Ron Paul’s supporters and I am one. Most if not all of us spend a LOT of time actually reading and researching and not that much time listening to talk show hosts or watching TV but just enough to know the sort of misinformation they are deliberately spreading around. We pretty mich get our information from many of the same sources that they do and a lot of times before they do and when we hear their spin on issues we’re amazed at the level of distortion. Then, when we hear people like you repeating what the talk show host said we know where it came from, Sorry that sometimes we seem impatient and intolerant but it happens so often that we get aggrevated. What a lot of us try to do is educate and inform but we find that a lot of time it’s too late. The people have already been convinced of an untruth and they defend it often times without EVER doing their own research. I just move on to the next in hope to show them the truth. That is why you‘ll see Ron Paul’s supporters providing links to videos or articles or quoting the Constitution, the founding fathers or some other non biased source of accurate information.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:25pm@QPWILLIE
Report Post »We also get our news from… THE BLAZE!
What now?!?!
qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:37pm@Captainshays
I have NEVER seen a Paulie posting a link to a video that wasn’t created for the sole purpose of promoting Ron Paul. I would be very surprised if one of them said he wasn’t perfect. Just like I have never seen a soap commercial which didn’t suggest that all the other brands of soap were not worth even considering.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:39pmQp, I get my news from the people and blogs. My research on candidates are from their voting record, their own words from youtube and I listen to the cable news networks just to battle them on the things they say are wrong. I used to be a huge Fox fan, but I no longer can support them with their “I know better than you” philosophy. Mitt Romney is a progressive, and the least conservative of all the candidates. Newt Gingrich is an establishment person that makes his money off the establishment system of cronicapitalism, same as Romney. They both voted for or signed into law anti-second amendment laws. They only believe in the principles in the Constitution that will enhance them and they could care less of what we the people need. Keep going on your path of destruction and you will be sorry in the end for what the government ends up giving you.
Report Post »cous1933
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:41pmWillie,
I’m not saying that Obama liberals are rational, just that this particular one is obviously more rational than you are.
Report Post »As for “Paulies” – the majority are certainly rational. Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Peter Schiff, Michael Scheuer, Jack Kerwick, Chuck Baldwin, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, and the majority of the civil and intelligent Blaze posters are good examples to start with. You could learn a lot from these sources if you would read them.
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:48pmQP, I do find it harder to sway republican progressives, like yourself, than Democrat progressives, and that should tell you something. You will not get the Dems, even the good ones, to listen to a Repub progressive. You see, I agree with Glenn that it is not Repub or Dem, it is Progressivism in both parties.You all say that getting Obama (way out there Dem progressive) out of office as the main focus, but you bash the only conservative candidate that can deliver, I think 40% of the Dem vote and 70% of the Independent vote. Can any of the other candidates say that? Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FdwxnjV-nM Get back to me.
Report Post »qpwillie
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:49pmWell, I have something to do. Y’all resume your Sunday night worship service for the mighty Ron Paul, the ONLY SAVIOR FOR AMERICA.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Report Post »spankadonkey
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:36pmA lot of Obummer liberals have converted to Paulbutz. They believed Obummer’s “hope and change” and now they believe FRAUD Paul’s Constitution ruse. Sad immature little children with nothing better to do than trash anybody that doesn’t worship FRAUD Paul like they do. What a guy.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:44pmQP, That’s it, when you start losing the debate, something comes up that you have to do. That’s alright because people are waking up all the time.
I have no worries about Ron Pauls place in the nomination. I think he has a very good chance. One thing that bugs me about a lot of people on here. Those that say they are christians, like myself, that are considering Romney or Gingrich. The teachings of the Bible say that there are two paths to choose from, the wide downhill path which is easier and gives you more pleasure and the narrow uphill path that is harder and unpleasant at times. The wide path is easier, but will not get you to salvation, but the narrow path leads to neverending life. That is this election. Romney and Gingrich are the wide path, keeping the status quo basically the same and all of you can continue on with your lives, for the present, and feel good until the economies crash, or you can choose Paul, the narrow path where you have to sacrifice some things that you like in order to save freedom for your children and grandchildren. Where do you stand? I stand on the side of continued freedom for all and I am ready to make sacrifices in order for my family to continue to experience the freedom laid down by our Constitution. But that is me, a caring and generous kind of person.
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:49pmQPWillie
“I have NEVER seen a Paulie posting a link to a video that wasn’t created for the sole purpose of promoting Ron Paul. I would be very surprised if one of them said he wasn’t perfect. Just like I have never seen a soap commercial which didn’t suggest that all the other brands of soap were not worth even considering.”
http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
QP and others just cannot stop lying. It’s amazing to see them ignore links, constantly. I‘m sure he’ll just ignore this one about John Kerry, which shows that since 1937, Ron Paul is the most conservative voting member of this, OR ANY Senate.
THE MOST CONSERVATIVE.
Oh god, how it must hurt to have to contort one’s mind to make him a commie. Square peg, round hole, but happy to listen to the media! (And probably believes that all the media lies, except for Fox!)
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:51pmqpwillie
Report Post »I truly think you have fallen into the deep end of the hate pool and are drowning.
A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:07amBeen watchin’ him post for months n yup, QP’s definitely more pissed off these days.
Report Post »waluman353
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:46pmt cant believe the ignorance of the people here….your country is being taken apart peice by peice…your being robbed daily by the federal reserve…the establishment weakens you and spreads the military so thin…no money no jobs..the fed lends over 16 trillion to banks..you are over 16 trillion in debt..every candidate is bought (like romneys bigest contributer is goldman sacs) YOU HAVE ONE CHOICE AND ONE CHOICE ONLY..RON PAUL!!! .if you dont see it that way than you havent examined the situation our country is in…most peolple dont even know that they lost there bill of rights YESTERDAY!…call it what you want and if you think you are educated because you watch fox news or read blaze articles you are going to be in for a serious reality check this year. ..you have one chance to save our country and constitution that is to vote for ron paul because A VOTE FOR RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR FREEDOM!
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:06pmIt is amazing how many peoples’ eyes are still closed. I am AMAZED at how well and complete a job the Progressives have done. They showed us a blue print on how to do it, but too many want it done yesterday. Freedom is gone – the Bill of Rights is dead. I search now for a way to change this w/o blood shed. I am not convinced it can be done. We must remember to play defense – it wins championships.
Report Post »OlefromMN
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:10pmRefer to him as “Dr. Paul” please. That way he will be placed upon the throne he so richly deserves.
I am sorry, but Ron Paul is not the next messiah. He is another recycled politician just as every other candidate is.
Report Post »Dustoff
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:10pmRP past is slowly coming out. He’s a loon and will soon fold.
How could someone run a news letter with his name on it, yet have NO idea what was printed on it.
Report Post »Sorry Ron, if you can’t even control a silly paper, how in the heck can you control the country.
Ookspay
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:18pmI am dead set against many of Ron Pauls foreign policy positions and have bashed him many times here and elsewhere. I do believe his foreign policies “may” very well be dangerous and “may” invite further attacks. I say may… but I do know that what the government has done “will” and is destroying our freedoms and liberty NOW!
I am starting to lean towards Dr. Paul. I do not hear anyone else in the GOP field talking about personal liberties in specific terms, only generalities.
Will Mitt fight hard for our rights and overturn the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act that was signed by Obama on Friday? I doubt it? Are we safer with this bill being passed? Maybe a little, but it was not worth the rights and freedoms that we have lost.
I am still deciding. I will support whomever the GOP nominates… The number one issue to me used to be national defense and the war on terror, followed closely by the economy. But lately the main issue for me is personal liberty. I am tired of trading it for security, there is so little left of our freedoms. I want freedom back! I loaned some of them to the US Government after 9-11 but they have not returned them and have in fact doubled down. Enough already!
I never liked camp when I was a kid and I will not go NOW!
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:24pmBout time Ook, Happy New Year!
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:27pmI believe the attacks are coming anyway – FROM WITHIN AT THAT! Our military spread all over the world – be prepared to defend yourself b/c the power structure will protect themselves and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. One of their many forms of population control, perhaps? I just want to know what has been so great about our foreign policy for the last 10 years (it goes back further, but let’s start there)?
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:48pmFOR RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR KooKDOM!
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:52pm@OOKSPAY
I’m glad you are not a paulophobe. You seem to actually care about these issues. My beef with most conservatives these days is that they could care less about our liberties, as long as it’s supposed to make us safer. I don’t hear Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin speaking about the NDAA and what it means for the future of our freedom. Thanks for showing us that you are not a neoconservative by definition. As A Paul supporter, these violations of my civil liberties, due process, etc greatly concerns me for the future of our country, as it’s obviously set to become even more fascist, as once the first domino tumbles and the threat of indefinite imprisonment will cause many to cease to utilize their first amendment rights out of fear. The establishment wants us to shut up and continue letting them have their way; SOPA is an example of this, the NDAA is the patriot act 2.0. I hope you will stand on the side of liberty this election over fear tactics like what Iran might do in 1,2,5,10 years from now. For the sake of my children, an America without liberty is like a body without a soul. If we do not preserve Liberty, there is nothing left to really save in this country, it’s game over. The corrupt leadership in America is simply a sign of our corrupt culture, who has shunned God, shunned our heritage of doing good to our neighbor, I’m fearful that we will get what we deserve. I‘ll be supporting Paul because I’ve met him, and I believe him to be honorable.
Report Post »Ming The Merciless
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:00pmI will vote for the best candidate – I will not vote for a party or who a party endorses. I will not vote for someone to vote against someone. That’s dumb.
You people that do these kinds of shenanigans are ignorant – can’t you see this is how we got to this place – by always voting for the weaker candidate all the time. In the end they are all the same candidate whether they have a D in front of their name or an R.
Ron Paul 2012!
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:21pmSo some one would rather vote for a man who promotes Obama care? Oh I mean Romney Care.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:26pm@Samba. Truth be told I am more in line with a Jim Demint kind of conservative. I do not believe that government is the root of all of our ills. It is necessary in a country of 300 million. Pure libertarianism is not ideal in my opinion…
But as I said, it is 11:55 and we are running out of time. The progressive left have gone “all in” and we either call or fold!
My son was 6 months old on 9-11. I tried to re-enlist in the Army to put punish those responsible, so that my Boy would not have to fight my battle. 10 years later and nothing has really changed., We still are dependent on Islamic Oil and it is a matter of time before the mullahs pick another fight to inflate the price. Get out, leave them on their own, to kill each other as they do so well. I see no solution coming from DC, only steady erosions of our freedoms. I owe to to my kids to stop the madness. Ron Paul is a bit Kooky and dead wrong on a few issues, but he may be the best choice at this moment in time.
Report Post »resme
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:30pm@ookspay, I agree. I support Ron Paul about 98%, Only thing i disagree with is drug legalization at this time, We have to go back to a nation with morals before drugs could become legal, At this time people would just step over a heroin user and let him die. Personal responsibility is great and all, But the old America people helped their neighbors. Now they just film you and post it on youtube. I do understand as president he would have little say over drug legalization, But to a majority Americans it sounds like he blames America for 9/11, and wants heroin at the local gas station.
I wish Paul would express the message of liberty better like Judge Napolitano.
Don’t let a few things change your mind about voting for someone, If you agree with most of it vote for him. It‘s sad most people don’t put much thought into voting for someone, They just listen to the media. Not everyone does their own homework.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:46pm@Resme, To me Ron Paul is only slightly better than Romney in different ways. Both are far better than Obama, who must be defeated. I will not vote third party and waste my vote by writing in Dr Paul. Will you?
Report Post »Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:05amDUSTOFF and other anti-Paul’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
Glenn Beck on Ron Paul. You have to watch this now, and then explain to yourselves how you can possibly be right!
Glenn Beck says you either support Ron Paul, or you fall into tyranny.
This is NEW from his radio show. Listen to him debate one of his callers.
You must wake up!
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:43pmI bet he beat his wife too – someone should ask him when he stopped.
Report Post »Ed Brown
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:01pmbhelmet writes: “I bet [Ron Paul] beat his wife too – someone should ask him when he stopped.”
That comment is far too funny! It even makes sense!!
I’m going to stop laughing now because it hurts…
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:32pmu better be carefull talking (lying) about a sitting us congressman. saying stuff like that shows how little class u have
Report Post »OlefromMN
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:43pmRon Paul is getting the spotlight he so eagerly reached for. Not as rosy as his followers would have wished for. Welcome to the big leagues “Dr. Paul”.
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:09pmOlefromMN
Report Post »I think this is GREAT!
A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:37pm@OlefromMN,
“Ron Paul is getting the spotlight he so eagerly reached for. Not as rosy as his followers would have wished for.”
Actually, I called for exactly this kind of treatment of Ron Paul. It allows us Paulites to show that his views are Constitutional.
I’m having a great time explaining what our Founding Fathers intended. Please, continue your examinations of Ron Paul as much as you like.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:33pmOle’, This is the difference between Paul supporters and the other candidates supporters. We want the media to talk and bash Dr. Paul all they want as it will get people to actually research and listen to him. That is when people start to wake up. The other candidates supporters have left them after hearing more about them. They hear something from a candidate that hits a chord with them and they say, Yeah I am for him, then they hear what they are really about and they leave. Once someone starts supporting Paul, it is more likely they will stay as he stays on message without falter.
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:31pm9/11 was a direct result of our middle east policy. Our CIA trained and manipulated the mujahedin ( now Al Qaeda ) to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980′s. We have been meddling in the Middle east for decades and we are still using the same tactics. It’s far cheaper to infiltrate the population and get them against the government and overthrow it that way. Second is send in the Jackals and do a covert assassination. Lastly it’s an all out war, This is how we do it. If you think they‘re not on to us you’re wrong. Here’s a film about the whole thing featuring John Perkins: http://youtu.be/BNBBHUg39RU
Report Post »booger71
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:59pmThe Mooseslimes have been murdering and plundering other countries for hundreds of years.
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:01amWatch the film.. It addresses that issue
Report Post »endgamer
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 12:05amSecondly is the patents for alternative energy some people are sitting on and not developing on purpose. we need a law that explicitly states “ If you do not bring it to market within 5 years it become public domain”. Before ANYTHING is done domestically the money has to be fixed first. No more Keynesian economics!!
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:31pmPaul is experiencing “blow back”… his “chickens are coming home to roost” so to speak.
A rather nasty description that Ron Paul, Rearend J. Wright and Malcom X liked to use.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:34pmhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24557
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:39pmWhat’s that TOWEROFPOWER? I don’t click on links. Spell it out, or forever hold your see this, or watch that, lol.
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:40pmDon’t get your panties in such a bunch YIAC. One day left til kickoff, get all the screaming you can in now.
Report Post »Pendragon
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:54pmSo if Ron Paul does not get the Nod for the Republican Party He will run as an independent to punish the Citizens of the USA by running 3rd party and ensuring Mr Obama gets re elected…Ron Paul is a Power Hungry nut who will say anything to get elected and lies about his Connections to the White Racist groups with so many names coming out connected to him why are there no other candidates with those connections?? not even 1 connection and he has at least 10 People with donations supporting him or him Paying them to work for him and run his Campaign Like Randy Gray in Michigan who is a Grand Wizard of the KKK…No others have had that type of support from White racists not has any candidate done so in Supporting White Racist Groups…Now we add in his Support and Interviews with Alex Jones and the 9-11 conspiracies blaming Israel and Mossad for the Towers coming down and Bush Supporting it…as well as the Pentagon…Ron Paul in my opinion is working for Barack Obama in getting him re elected for revenge so he can get back at all the kids who picked on him on the playground growing up
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:59pmYEPIMAREPTILIAN basically I have 2 questions,
1 what caused Tower 7 world trade, or the Solomon Building to implode in its
own foot print ?
2 Why doesn’t Donald Rumsfeld know that that building fell on 911 ?
Report Post »please research this for yourself, I hope you watch youTubes
YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:08pm> LIBERALTARIAN. I go commando.
Chicks… they dig the commando YEPIMACONSERVATIVE.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:18pm> TOWEROFPOWER. Bush and Cheney were crawlin‘ all around the inside of those buildings dontcha’ know… setting “P” charges all over the damn place live and in person. Oh, btw.. “P” stands for “plenty” for you conspiracy theorists out there. Alexander Haig was left in charge while Bush and Cheney were doin’ the dirty. Teddy Roosevelt was in charge of the term “CHARGE” and Rummy was out getting double talk ice cream cones. Yeah, Rummy’s an A-hole, that much I’ll admit. The rest of the story is factually sarcastic just for you TOWEROFPOWER.
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:25pmA Commando Neo-Con… why am I not surprised?
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:37pmYEPIMAREPTILIAN is that your answer ? you think Bush and Cheney set P charges ?
REALLY ???? you think
Report Post »Bush and Cheney were crawlin‘ all around the inside of those buildings dontcha’ know… setting “P” charges all over the damn place live and in person. Oh, btw.. “P” stands for “plenty” for you conspiracy theorists out there. Alexander Haig was left in charge while Bush and Cheney were doin’ the dirty. Quote from you ? I NEVER said that. I did ask you what you thought, so this is it ?
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:44pmYep, your unwillingness to click on links tells me you have a computer phobia. Phobia’s are bad for you, your character and many other things like ignorance. Now maybe you’re just not smart enough to have a security suite on your computer or you cannot afford a security suite on your computer. Either way, why should we listen to you when you are not very savvy on your computer? Ignorance on subjects is not a virtue, Yep. Wise up. It only shows you have a closed mind and you cannot have an intelligent conversation with an uniformed person.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:49pm> That’s right LIBERALTARIAN.
Let you in on a little secret… I get called a Neocon by the ‘other’ left too. Funny how the Obama left and the Paul left call well rounded Conservatives the same thing… use the same descriptions. You would ALMOST think you are one in the same? Lol. Care to call me a warrrrrrr-mongererererer tooooo? How about my associations with the Military-Industrial Complexxxxxxxx as bad, bad, BAD!
Obama/Paul
Report Post »2012
YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:57pm> TOWER. My sarcastic non-answer to that BS… IS my answer. I know where the discussion leads, and I don’t have any interest in your links, conspiracy theories, and your Rosie O’Donnell fueled 9/11 theories… let alone Ron Paul propoganda sprinkled about I’m sure.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:06pm> WESTCOASTLIBERAL. None of your assumptions ring true. If it’s important enough for you to want me to read it… write it out in long hand… show me you can make a point without directing me to a BS link. I want YOU to make me a believer use your typing finger WCL.
Report Post »Go-rin-no-sho
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:09pm@YEP
Report Post »Neo-con is not supposed to be a derogatory term; columnists like Bill Kristol for The Weekly Standard wears it with a badge of honor, and I’ll admit I was one at one point, but not anymore.
YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:20pm> GO RIN. I really don’t take much of the labels attached to me by the Obama left and the Ron Paul left seriously. I roll with the punches, and just like to point out how similar the two camps are in describing those that disagree with them…. very similar indeed.
Sometimes you can’t tell the two “occupy” encampments apart. But because we are on The Blaze, I know there are more Paul leftists here than Obama leftists… which make them pretty easy to identify.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:28pmWell Yep, That is all well and good, but that is not real research, that is listening to other people and that is part of your problem. The Blaze only gives us 1500 characters in the post and I would hate to take up 3-4 pages just to write out all that you can get with a click of a finger. It shows that you are not willing to listen to the other side, which tells me that you are closed minded. Closed minded individuals never give intelligent views in conversations because they are bias in their own views and usually only bash people with false race card or conspiracy card viewpoints. They also just spew out what they have heard in the media, which I am hoping more people start to undestand that they are wrong 2/3 of the time. Keep staying in the dark, nobody is listening to you because of this point anyway.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:29pm> GO RIN. And yes, I do know you are a self described recent Paul convert, lol.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:37pm> WCL. He77, OPIE FROM NOWHERESVILLE takes up to 3 and 4 pages to make everyone a believer. Show me you’re at least as dedicated as he. Doesn‘t mean I’ll get into the minutia with you… just want to see you work for a livin’. Ha!
You may not be listening to me WCL, but I know you’re reading… you just can’t help yourself you YEPIMACONSERVATIVE fanboy, lol.
Report Post »spankadonkey
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:59pmW-C-P You are so sanctimonious and full of yourself that you make me laugh until I cry. Ron FRAUD Paul – what a guy.
Report Post »recoveringneocon
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 11:58pmcommonsense tells over and over again to ignore Yepimatroll and his friends, for some reason we ignore our commensese.
Report Post »Happy New Year! Yepimasomepoorwomenshasbeen
West Coast Patriot
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:14amHey Spank, You are just another progressive good for nothing person who thinks he is something when you are nothing. You are just a Paul basher. The one thing that I have always noticed about Paul bashers is they do not have a brain that can think for themselves. You guys really are the joke of the party. You and Yep and Republicorp, oh and Willie. Progressives all. Sorry if I missed anyone.
Report Post »A Conservatarian
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 1:25amThrow the sarcasm around all you like along with the mis-identifications, you are no conservative. You’re worried about our American Empire, I‘m worried about out Constitutional Republic that’s on life support. We’ve all seen your posts, you’re a proponent of interventionism and nation building, support candidates who supported the Patriot Act, are a keynesian = textbook Neo-con. Unless you‘d like to tell us why you’re suddenly not a progressive neo-con and don’t support those oh so admirable qualities?
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:30pmLook at the stories today on the Blaze
.
Ron Paul: ‘I’m Pretty Mainstream’
Newt: ‘Romney Would Buy the Election if He Could’
Mitt Romney Tops Final Iowa Poll
Four GOP Candidates Join Perry’s Lawsuit to Get on Va. Primary Ballot
Virginia AG to Intervene in GOP Primary Ballot Controversy
Fed Court Grants Legal Immunity to Telecoms in Wiretapping Case
Ron Paul Warns of U.N. Conspiracies, Rioting in the Streets During Iowa Stump
Singer Kelly Clarkson Sees 192% Increase in Album Sales After Tweeting Support of Ron Paul
And now. Ron Paul Forcefully Denies Ever Supporting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Everyone of them helps The Revolution.
Report Post »We couldn’t have asked to bring the New Year in any better.
YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:35pmWhere’s the topic that came out that said… “Ron Paul‘s supporters spin Ron Paul’s farts into the sweet smell of a Texas rose.”
I know I saw it somwhere?
COMMON. You sniff around see if you can find it eh? Lol
Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:41pmYou’re being gross.
Report Post »Baddoggy
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:48pmYep…you need to change your name to yepimaprogressive…
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:49pm> VECHORIK. I’m being sarcastically accurate. Go back to watching Sponge Paul Droopy Eyebrow on the cartoon channel.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:03pm> BAD, BADDOGGY. And you should stop imitating a plastic saluting Hasbro toy Soldier for Paul.
Hey, do you have the guy with the bazooka? The flame thrower? The radio? Or is that all ya’ got? Lol.
Progressive? Pfffft.
Report Post »sambachico
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:02pm@YEPIMASTATIST
Every thread I read on the blaze has a sniff of your stench, LOL. I guess the Paulophoboes will keep on trolling. Happy new year all.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:10pm> SAMBA. Ohhhh Noooo Mr. Billll, not the STATIST description! Man, I was called a NEOCON just a bit ago! Say it ain’t sooooooo! Lol.
When you guys go to Ron Paul summer camp, can you get a new SOP regarding terms that Obama leftists call us well rounded Conservatives so we can tell them and you Paul leftists apart? Ty SAMBA.
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:22pmKeep Laughing. That fool Santorum just said he going to bomb Iran. Just got to love it. What his poll numbers free fall. hehehe
Report Post »Babeuf
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:22amSantorum said “I would say to every foreign scientist that’s going to Iran to help them with their program,’You will be treated as an enemy combatant like an Al Qaeda member,’ and finally I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians; ‘You need to open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors or we will those facilities with air strikes and make it very public.’
Don’t spin the truth.
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:08amBabeuf
Report Post »Air strikes are not bombing? Maybe you could give me the definition of “ is” while your at it.
Baddoggy
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:29pmThe choice is…
Ron paul and the Constitutional return to FREDOMS…or
The rest of the Republicans and the same old crap.
You choose…Some of you like crap and think you can fix the crap going on to make it work. Good luck with that…
Report Post »Ron paul 2012 to restore the CONSTITUTION.
spankadonkey
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:09pmBIGDORKY- Ron FRAUD Paul has not done anything in 30 years in Congress. He has a 99.84% failure record. You have got to be completely nuts to think he will miraculously do something if elected. How ignorant can a person be? Ron FRAUD Paul- what a guy.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:14pm2012 prediction.
Report Post »Romney/Huntsman
vs
Obama/Biden or
Obama/Clinton
winner
Obama/whoever
I‘m a conservative and don’t like this scenario, but I can see the sheep has already been herded!
bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:19pmBuckle up – I fear you are correct – the next 4+ years will be rough.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:19pm911 was a lie, but ignore that and just look at The War on America: Government Has LITERALLY Declared Americans the Enemy and makes 911 mean nothing no conspiracy theory needed
Report Post »http://www.infowars.com/11-stories-infowars-drove-to-the-mainstream-in-2011/
John 1776
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:22pmI hope you are wrong or I’ll have to move out of the country! … Maybe to the newly formed Republic of Texas!
If the one happens, I think the other might…..
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:23pmremember Popular Mechanics told you FEMA camps did not exist
and Rumsfeld does not know that world trade center 7 feel on 911
http://www.infowars.com/expert-who-concluded-wtc-7-was-a-controlled-demolition-killed-in-car-accident/
Report Post »LoveBringsTruth
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:37pmGARYM
You think more then 50% of the voting population supports Obama?
You’re nuts, naive or worse. If Obama wins it will be because of corruption in the voting.
And some food for thought, If you read the Pentagons Top 10 COINTELPRO tactics you will learn the first 5 Posts on any political story are almost always Government agents who use the term “I’m a conservative but…”
And for the others.
It’s well known that Alex Jones is a FBI agent and the true benedict arnold of the Republic.
Obama’s base is maybe 20% strong. Maybe, on a good day.
60% of the population knows exactly what is going on.
20% is till caught up in materialism and the latest ipod.
The way the Obama administration is acting, including those in the democratic senate know they will either rig the election or hault elections. The Communist Muslim Obama has already stated he will ignore congress, Communist Terrorists masquarading as Governors of several states have come out and stated that elections should be disbanned for a few years.
A clear talking point is being disseminated by the pro muslim brotherhood administration in the white house because they know exactly what they’re planning for the future.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:40pmGlenn Beck said once that FEMA camps did not exist. Wonder what he thinks NOW?
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:41pmThe new Republic of Texas? Who is going to do that – Perry? There is a better chance of it happening in Arkansas – and it will not. Although new Republics are needed, ZERO states (govs, legislatures, etc) have the cajones. We the People cannot agree on what type of government we truly want. I had hoped some new Republics would start up, but we are a LONG, LONG way from that. Corruption rules the day – and it is NOT close to changing anytime soon. Once we re-learn self-reliance, maybe then we can talk new republics.
Report Post »garyM
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:39pmLoveBringsTruth I hope I’m wrong, but if Romney gets the nod, we’ve had it, Obama is back in like flint. All because too many sheep can be swayed by the sheep herders!
Report Post »I’ll take Santorium, Perry or Newt, Newt had the best chance to beat Obama before the sheep herder ate up the Glenn Beck progressive stuff hook line and sinker! He doesn’t now, he has been falsely labeled as a progressive and Romney has already been anointed by the sheep herders! Sad but true!
Ookspay
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:42pmI fear your prediction is dead on… And all the Ron Paulowers who vote third party, will be culpable in Obama’s reelection. Their principles will have sailed in the primaries and been sunk in the general.
Report Post »Babeuf
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:26amIf Romney is the nominee…
I think it will be Romney/Christie.
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:12pmI do not know about the rest of you – but the more a candidate is ATTACKED by the Establishment – the MORE I want to vote for that person.
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:22pmThe Rush Limbaugh theory – they always tell you who they fear most
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:24pmYes that is the best way to go for now.
Report Post »PoliticiansRCrooks
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:26pmYup, The establishment is placing my vote for me lol PAUL 2012
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:19amSarah Palin ?
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:10pmWOW – Paul must be doing REALLY WELL in Iowa!!!
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:23pmRomney is ahead, Paul second in some polls… with Santorum surging. Which shows Paul‘s numbers backing down a bit while Santorum’s go up.
Another poll (Des Moines Register I think) has Romney, Santorum and then Paul.
Paul has probably hit his ceiling which to his credit has probably doubled in Iowa since 2008 from what we see in the polls now, but Tuesday will tell the truth. I’ll be surprised if Paul maintains his second place and comes in third when all is said and done.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:43pmYepImaConservative, there you go with that crystal ball again.
Report Post »YepImaConservative
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:55pmHow’s THIS for a prediction VECHORIK. Ron Paul will [not be] the nominee for the GOP, and his voters will either write him in or vote for Obama by the thousands just like they did in 2008. Not to mention if a narcissistic Paul goes 3rd Party. Either way, Paul supporters will be voting Obama either by default or actually pulling the trigger for him. Conscience my @ss…
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:42pmI love how the final poll always is tweaked for the establishment. Like when Mondale was supposed to beat Reagan just like Dan Rather said. They are nervous in IA. I wonder what the Dems think about Paul. WHat does Obumer think of Paul?
Report Post »spankadonkey
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:19pmVECHORIK – You be sure and post here on Tuesday evening. I want to see how you spin FRAUD Paul’s third or worse finish. No crystal ball needed. FRAUD has had the light shown on him and he ain’t pretty. Ron FRAUD Paul – What a guy.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:10pmIt’s obvious folks the msm is conducting the smear campaign so you can have your choice of a progressive to run against Barry.So all of you so called conservatives can pick your favorite progressive to run against the Marxist in chief and ensure the destruction of the constitution and bill of rights and the economy.It happened in 08 you simpletons,it’s called deja vu.
So tell me what’s your fascination with the unpatriotic act and the NDAA? Do you even know what it allows the government to do to you? No let’s wring our hands over some meaningless newsletters,that’s much more important than the republics survival.I didn’t hear any of the progressives running say anything about eliminating five unconstitutional departments or cutting one trillion from the budget.The msm’s agenda is the same today as it was in 08 when it gave us another progressive in the fossil McCain.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 9:47pmPatriot act has to go.
Report Post »spankadonkey
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 10:26pmPROGRESSIVES – If you actually believe FRAUD Paul will be able to eliminate five departments and cut $1T then you have no idea what a failure he has been in Congress and no idea how government works. But keep believing in FRAUD Paul because it makes your posts soooo funny for all of us non-Paulbutz. Ron FRAUD Paul – What a guy.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:53amSo spanky what’s your idea of a successful congressman? The guy who votes for all the pork for his district,that’s another thing you have wrong about Paul.He’s never voted for an ear mark.Why do you like big government so much? if you vote for a progressive like Mitt or Newt then you’re just another progressive,problem is you think you‘re a conservative but you’re not you’re just a big government stooge,and the best part is you don’t even know it.
Report Post »Veritas Libertas
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:06pmRacist, anti-Semite, truther… All dispelled rumors. They were always accusations of the intellectually lazy media. It would be the same of questioning Gov. Romeny about his underwear, or his son’s association with “birther”.
They’ve stayed away from questioning his foreign policy because the vast majority of Americans agree with Dr. Paul when they have a clear understanding. Truth is hard to control once it gets going. Each attack on Dr. Paul has actually offered further light to shine on his core beliefs and principles. I had seen this in theory, but it’s amazing to see it in practice.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:44pmMedia never clears up that “nutty foreign policy” do they?
Beck doesn’t either.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:46pmI asked someone with the Ron Paul campaign if this election was “dirtier” than the last. He said, “nope, they’re about the same.”
Face it, folks. Politics is a nasty, nasty game.
Report Post »Do you homework and don’t be fooled by the “talking points.”
Simonne
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 5:34amRead the newsletters as he is all that. I will never vote for this guy because he is worse than Obama as he has a screw loose. Not enough voters will vote for this guy for him to be the nominee. He might run as an independent, like Trump & Johnson so we might see Obama president for another 4 yrs. Now he can really ruin the country as he won’t have to worry about re-election but it beats having a nut job for president.
Report Post »SoulReaver
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:14amAre you on crack? The majority of Americans do not believe that America is at fault and are just getting what they deserve for a bad foreign policy. The only people that believe this are extreme left wing nut jobs and pauls policy is just about in line with that. Legalize everything bring all troops back I am entitled to………….. sounds like left wing garb to me and shame on any conservative that even listens to this guy
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:21amSoulReaver
Report Post »Your right, the majority of Americans don’t blame themselves for 911. The 911 commission and the CIA blamed it on our Foreign Policy.
1776freedomofspeech
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:04pmSo is this a deviation from previously held views of the Paul camp?
Report Post »LibertarianRight
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:15pmOnly if one considers thinking that the Bush adminstration used 9/11 as an excuse to push a war in Iraq as the same as them causing it – which is absolutely ridiculous. Sure, there might be some “truthers” that support Paul, but so what? Yes, he has called for another investigation, but not because he thinks 9/11 was an “inside job”, but because he feels the 9/11 Commission failed to properly investigate failings of the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence organizations on tips that may have been relevant. It’s just that he wants a better investigation of the failure of bureaucracy. Since when did that become so bad – especially for a conservative who is supposed to be for small government?
Report Post »1776freedomofspeech
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:24pmOk, so failing to profile allowed the 9/11 incident.
But Ron Paul doesn’t think the WTC was blown up by anyone but the terrorists, which by today‘s Fort Hood’s description standard is“work place violence”. 9/11 could also be considered “work place violence if you are a pilot”. Do you see how crazy the political correctness is getting to be? Probably need to start calling it what it really is “Political Dum@$$”.
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:03pmI know he made the comment(s) about 9-11 being the fault of US foreign policy – FAR, FAR cry from being a truther. Really? Are we not smarter than this.
Report Post »Br@dley
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:06pmmeh, stupid “conservatives” grasping at straws. again.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:50pmHere’s the foreign policy history with Iran for example. Yes, I blame US intervention!
video
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:03pmHey, V…Our gig was fantastic last night. No, I didn’t wear my lucky leathers. LOL! Hope you had a happy new year’s eve. Broncos are losing. Dang it!
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 7:27pmRave on, Tron — Happy New Year!
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:19amgrasp on this
http://www.myspace.com/video/peace-freedom-are-achieved-through-understanding/ron-paul-meets-the-student-scholars-for-9-11-truth/28483925
Report Post »dnewton
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 5:57pmWhat took Paul so long to issue a denial?
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:01pmGreat question: Perhaps a large number of Americans are studying this man and finding him to be not exactly who they thought he was.
Report Post »bhelmet
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:02pmShould not have to deny what he NEVER did.
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:04pmYour question should be….”Why did it take me so long to find out?”
Report Post »This is not the 1st time.
cgbs6183
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:08pmThis is not the first time he has denied it. How do you deny a negative/untruth/falsehood? Its like saying when are you going to admit to beating your wife when you REALLY don’t beat your wife.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:16pm@ Trollinthemorning Who do we think Ron Paul is anyway? I just think he’s a guy that says what I like to hear about protecting liberty and following the constitution. I believe him because of his steadfast voting record.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:22pmJUSTANGRY. You are a ‘paul bearer’ and your generalizations are useless to me. Vote for whom you wish and I will as well.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:44pm@Tron… Fair enough comrade, I’ll vote for Liberty and you can vote for Obama.
Report Post »WiredRight
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:47pm@TRONINTHEMORNING Perhaps a large number of Americans are studying this man and finding him to be not exactly who they thought he was.
Ding, ding, ding… That’s right, they are (probably not in the way you mean it though). Ron Paul had more Google searchs than Obama for a few days last week and he pretty much always has more than all the other GOP candidates combined.
Most people don’t trust the so-called mainstream media anymore and they’re not blind to the outright attacks and smear campaigns coming from both the right and the left when it comes to Paul. I for one hope they keep up with the attacks because I’m seeing a sizable increase in new supporters.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:52pmTron, I dedicate this to you and your leather pants:
Definition and names of neo-conservatives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl5JhMQ-8s
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 8:01pmWhat took Paul so long to issue a denial? Money from the 911 truthers……..
Report Post »Babeuf
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 6:39amRon Paul Publicly Names Neoconservatives (original version)
http://youtu.be/orTsSboJSFU
Sheds alittle more light on how he feels. :-)
Report Post »c0mm0nsense
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 9:39amRepubliCorp
Report Post »You just asked the same question as the post started with. I’m not normally a name caller, are you stupid or just cant read. You know darn well that Paul has never been a 911 truther, and if for some reason you didn’t know this you should be asking yourself ” how come I didn’t know that” I have been reading your post for some time now and I have come to the conclusion that You are truly a dummy.
RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:13amC0MM0NSENSE Thanks…I love you too
Report Post »http://www.myspace.com/video/peace-freedom-are-achieved-through-understanding/ron-paul-meets-the-student-scholars-for-9-11-truth/28483925
RepubliCorp
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 10:49amC0MM0NSENSE would you like a side dish with your crow? And don‘t you dare tell me it doesn’t count or I will remind you of Perry’s **ONE** bilderberg meeting. Check and mate…by a dummy
Report Post »mike_trivisonno
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 5:54pmWas it Islamic Jihad?
Or will he tow the line and call them “terrorists”?
Some balls, Dr.
Report Post »Tower7_TRUTH
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:26pmwe are past the tower 7 and 911 lie, they have already wipe out your rights
Report Post »so 911 has done it’s job and all the laws are now in place, the next stop will be FEMA camps.
Shane74
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 3:02amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyx9tw0TEPM
Glenn Beck on Ron Paul! Must watch!
You choose this: Either Israel, or you become a slave to either a fascistic state, or a tyrannical state.
CHOOSE!
Report Post »bikerr
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 5:51pmKinda reminds me of the cops episode where the crook says”these aren’t my pants I have on”.
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 6:05pmBetter yet, my all time favorite is the Cops episode where the guy has gold paint all over his lips and face and tells the cop he ain’t been huffin paint., ha-un, as he shakes his head guilty as can be.. hahaha
Report Post »Dumbwhiteguy
Posted on January 1, 2012 at 5:51pmI think they are going to collapse the system before the next election. Evil 10,000 times hilter is on the way. We have no trust in the system and the people we have in charge now are not the Americans that we think they are. Look at this selection of czars. None of the people are at all interested in advancing the progress in the true light for the United States.
When people think progressive they think progress. It is not the progress as we know it. It is evil progress. Unless you know who the enemy is the revelotion will be usless. It will take another 100 years for people to rise back up. Look at Iran. This was a measuring stick for the progressives and illuminati to see if the people could rise up against the regime, and they couldn’t.
Like syria, they will let the people get killed and see how it is accepted because they are going to do the same over here. There is no one left to come to our aid. Our society has guns and that is why they need to pit us against each other, so the ones that aren’t killed in the first round, can be rounded up.
The illuminati needs our country and canada to feed the slaves for the new world order.
Report Post »doomytram
Posted on January 2, 2012 at 8:12amYour right. They(the establishment and the regime) really didn’t want Cain, so Axelrod had to step in to spin the situation.
They(the establishment and the regime) really don’t want a Paul either….they want Mitt to lose to Obama…..See, John McCain, would rather have Obama than Paul or Obama than Mitt. If we don‘t get these RINO’s out, then we will be a citizen of the world and the UN, not a citizen of the USA.
Report Post »