Ron Paul Takes It to the Next Level
[Guest post by DRJ]
Putting his campaign funds to good use, Presidential candidate Ron Paul is buying TV and radio ads in primary states:
“Hoping to defy more expectations, Rep. Ron Paul is ratcheting up his maverick Republican presidential campaign by launching TV and radio commercials in early primary states and setting an ambitious $12 million fundraising goal. For a candidate often relegated by pundits to second- or third-tier status, Paul’s ability to make a big entry into advertising wars is unusual. With just over two months until the first primaries, experts question whether the libertarian-leaning congressman from Lake Jackson can expand his intense following to make a credible showing in these early contests.
Officials with Paul’s campaign acknowledge they have an uphill battle, but say they plan to broaden his support with an advertising campaign that includes $1.1 million in television spots that begin airing Monday in New Hampshire. Campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said the purpose of the ads was to “give people a full picture of who Ron Paul is. The war is a component, but there is a heck of a lot more, too.”
I think this will help Paul’s candidacy, especially with moderate voters who view the war as secondary to domestic issues. In addition, Paul appeals to fiscal conservatives. I certainly admire him because he walks the walk, as well as talks the talk:
“Paul — whose district includes Galveston and areas on three sides of Houston — has run a frugal campaign, spending $2.8 million for the first nine months of this year compared with $30 million by GOP front-runner Rudolph Giuliani and $53 million by Mitt Romney.
Unlike some rivals, Paul mostly flies commercial, except for two trips where his campaign paid $40,000 for a charter. His catering tab included Costco and Sam’s Club in Des Moines, Iowa, and Peters’ Cut Rate Liquor in Freeport.”
The quasi-libertarian, fiscal conservative parts of me like Ron Paul. Too bad he and I are so far apart on the war. That’s a deal-killer for me and many conservatives but I’m glad his other ideas are getting the attention they deserve.
— DRJ
It’s not just the war as a deal-breaker for me: he also won’t distance himself from some very weird supporters.
Paul (66339f) — 10/27/2007 @ 3:39 pmDRJ:
He’s not just anti-war.
He courts the donations of antisemites. He hangs with Alex Jones, who makes movies about how the Bilderbergers were behind 9-11.
HE. IS. A. CRANK.
See Dubya (d4aa96) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:21 pmOkay. I think I made it clear I’m not a Ron Paul supporter so I don’t know everything he’s done or said, but I like his apparent positions on lower taxes, border security, property rights, home schooling, health freedom, and the Second Amendment. Like it or not, he has a following.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:29 pmI don’t have a problem with this nutjob spending money on a campaign. I have a problem with the nutjobs who think he has a realistic chance.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:35 pmMore comments of hate and division.
Flo (56adb1) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:38 pmRon Paul unites people because freedom is popular.
The war is a fiasco. I got no problem with slitting throats of enemies. But Iraq is a clusterfuck. Let’s declare victory and go home. Let them kill each other. If they decide to take it here, let’s kill them than. We can’t occupy every shithole with 130,000 troops. The whole thing smacks of silliness.
Oh…and all the crap about saying Paul is a truther is just slime. Paul walks the walk. Romney and Guliani would suck a dick to get elected.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:42 pmExplain to me why Ron Paul generates such a love/hate response. My guess would be that his position on the war makes some people oppose him, while others find his (for lack of a better word) isolationism and fiscal conservatism attractive. Anyone willing to educate me?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 4:58 pmMy problem with Ron Paul is that he attracts a lot of supporters who do not seem to actually support him for his positions or seem to misrepresent what his positions are and are plainly loons like Truthers.
One can’t blame a politician for the behavior of his supporters, but there comes a point where one starts to wonder why he attracts them. If Paul isn’t a Truther, why are they following him?
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:11 pmSee Dubya #2:
Well, to be fair I’m not sure how much an ad criticizing the influence of AIPAC on American policy can honestly be called antisemitic. I’m not saying there are no antisemitic supporters, I’m just saying I don’t see how the ad itself is antisemitic.
A lot of people from differing political backgrounds have questions about the influence AIPAC exerts. For example:
The Economist
Pat Buchanan
And:
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:13 pmCiting Pat Buchanan for the idea that a criticism is not anti-semitic is ironic, Itsme.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:17 pmDo you think his article was anti-semitic?
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:45 pmMore to SPQR:
I confess I’m not familiary with every comment that may have come out of Pat Buchanan’s mouth. I certainly didn’t see him as the voice of tolerance when it came to the “culture wars” back in the day.
However, I meant simply to give examples of criticism of AIPAC coming from different perspectives. I would be happy to find more if you wish.
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:50 pmItsme, the subject of whether or not Pat Buchanan’s opinions on Israel and the AIPAC lobby are or are not anti-semitic have been the topic of extended debate in conservative circles in years past. The most famous article was by William Buckley who basically concluded that it was his opinion that Pat Buchanan was not anti-semitic but that his articles did sound anti-semitic.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:52 pmThat’s the most moronic reason I’ve heard for not liking a politician, SPQR. If I translate it, you’re saying he’s a great guy, but you don’t like his followers. I guess you prefer having someone like W or Romniani who isn’t even a Republican but at least carries the flag with people you’re used to. I’m so fucking sick of the Republican party. Made the mistake of giving them money twice in 2004. Now, I just send every letter back (their expense) telling them what pussies they are. Glad they took it in the ass in 2006. They worry way too much about getting elected. They should all make like lemmings and stick their heads in the reflecting pool and die.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 5:58 pmSPQR #13:
Thanks for the insight.
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:01 pmTCO, uh no, your translation was completely wrong. I won’t use the term moronic. But reading what I wrote might be a start.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:11 pmSPQR – Unhinged crazy seems to attract unhinged crazy. TCO is helping to prove the point tonight.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:17 pmPat Buchanan may not be anti-semitic but he is anti-Isreal. I have heard him with my own eyes (sic little private joke there) say “Isreal is a strategic albatross around America’s neck” and “Capitol Hill is Israeli-occupied territory”. He is also a Bush-hater, pere et fils, who probably cost Bush 41 the re-election in 1992 and did his best to give the election to Gore in 2000.
As for Ron Paul’s “many” supporters — all three of them — they make their existence seem bigger than it is by spamming wildly on the internets using dozens of aliases.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:20 pmTCO, first let me say that I am sure Pattrico doesn’t delete your stupid posts filled with profanity because they are self condemning and reveal the extend of your intellect and show your inability to express thought using words that exceed four letters.
Now, to the subject at hand, Dr. Ron Paul.
My biggest complaint against Dr. Paul is his dishonesty. He was originally elected as a Republican, but as he became more and more unbalanced, those of us who had helped elect him in the first place (being in his district until re-districting) could no longer support him. He ran for POTUS as a Libertarian, but when he could not win, he returned to the Republican Party so he could maintain his seat at the Congressional table. He knew, that as a Libertarian, he could not keep it. During the 2000 TxGOP convention in San Antonio a number of Congressmen and both Senators had hospitality rooms. A number of us decided to stop by Dr. Paul’s room but it was full of knuckle heads who were anything but Republicans (you did not have to be a delegate for entry to the hospitality suites only gain entrance to the hotel).
retire05 (3017bb) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:22 pmPaul is not a Republican. And he is intellectually dishonest by running as one. He also says he is a “Constitutionalist” but he is a Constitutionalist by using his interpretation of the Constitution much like the Rev. Phelps uses his interpretation of the Bible.
Paul is also being backed by the clown that is the head of the Iraq Veterans Against the War. The IVAW were part of the protesters who protested against David Horiwitz (sp?) at George Washington University this week.
That should tell you all you need to know.
These are either the words of Ron Paul, or words Ron paid someone to ghost write in his name:
Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism”
The bits of this he has disavowed, he disavowed only years later when approached by the media.
Ron Paul is an asshole. I should also add that his fiscal conservative libertarian act is bullshit. he spends hundreds of millions in entitlements. He is a king of pork.
Dustin (9e390b) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:38 pmRon Paul wants the United States to lose the wars we are currently fighting. This is basically the only reason I cannot support him. Like most other anti-war nuts, he wants to imagine that he can create a world where Iraq was never invaded, where Afghanistan was never invaded, where September 11th never happened, where the USS Cole attack never happened, etc.
On one hand Ron Paul and his whackjob supporters ramble on mindlessly about Empire and the US being a power-hungry giant running around taking whatever it wants and getting people pissed off at us, people who were just sitting around in their countries minding their business until we came over and started being all imperialist. No other country is imperialist or aggressive or expansionist or bellicose to Ron Paul, only America. Nations like Iran support terrorism, terrorists like Osama bin Laden only exist, as a reaction to our provocation of them. No one ever does anything bad to the United States because they think it will further their own interests, aggrandize their own power. No, they only do it in pure self-defense as a response to our own power-grabbing. There is no such as ideologies so opposed to each other that the inevitable outcome of their interaction is violence.
In Ron Paul World, everyone is a saint unless America pissed them off. If America stopped pissing them off, everyone who isn’t a saint would turn into one and no more devils would appear ever again.
These people are naive or, the majority of them I think, are just plain anti-American.
I realized it when I was reading a Pat Buchanan op-ed a few months back that basically said that no wonder US-Russia relations have deteriorated, Russia should be allowed to bully and manipulate and take advantage of countries like the Ukraine and Georgia because they were (compared to Russia) small countries that Russia has historically dominated so it’s okay if the Kremlin continues to do so today. And that the US was wrong for making alliances with these countries because they, regardless of how their peoples felt about it, basically belonged to Russia and that was that. And that the Russians were mad at us for making those alliances so we should just abandon them. Ron Paul is the same, just listen to his nonsense at debates. No wonder we’re hated, we trample over people and provoke them. If we’d just them leave alone and trade with them freely they’d love us, or at least leave us alone too. Nowhere is the possibility entertained that there are some people whose goals are to conquer and dominate and steal and oppress – except, of course, Americans.
That’s when I realized that Pat Buchanan and people like him aren’t operating on any kind of principle save one: diminish America’s influence in international relations. They don’t care how it is done, they don’t care if it means defending another country’s “right” to do what they condemn the US for allegedly doing, it doesn’t matter. As long as American power in international relations is lessened, they’re all for it.
And all I can say in reply is fuck that.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/27/2007 @ 6:54 pmLibertarian, isolationist, fiscal conservative…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/27/2007 @ 7:20 pmHaving been to too many Libertarian Party meetings, I found them filled with people still trying to convince each other that Smoot-Hawley was vital for the protection of American industry, and the American taxpayer.
And, that all drugs should be legalized.
Libertarian ideals are fine. What is not fine, is their application to the real world – It just doesn’t work!
I often find people who disagree with Ron Paul on the Iraq war. These people form a loose coalition, yet their positions as to why there should be a war are more different from each other than they are from Paul’s position. It seems when it comes to war issues, it is important to be firm in that but not provide any details and break down the coalition.
So why war in Iraq? WMD and Saddam are gone. The war has been won. Here are some of the answers I get. To get control of oil. Rebuild Iraq. Keep Al Qaeda from getting a franchise in Iraq. To wipe out Islam. To punish them for 9/11. To get bin Laden. To keep terrorists from creating another incident in the US. To protect Saudi Arabia from Iran. To protect Israel. To be ready for end times. To support the troops.
When I bring this up, people who support the war will chose one (or add one) and say all the rest are stupid reasons and I should not have suggested them. Yet, all of those are reasons people strongly give.
It seems to me there is not really any pro-war stance. There is just an anti-anti-war coalition.
So, what is it that is wrong with bringing the troops home? (I know, this should be completely obvious and I’m an idiot, but beyond that.)
Thomas (21e706) — 10/27/2007 @ 7:44 pmNothing is wrong with bringing the troops home. In fact, it would be fine if we started with those in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/27/2007 @ 7:56 pmOnly an idiot is pro-war. War is the greatest evil that we have invented for ourselves.
In the case of the Iraq War we did what was necessary to eliminate a monster. We now have an obligation to the Iraqi people and to our children to fix what we broke and to do the best we can to prevent a new monster from replacing him.
That simple and straightforward enough?
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 8:00 pmI don’t feel an obligation to the Iraqis to protect their country from themselves. What if they keep on misbehaving for the next 100 years? I don’t see a need for more than a few months transition. That is if they were civilized. If they’re not it’s their own fault. Oh…and Iraq is not the only lawless, savage place on the globe. Maybe we should police them all? BS.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 8:22 pmYou probably don’t feel an obligation to sweep broken glass from the sidewalk in front of your house so your kid or your neighbor’s kid won’t step in it, either. Whatever.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 8:29 pmTCO #26:
According to this Heritage Foundation report, American troops have been stationed in at least 54 different countries, chiefly in Europe and Asia, since 1950. So there’s an argument that America is to a limited degree the world’s policeman. We can debate whether America should fill that role but I don’t think we can deny that we do.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 8:39 pmBut DRJ, how many of those places are we actually “policing”?
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:23 pmYou guys are morons:
a. I don’t feel a need to go 12,000 miles to pick up glass.
b. Do we have 130,000 boots in each country? Are we occupying each country? We have a globe-spanning prescense of bases and such. and the ability to project power. But we sure as shit don’t care if some Hutus kill some Tsutsis. Nor should we…
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:25 pmYou guys sound just like Clintonista nation builders. What a joke. Just cause a weak tit, softie Republican is for it, you lick it up. Bet you loved Harriet Mieiers too…
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:26 pmIn some places, we come close to having that many troops, TCO. In Korea we have nearly 40K military personnel, with almost 50K in nearby Japan.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:29 pmHeh! SayUncle was right. Say “Ron Paul” on a post and his three Ronettes will show up to spam endlessly. Or do your prefer Paulines?
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:33 pmDude, I have 9 years active and 14 reserve. I frigging know that we have troops overseas. Are we policing Japan and SK? Or is it more of a Cold War hangover and a Jong il tgripwire. Oh…and there are a hell of a lot of countries where we don’t do squat. Like in Columbia. Read Imperial Grunts. Better yet, engage your brain and consider the differences in the nature of forces instead of trumpeting out little tidbits like this. Crap, man.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:34 pmItsme,
I guess it depends on how strictly you define the term. If you mean only military actions that are the equivalent of war, then it’s far less. But if the term is defined more loosely then I think it’s clear the US military footprint in the world is significant. For instance, I think the humanitarian efforts following the 2004 tsunami were in part “policing actions” because the US military helped bring order that stabilized the region.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:34 pmLet’s finish this. TCO, Ron Paul is a loony.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:35 pmNo one ever debated that we don’t have a lot of troops around the place. And most of them are not policing things. Shit. Did you go to junior high school debate class? Fuck, this is why I hate the buttfucking morons on the internet.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:36 pmTCO, your foul mouth is quite annoying. Your confused comments lead me to believe that you would not be my candidate for teaching a junior high school debate class.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:38 pm36: He’s not that bad. You just want to write him off so you just “know” he’s a loony. Like you “knew” there were WMD. Engage skepticism (even of your own opinions) instead.
Sheesh, I’m ready to abondon Paul if he turns out to be bad news. But I gotta see it, first.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:38 pm38: I know. But my points stand. Grrr.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:38 pmI get the same reaction from Hare Krishnas at the grocery store parking lot when I make it clear I’m not interested in their idiocy.
nk (da3e6b) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:39 pmAnd that relates how? Sheesh, you complain about alphie being low content.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:40 pmTCO,
I grant you that sometimes I sound like a junior high debater but I’m not sure what you expect from a blog. Arm wrestling?
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:42 pmSometimes I get so angry…
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:43 pmI’m the one who said I like some things about Ron Paul, remember? So take a breath and focus on what you like best about him. Ron Paul has taken some principled stands on important issues, and it’s good to point those out.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:47 pmActually that’s not even my point. I just want to make all the people who are being intellectually lazy brace up and do pushups and extend arms until some frigging clue enters their brain. It’s not even the issue that’s important. It’s the thoughtfulness.
Oh…and I don’t actually know much about Paul. Don’t really follow politics any more. Pretty turned off. But Paul seems like he’s got the balls to do what’s right rather than expedient. That’s morality for me.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:51 pmI agree that it’s good to know where a candidate really stands on the issues, and I also feel like Paul is up-front about his positions.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:53 pmI’d really like it if the Republicans lost some elections though. We really need to burn the soft pussies who came into the party in the late 90s so they could hang out in Congress past term limits and justify anything (I mean probably even having sex with dead babies) if it just got them elected. I’d rather have 41 dedicated obstructionists in the Senate than control.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:53 pmFucking Ted Stevens. grr. fucking bridge.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:54 pmActually, that is my point, TCO. The one you didn’t get the first time you read it.
That people who support Ron Paul frequently do so for reasons that seem unrelated to his actual positions – an example being the Truthers. And I find that disturbing because after a point, I begin to wonder if they know something about Ron Paul that we don’t.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:55 pmTCO #48:
I felt that way when George H.W. Bush ran against Clinton. I don’t feel that way now that Hillary is running, but I can’t criticize your sentiment since I’ve been there myself.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:55 pmCrazy people don’t usually know they’re crazy. Ron Paul and his followers probably think they’re perfectly sane. Just look at how Mr. Buttfucking Moron gets worked up over nothing here. Doesn’t look like he’s got a great grip on reality there. Probably doesn’t spend much time with people.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:55 pmDRJ #35:
Well, according to your link, “hosting” a troop presence of 1,000 is enough to get you counted as one of those 54 countries. Also according to the link, over half the troops deployed on foreign soil are deployed in Germany. So I guess it also depends on how you define a “footprint.”
A “police action” does have a pretty accepted definition, though. It’s a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.
Dictionaries
So I think the term “policing” reasonably only applies to troop presence where military action is either undertaken or contemplated. That is distinct from humanitarian missions such as tsunami relief.
And I think the number of countries in which we fulfill a “police” type function is pretty limited.
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:56 pmyeah…I know. I start wondering if I should stop being a conservative when I see people saying it’s ok for Libby to lie because Clinton did too. I mean, lying is ok? If it’s our guy? Bush is an idiot too.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:57 pmItsme #53,
I think I anticipated and answered your point in my comment #35 so I don’t have anything to add.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:59 pm“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” – Samuel Adams
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
1st Best Ron Paul Video
I am delighted, proud and honored to post this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
2nd Best Ron Paul Video
chris lawton (580f67) — 10/27/2007 @ 9:59 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
I think “conceded” works better than anticipated. And also I think why the fuck did you bring up such a trite remark, if it shows something non-germane.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 10:00 pmActually, DRJ, if you really want an insight consider the actions of the US in terms of military power (versus size/stake) in terms of game theory. There is a good analogy with cartels (for instance OPEC and SA). But of course, none of that has any applicability to justifying putting 130,000 troops into every hornet’s nest. Gotta learn how to “walk down, jump over the fence and fuck all the cows” (if you know that one.) Iraq is silliness. It’s poor use of resources. It’s inefficient. It’s a fucking mess.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/27/2007 @ 10:05 pmThomas,
Thanks.
Now, I don’t understand your argument. How is the war won? The goals of the United States have been clear, the strategic vision wasn’t. Has the US achieved its goals? We invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and facilitate the creation of a pro-American, comparatively liberal Arab state with some real military power in the region. Egypt is constrained by geography and the people are too conservative. Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don’t have the population. Syria is right out.
The Iraq War is the perfect example of mission creep. Mission creep from the Persian Gulf War. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, decimated his armies, and then we set up a situation where we were at limited war with Iraq for twelve years. Under UN sanction we violated their airspace, restricted their use of their airspace, and bombed and shot at them. It was inevitably going to result in a decisive conflict.
TCO, ignoring your racism, why should we police areas where policing brings us nothing but some delusional moral stature? We did that in the Balkans. bombed the Serbs to save some poor repressed Muslims in Kosovo. What did that get us? Nothing? That’s right. Our national defense isn’t impacted by some Kosovars getting roughed up by the Serbs.
Why aren’t more Muslims pissed off at Russia? What the Red Army did to Grozny and Chechnya in general is a level of brutality unmatched by the Americans anywhere.
Russian culture is no threat to Wahhabism, or Qutbism, or whatever you want to call Osama’s ideology. American culture is. It’s a culture war. Our culture is a mortal threat to his. Given a choice, the vast majority of people in the world, Muslim or not, would rather live in a world more like America than Afghanistan under the Taliban and Osama. Iraqis have made the decision to kick al-Qaeda the fuck out of their country. No matter how much he ramps the violence up, Osama has seen his side lose the war for the popular culture of Muslims for the better part of 40 years. That alone is an offense worth death, the sexually charged consumerism, the freedom of religion and speech. It’s fostering apostasy and blasphemous behavior. Add on to that our political influence over “Muslim” countries and…
Those aren’t things we can change. The Middle East is unfortunately too economically important to allow Russia and China to gain the upper hand. Russia knows how to play the Arabs, they did it for three decades during the Cold War. Russia and China are interested in what will make Russia and China more powerful, whether that helps or hurts America. Why should we allow nations that are clearly rivals that have their interest at heart, not ours, take away our influence with no resistance? Just how will allowing Russia and China to gain influence over the world’s oil supply previously wielded by America improve our national security? I’d love to hear Ron Paul answer that one.
The fact is that we can either leave Iraq now, lose our national prestige for a decade and face challenges that will make wars more likely coming from every quarter, we can certainly allow Russia and China to become more powerful globally and Iran and Venezuela regionally, or we can defend what we’ve gained, what has helped make our society the greatest in history, and keep those who wish to gain more power for themselves by decreasing our power at bay.
If we leave Iraq too soon the country will collapse into anarchy that will hurt the world, but above all the United States, to a degree unconscionable. It will turn al-Qaeda into an enemy far powerful than al-Qaeda has any business becoming.
Or we can stay and now have a better than even shot to win. And, in doing so, so our enemies and rivals how far we are willing to go to defend that which makes us great, whether it be our culture, our philosophies and ideologies and freedoms, our economic interests, our allies, whatever.
Nations that do not defend their interests will find no shortage of nations ready and willing to step in. Ron Paul doesn’t understand that, people like TCO don’t understand it. They’re ignorant and naive and generally as pathetic as their candidate.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/27/2007 @ 10:11 pmWhat a bizarro world, ol’ George Orwell was spot on! The Neocon/Socialist Controlled SHEEPLE support Establishment candidates like Hitlery and Ghouliani, who both are warmongering big government bought and paid for politicians. The SHEEPLE are easily lead by the mainstream media, and believe the lies and slandering of a true patriot in Dr Paul. Ron Paul is principled and honest, an anomaly in modern politics. Don’t believe CNN and Fox, GOOGLE Ron Paul!
xLIVEWIREx (1519bc) — 10/27/2007 @ 10:53 pmTCO,
Clean up your act or lose your commenting privileges.
This is your one and only warning.
Patterico (0538ee) — 10/27/2007 @ 11:18 pmDRJ #55:
Fair enough.
Itsme (f6f474) — 10/27/2007 @ 11:25 pmnk 25, I’m trying to understand your position. I’ll try paraphrasing and I apologize if I miss the point. Are you saying the occupation is needed for making sure that any new ruler of Iraq meets US requirements for a ruler for Iraq? If so, I’ll add that to my list of reasons people give. I’m not sure that a full occupation is needed for that. Also, that is not something that can be won, but is an indefinite process. Perhaps it would be easier to simply publish the specifications and shoot any ruler that doesn’t fit. It would cost less and take less lives on all sides. I am concerned that even that would tend to irritate people in the region and cause other trouble. (I realize that I may have missed your point, since it seemed you were saying the US government fixed something and broke something at the same time.) Personally, I don’t see keeping the right ruler as a compelling reason for occupation.
Thomas (21e706) — 10/28/2007 @ 12:03 amWell, Paul also seems to believe that economics is zero-sum. He really doesn’t understand why increasing the money supply often isn’t inflationary, for example, and wants a gold standard, which is usually deflationary.
I usually suggest to people who want to advocate zero-sum economics that they bring a diamond and a sledgehammer to the debate.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/28/2007 @ 12:16 amchaos 21, you can’t go back and undo history, but you can learn from it.
Suppose our buddy complains, “Every time I go to the big city I loose thousands in gambling and end up beat up in an alley.”
I say, “Stop going to the city.”
What is your comment? “Thomas is just trying to create a world in which all those times you got beat up didn’t happen.”
We can only go to the future. We can’t undo the past. We know from the past that certain actions have bad consequences. We might wish those actions have other consequences, but we have to live with reality.
If I beat our friend’s dog before I came to my senses, I might wish I could come over and feed him and tend to his wounds, but if that drives him crazy, it is best that I say away from our friend’s house. I might explain to our friend that I changed, but the dog still bares his teeth. The best is to leave the dog alone. For now anyway. I wish I didn’t do that, but what is done is done.
The Ron Paul approach is based on reality, it is based on the future. For those who care about right, it also is based on doing right.
You are incorrect in thinking it has something to do with changing the past.
Thomas (21e706) — 10/28/2007 @ 12:23 amKevin Murphy 62, I thought increasing the money supply is inflationary by definition. I suppose if some school of thought uses another definition, then all bets are off. And I’ve never heard of people losing gold faster than they found mined it. We must be using completely different definitions.
As far as zero-sum economics, I don’t know of any free-market economics that makes such an assumption. Ron Paul knows his economics and leans toward the Austrian school. (And can respond to this better than this farm boy can.)
Thomas (21e706) — 10/28/2007 @ 12:31 amSPQx #8, RP has publicly stated he is not a 911 truther. He attracts truthers because he is against the war, and against big government as republicans also claim, and makes claims that the government is breaking the Constitution and lying, as republicans less often do. Truthers claim much the same thing, and have a huge anti-war streak. He also claims that corporations have too much government control, also a truther line, as well as a republican one. He also talks about a gold standard for the dollar, and the truthers love to talk about Jdekyl Island and 1913 and the fractional bankers…
SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/28/2007 @ 2:55 amThat is why he attracts them. You seem smart enough to have figured that out yourself, but it appears attacking and playing stupid was more important.
TCO, a lot of what you said has plenty of debate weight, but most sites pretend to a cleanliness that is all but obliterrated by the shallow insulting and circling of the fallen wagon riders, even as the no-no words are threats to a ban.
Much of the internet acts just like the worst attacking idiot reporter, they’ve learned from many of the best.
Last youtube vid I watched of RP had a questioner like that. RP replied he would implement his plans slowly over years, that one cannot just come in and wreck the place and erect the new just like that. Of course the idiot querying reporter had never figured that out his whole life, so it was a good thing RP was there to straighten him out.(aww he didn’t “get him”)
It is just absolutely amazing, isn’t it, what passes for “reasonable” is the assumption everyone else is crazy, so they just have to push their poppycock, it scores them a false ego point.
Let’s put this baby to bed, shall we? If Ron Paul is a truther and the truthers support him because he is a truther, he would have had to reach the truthers to tell them he is a truther. Right?
Well, if THAT were the case, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to find where he went to the truthers and said “I am a truther.”
Instead, maybe, just maybe the “truthers” like Ron Paul because they don’t like or trust big government. Though, it is for obvious different reasons, this distrust of government is supposed to be common in all conservative circles.
So, since you can find SEVERAL places where Ron Paul said he is NOT a truther, but can’t find a single one where he said he IS, perhaps we are starting to move in the direction of libel and defamation. I would honestly be cautious with this, for through your websites and the ties back to one another, it can easily be brought to court and tried. Asking a legitimate question is one thing, and news organizations HAVE asked him – and he answered. Continuing to make these claims AFTER he answers them is bordering on something beyond just smearing and is getting into grey legal territory.
Perhaps, since each one of these truthers, Alex Jones, and his listeners are individuals and not members of a borg collective, they have OTHER reasons for supporting Ron Paul IN SPITE of him not believing 9/11 was an inside job. Perhaps, you people should wonder who they voted for before supporting Ron Paul? Were they truthers, too?
If Ron Paul paid for advertising on Alex Jones radio (yeah, he runs a radio station) then that is just smart marketing. Alex Jones listeners (and not all of the believe 9/11 was an inside job, I’m sure) probably dislike big government, therefore they might like Ron Paul.
The oddest thing to your approach is this. When people hear his message and then go online to read more about him and see people calling all of his supporters “truther, nutjobs, and wackos” you are insulting THEM, since they like his message. They say, I don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job and I like all the stuff Ron Paul is saying. Therefore, these people are the wackos and nutjobs.
But, again, let’s put this baby to bed. Find a source where Ron Paul said 9/11 was an inside job or that he was a truther. What some of his supporters believe or what radio station he advertises on IS irrelevent.
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 3:47 amThe other stupidty is the anti-Ron Paul people coming into threads and blog posts ABOUT Ron Paul and then complaigning to everyone how they are sick of hearing about him… uhh, well, stop coming to Ron Paul articles then. Or at least stop reading the comments.
But, what you are really trying to say is this:
I don’t like Ron Paul, so please stop supporting him. Please stop making his donations and poll numbers go up.
Do you really think that is a convincing plea?
You don’t want to deal with Ron Paul supporters commenting on articles? Then don’t talk about him either good or bad. Go support YOUR candidate rather than wasting your time attacking ours.
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:04 amyeah, that’s the strangest part. The right seems to spend more time attacking Ron Paul than they do Hillary and the dems. They spend more time attacking Ron Paul than they do supporting their own candidates.
Hmm, I wonder where these Ron Paul haters are actually coming from. Could it be the 9/12 Republicans going back to the party they came from?
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:07 amHere’s another question to ask yourselves.
Why are there people that actively seek out articles on Ron Paul just to attack him. They say they don’t support Ron Paul on his foreign policy. If that were true, why would they spend hours and hours actively seeking and attacking Ron Paul.
When I encounter someone that tells me they don’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy, I simply say OK, and move on. At least they have heard of him and that is all my job entails. But, there is a group of people that have declared war on Ron Paul and his supporters. An unhealthy obsession of tracking down everywhere they go, clicking on every article written about Ron Paul just to call his supporters nutjobs and truthers and smear Ron Paul. And all this because of his foreign policy decisions? I think not.
So, Ron Paul haters, why do you spend hours of your day going after Ron Paul and his supporters? It is obvious that you don’t simply ‘disagree.’ There is definitely more to it than that. I am going to make the accusation that you are Hillary Supporters. Plain and simple. Only a liberal would spend so much time and energy attacking a fellow Republican.
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:27 amScott – You’re a nutjob. That’s straight from the heart. You don’t need to worry about where it came from.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:33 amThank you, daleyrocks, for the rational discussion.
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:40 amYou know, I read on HotAir a comment from a poster saying that he encountered a Ron Paul supporter walking across the street holding up his Ron Paul for president sign. He described how he contemplated running him over with his car.
So, who’s the nutjob?
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:44 amSo, why are going to start killing or violently attacking Ron Paul supporters now? Do you people really want to associate yourselves with people like that? I should point out that not ONE person told him that was crazy. Not one. A couple of high fives, but not a single person called him out on it or distanced themselves from it.
So, who are the REAL nutjobs?
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:49 amIn a townhall thread, I read a post from someone saying they if they saw any Ron Paul supporters at one of the debates, they were going to punch him in his face. Didn’t see anyone except the Ron Paul supporters calling him out on it. Nobody seemed to distance themselves from it.
So who are the REAL nutjobs?
Scott McDonnell (4e2188) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:51 amScott – You’re obviously overthinking this. I don’t recall anyone on this thread wishing violence on Ron Paul. I’m not sure why you think we have responsibility for individual views expressed elsewhere. I think the man and many of his supporters should be doing the thorazine shuffle instead of being allowed out in public. As a presidential candidate he’s a complete joke.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/28/2007 @ 5:09 amHahahaha. It’s awesome to see Patterico lament how he doesn’t want this place to become an echo chamber, but then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
Will daleyrocks get a warning for his insults?
I doubt it.
Dude (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 5:47 amHahahaha. It’s awesome to see Patterico lament how he doesn’t want this place to become an echo chamber, but then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
Will daleyrocks get a warning for his insults?
I doubt it.
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:10 amDude, the Balko disciple, has learned well at the feet of the master, and distorts my position to the point of being unrecognizable.
TCO’s profanity in this thread is consistent and over the top. It’s not suitable for the site. Regular commenters know that I have warned people on “my side” of the political fence many, many times about being profane or overly insulting.
If you doubt that, Dude, I’d be happy to make you a bet. If I can find three such examples of my giving warnings to right-wingers, you get banned for being a lying jackass. Agreed?
You won’t take me up on it — because you know I can do it, and you’re scared to the point of trembling at the prospect of not being able to come on here and make your humorless comments in defense of your God, Radley Balko.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:21 ambut then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
He was threatened for cursing, not for a dissenting view, Duda.
You do understand the difference?
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:22 amOh: by the way, “Dude” called himself “Duda” to get around his comments being put into moderation for review.
One consistent identity here, “Dude.” You violated that in the past, and got banned for it. I’ll ban you again in a heartbeat if you continue to violate it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:23 amSo, “Dude” (if that *is* your real name!): how about it? Will you take up my bet?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:24 amWhy should someone be banned for thought crimes? Calling RonPaul a nutjob might be accurate or it might be derision – who’s to say?
Has RonPaul accepted money from truthers/anti-semites? Has he returned it?
Seems to be there’s more a case of RonPaulians who have immediate access to Google than any popular support. As soon as someone says something about RonPaul, up pop the new commenters with lots of pasted text.
steve miller (76040f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:32 amOK, I’ll take you up on the bet. But the warning that you gave has to be along the lines of, “You’re only getting one warning. Otherwise, you’re banned.” I don’t want to see your “warnings” be, “You make some excellent GOP Hack points that I love so much, but could you pretty please with sugar on top stop calling your debate opponents mother-raping excrement-eating colostomy-bag dillholes? Thaaaaaanks.”
And I changed my name to Duda which is similar enough to Dude that I wasn’t deceiving anyone. By the standard you established in the characterizations of Balko’s arguments in your “No comments allowed” Balko post, it should be fine. Or can I add this to the Patterico hypocrisy list?
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:39 amThe Anti-Ron Paul Pr–War nutjobs are out in force, making xLIVEWIREx famous!
It’s funny how the SHEEPLE who disagree with Ron Paul call Dr. Paul and his supporters nuts, crazies, etc., yet cry foul when Paul supporters fight back and expose them for the BRAINWASHED MEDIA CONTROLLED SHEEPLE that they are!
LIVEWIRE, standin’ tall for AMERICA!
xLIVEWIREx (1519bc) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:41 amIf commenters here want to see what “Dude” (formerly Tefnut, King Christian X, Kings Christian XI, Booboo, and countless other names) has changed his name to “Dude,” I’ll clue you in. It’s to escape accountability for his outrageous jackassery in the past. My favorite example is when I wrote a post about gaining perspective in life by using a mind trick to help remind yourself not to take your good fortune for granted. Dude (then commenting as King Christian X) came in and pissed all over the thread with this comment:
Doc Rampage wrote a post about this comment, saying:
Nice sentiment. In the meantime, knowing your enemy is part of the battle. King Christian X changed his name to “Booboo” after getting ridiculed for his comment discussed above.
Just wanted you to know who you’re dealing with. Since accountability and honesty are supposedly so important to “Dude.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:47 amOK, I’ll take you up on the bet. But the warning that you gave has to be along the lines of, “You’re only getting one warning. Otherwise, you’re banned.”
No deal, weasel. No lawyerly qualifications. Either I police my conservative commenters for attitude and language or I don’t. Your contention is that I don’t. My contention is that I do.
Put up or shut up, weasel.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:50 amNo, I want to compare apples to apples. As I stated in my original post, you threatened to immediately ban someone who was using some colorful language. You tend to do this with those who disagree politically with you.
When others use insulting or colorful language on your side, you either look the other way (as with daleyrocks in this thread) or give them a “warning” as described above.
You find me 3 similarly harsh warnings and I’ll agree to the terms of your bet.
BTW, what do I win, if I win the bet?
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:59 amI gave TCO a harsh warning because TCO has a long history of commenting here and I know he is a stubborn person. So I wanted to make my warning especially clear and unequivocal. I can’t think of an example of a right-winger who is as stubborn as he is who came in here and left such a string of profanity as he did on this thread. But if there were such an example, I would handle it the same way.
Typically, if I don’t know someone — or if I do know them, and they aren’t necessarily stubborn — I give the same mild rebuke to both sides. If I know them and they are stubborn, I will give a more extensive lecture.
I demand that my commenters, left and right, maintain minimal standards of civility. This is a fact, and you are unwilling to enter a bet that would prove it.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:17 amAs I stated in my original post, you threatened to immediately ban someone who was using some colorful language.
Not so fast there, “Dude.” Here’s what you wrote:
Hahahaha. It’s awesome to see Patterico lament how he doesn’t want this place to become an echo chamber, but then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
Your “technique” might work in a conversation, but such dishonesty isn’t going to work here, when everyone can see what you wrote on the thread.
You do understand that, right?
If I were you, “Dude,” I would get off this thread in a hurry, before Pat bans you.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:17 amOoops, hit the button too fast.
The last line should read:
If I were you, “Dude,” I would get off this thread in a hurry, before you lose the bet and Pat bans you.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:20 am“the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd . . .”
I’m so used to Dude’s dishonesty that I didn’t notice that particular evasion.
That’s your language, Dude.
It’s not true.
In fact, alphie claims (quite implausibly) to be a former Republican, and I have conspicuously allowed him to continue commenting in the face of opposition here.
The fact is, you are unprincipled, dishonest, and weaselly — and it kills you when I show that I am not like you.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:21 amPaul, you surgically bolded that quote.
How do I know this? Because I see the unbolded part right afterwards. TCO has apparently left the reservation of GOP Hackdom that lives here, so he wasn’t just warned, he was threatened with immediate banning for any similar transgressions. As I stated, Patterico is much more harsh and willing to ban those with whom he politically disagrees. He may very well warn those on occasion on his side of the fence, but his warnings are effete.
Patterico’s definition of “stubborn” apparently is those who refuse to accept what he says as truth. For example, Balko is seen as “stubborn” for having the gall to actually defend himself against Patterico’s charges rather than just accept what Patterico says on face value. Funny definition of stubborn, that.
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:26 amPaul, you surgically bolded that quote.
No kidding.
How do I know this? Because I see the unbolded part right afterwards.
“…he get threatened with banning.” So?
TCO has apparently left the reservation of GOP Hackdom that lives here, so he wasn’t just warned, he was threatened with immediate banning for any similar transgressions.
So “colorful language” (cursing) means “straying from groupthink” (dissent?)
“Dude,” your level of dishonesty is overwhelming.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:34 amxLIVEWIREx feels like chewin’ gum and BITCHSLAPPING SHEEPLE; and the INTERNET SUPASTAR is all outta gum!
What the ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTIN’ SHEEPLE need to realize is that Hitlery and Fooliani are two sides of the same coin- both support war, big government, and entitlements- there ain’t no difference between the two in the big picture, and both will continue to lead the good ol’ US of A into downfall…
An original LIVEWIRE LIMERICK!
ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTIN’ SHEEPLE
They think that they are people
The ESTABLISHMENT SUPPORTIN” SHEEPLE
Dazed, confused, and DUMB
Quite franky the SHEEPLE are SCUM!
The SHEEPLE are so full of CRAP!
xLIVEWIREx (1519bc) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:37 amDeserving a LIVEWIRE BITCHSLAP!
Surgically bolding the quote does matter because it goes to the heart of what I am saying.
Patterico claims to dish it out equally to both sides. The reality is that those who cross the line who participate in this site’s group think get mild admonishments. Those who don’t participate in groupthink here who cross the line into colorful language get threatened with immediate banning.
So where is the dishonesty there, liar?
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:39 amDude is scared I would win the bet. Watch how he qualifies. He’s a professional comment spammer, but he has to have been a civil lawyer in his past life, with his penchant for weaselly qualification.
He claims that I am harsher with people who disagree with me, but gives no evidence of someone who is as consistently as profane as TCO who is from the right wing, leaving as many equally profane comments in a string, whom I have failed to warn as harshly. Until Dude does that, he doesn’t provide an apples to apples comparison.
I bet I could provide numerous examples of warnings to both sides, that would prove equally mild on both sides. Wanna take that bet, Dude? Three similar examples from each side?
Didn’t think so.
Dude claims: “the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.”
That’s a lie. Since Dude won’t put his commenting privileges on the line to back up his claim that I treat both sides differently — he won’t take the bet I offer above without weaselly qualifications, watch and see — let’s try another bet.
This will be harder for me to find, but how about if I can find a comment on this blog from someone who says they used to be a Republican and changed their minds? And expressed dissent from the crowd? And *wasn’t* banned?
I find that comment, Dude (or Duda, or Booboo, or Tefnut, or King Christian X, or King Christian XI) never darkens our door again.
Deal?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:40 amThe reality is that those who cross the line who participate in this site’s group think get mild admonishments. Those who don’t participate in groupthink here who cross the line into colorful language get threatened with immediate banning.
So if I can prove that I consistently give equally mild warnings to both sides, you’ll go away forever.
Put up or shut up.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:42 amNEOCONS GONE FISHIN’
BY LIVEWIRE
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Lieberman are on Bush’s daddies yacht, The Saudi. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Lieberman are sitting, holding their fishing poles. Cheney is standing, shotgun in hand, looking into the water.
Lieberman- Uhhh, Mr. Cheney, could you please sit down now? You’re making me a little nervous…
Cheney- Go f**k yourself Lieberman! I’m gonna shoot me a big fish if it’s the last thing I do! (fires a couple of shots into the water)
Lieberman- Ahhh, yes Mr. Cheney. I’m so sorry, please forgive me…
Bush- (stands up) I caught something! (reels the fish in)
Rumsfeld- for crissakes, why is this fish glowing?
Lieberman- it looks like a radioactive glow! Could this be the product of environmental pollution?
Bush- Joe, why ya gotta rain on ol’ George Bush’s parade? I’m starting to see why the Democrats kicked you out!
Lieberman- OHHHH, ahhhh, sorry Mr. Bush SIR! I won’t do it again!
Cheney- God damn it! The water is so murky, I can’t see those scaly bastards! What is that goop murking up the water? I can’t shoot at what I can’t see! (Turns and looks at the others, waving his shotgun at them. They all duck to the floor)
Lieberman- (laying on the floor) it looks like chemical pollutants sir! Perhaps toxic material from offshore oil drilling!
Cheney- DOLT!!! You are treading on dangerous waters! (fires a shot at Lieberman, shoots him in the ass)
Bush- HAHHAHAHHAA! That’s what I call shooting an ass on the ass!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!
Rumsfeld- You mean God bless ONLY the Neocons!!!
NEOCONS BURST OUT IN LAUGHTER, EXCEPT FOR A WHIMPERING LIEBERMAN, AS THE SCENE FADES…
THE END
xLIVEWIREx (1519bc) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:42 amPut up or shut up.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:42 amDaleyrocks, daleyrocks, daleyrocks.
I already brought him up, liar.
In this thread alone, he’s called his debate opponents nutjobs and crazy.
As I stated BEFORE, liar, he doesn’t even get a mild rebuke within this thread, much less a harsh one.
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:48 amSurgically bolding the quote does matter because it goes to the heart of what I am saying.
So what you are saying is that I made the mistake of reading what you wrote, instead of reading what you “meant?”
We all can see exactly what you said, bucko. Trying to deny it is being dishonest, no matter what you claim. Let’s review:
As I stated in my original post, you threatened to immediately ban someone who was using some colorful language.
I ask again: so “colorful language” (cursing) means “straying from groupthink” (dissent?)
Because this is what you wrote:
Hahahaha. It’s awesome to see Patterico lament how he doesn’t want this place to become an echo chamber, but then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
How about answering the question this time?
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:51 amLivewire, that’s the greatest Paulbot parody I’ve seen yet. It’s almost too good!
Oh, and here’s Michael Medved’s open letter to Ron Paul.
See Dubya (d4aa96) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:52 amDumbass, you really are dense Paul.
Learn to read.
WHAT I AM STATING IS THIS:
Plenty of people on this site use colorful language. Those who disagree with Patterico and the rest of the GOP hacks on this site get threatened with immediate banning. Those who play Patterico’s game AND WHO ALSO USE COLORFUL LANGUAGE AND INSULTS, either get a complete pass or AT MOST a mild admonishment.
Is this really that tough to understand?
Duda (78463f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:54 amAllow LIVEWIRE to take Medved’s Smear letter and change a few words-
Dear Talk Show Host Medved:
Your radio show has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neocons, Chickenhawks, SHEEPLE, and other paranoid and discredited warmongers.
Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?
More specifically, your radio show has been featured for several years on the Salem Radio Network –a network of two of the nation’s leading war promoters and NEOCON shills, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, who recommends works that glorify the Neocon agenda, and glowingly tows the line of lies spewed by FOX news.
Have your columns appeared in Neocon propaganda machine townhall with your knowledge and approval?
As a radio host, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such radio and internet networks?
As a caller on your syndicated radio show, you avoided my questions indirectly and fearfully.
Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your radio show and some of the most loathsome warmongering and liberty destroying groups in American society?
Along with your listeners (and many of LIVEWIRE’s supporters), LIVEWIRE eagerly awaits your response.
Respectfully, xLIVEWIREx
xLIVEWIREx (1519bc) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:56 amIn this thread alone, he’s called his debate opponents nutjobs and crazy.
Oh, I see. “Nutjobs” and “crazy” are now
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:56 amcurse wordscolorful language.Dude,
“Those who disagree with Patterico and the rest of the GOP hacks on this site get threatened with immediate banning.”
You have failed to accept:
1) My wager that I could provide several examples of similar rebukes to both sides.
2) My wager that I could find a person claiming to be a former Republican who bucks the party line but isn’t threatened with a ban.
You have weaseled out of, or failed to respond to, both wagers.
Now you say:
“Those who disagree with Patterico and the rest of the GOP hacks on this site get threatened with immediate banning.”
Wow. That’s yet another blatant lie from you.
You’re getting more shrill and comically false with each comment.
3) How about I find three comments where someone disagreed with Patterico and the rest of the “GOP hacks on this site” who was not threatened with immediate banning?
I could provide hundreds, but for purposes of the wager, we’ll take three.
Wager 4:
4) If I have rebuked daleyrocks before on this site, using language similar to that I have used to address leftists who were similarly over the top, will you go away?
That’s 4 wagers, each of which is an attempt to prove that something you have said on this site is a lie.
You won’t accept even one.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:04 amFor the love of God, please ban dud and livewire!
dave (04dde8) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:05 amDumbass, you really are dense Paul.
Learn to read.
Am I getting under your skin, “Dude?”
Because what I read was this:
As I stated in my original post, you threatened to immediately ban someone who was using some colorful language.
That referenced this:
Hahahaha. It’s awesome to see Patterico lament how he doesn’t want this place to become an echo chamber, but then the second a former Republican voices dissent from the crowd, he gets threatened with banning.
And now you say it means this:
Plenty of people on this site use colorful language. Those who disagree with Patterico and the rest of the GOP hacks on this site get threatened with immediate banning. Those who play Patterico’s game AND WHO ALSO USE COLORFUL LANGUAGE AND INSULTS, either get a complete pass or AT MOST a mild admonishment.
So your argument went from “mere dissenting from former Republicans” to “colorful language from former Republicans” to “now encompassing both plus insults.”
Maybe we should name your argument a “suter.”
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:05 amWho said of Kathryn Johnston:
“I could have sworn you confidently predicted she was a drug dealer.”
Which was a lie.
And then who said, in the same comment:
“Nice fucking apology.”
Who was it who was allowed to curse and lie about me — and then was allowed to leave dozens more comments here.
Why, that would be you.
Anyway, which of my four wagers are you not too chicken to take?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:08 amdave,
I’ll ban LIVEWIRE.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:09 amThe horror! The horror!
Mea culpa.
I committed a hate crime.
Or is it a thought crime translated into a hate crime by writing it. Does the word nutjob fall under some statutory definition of a hate crime Dude or are you just being a jackass? Oh shit, did I just do it again!
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:10 amDude,
Identify yourself as “Dude” and not “Duda.”
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:11 am“Duda” will go into moderation and “Dude” will not.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:12 amDude, for almost two years now or so, I’ve often been a thorn in Patterico’s side and he has never threatened to ban me. In fact, he says that my comments are welcome anytime. He has also told rabid commenters to chill, so to speak, on my behalf. So I can’t help defend you on this one.
Stick to the facts here and you’ll be much better off. Insults are cheap and aren’t persuasive anyway.
Thanks for the comment on the other thread Paul – I try not to be too annoying.
Psyberian (9a155b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:12 amdaleyrocks, have I ever called you to account for your tone?
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:12 amThank you, Psyberian.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:13 amWhen the truthers get around the Bill Clinton, he says “how dare you!”
SteveG (4e16fc) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:14 amPaul should have the balls (I put “balls” in there for dude)
balls I say to tell the truthers to bugger off and out of his campaign. Instead he panders to them by saying we need to look into it more.
Paul is either cynically using 9-11 conspiracy nutjobs for their cash contributions or he is one of them
Paul should have the balls (I put “balls” in there for dude) balls I say to tell the truthers to bugger off and out of his campaign.
Yup. Like I said in the very first comment on this thread, he’s got some very weird supporters that he won’t distance himself from.
Put it this way: any Republican running for president that is embraced by the 9/11 Truthers and Daily Kos gives me cause to question where they really stand on the issues.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:21 amApples and oranges are such fine things to eat, but let’s leave them out of this discussion k?
I don’t remember the beating happening to us. It happened to the other guy.
Irony much!
The train of inapt analogies rolls on!
As I show here, the Ron Paul approach is based on neither reality, the future, or right. It is based on naivete, ignorance, and anti-Americanism.
No I’m not. The Ron Paul Thought Process – and I’m being very generous in calling it that – is based on the absurd hope that our enemies and rivals will forget that they are our enemies and rivals and play fair and nice with us if we withdraw from our “entanglements” that we used to beat the Nazis, beat the Soviets, and increase not only our own wealth, but the wealth of so many other countries around the world. No other country has brought conditions that created so much prosperity for so many as America, and Ron Paul wants to throw it all away because he, and you, and the rest of you whackos think that exercising American power globally, or hell, even within our sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere, as being inherently counterproductive.
Now it’s time for Scotty!
Or maybe we can not bow down to Ron Paul’s soft fascism that cannot tolerate dissent and generates comments like yours and continue exercising our freedom of expression. K?
Poll numbers go up?
ROFL!
Although it’s a strawman, it’s certainly better than the massively ignorant arguments Ron Paulites try to advance.
I don’t really think that I feel the need to restrict my rights just because you’re an insecure little twit who can’t handle your Saint being exposed as the intellectual fraud he is.
Mind-boggling.
We oppose Ron Paul.
So we… shouldn’t say that. In fact, we shouldn’t say anything about Ron Paul unless we support him, because otherwise we’re obsessed with him.
Hmmm, sorry, but no. I like free speech. Why don’t you?
Awww look at that, the poor Ron Paul drone can’t handle his Lord and Savior being rejected by the masses. They must be Hillary supporters in disguise, because those who truly believe in Truth and Right can only logically conclude that Ron Paul is the candidate for them!
A candidate who refuses to defend his country and her prosperity is a candidate should be rejected.
Oh wait, Ron Paul is!
The authoritarian who doesn’t feel that people who disagree with him should say so is now concerned about jackbooted thugs coming after him and his crazy comrades based on an offhand comment that says nothing about anyone other than a single person.
The irony continues!
The Paulbots are HILARIOUS for how they either RANDOMLY capitalize WORDS in their POSTS, their HILARIOUS assertions of RIGHT, their grabbing of the MORAL HIGH GROUND without JUSTIFICATION, and their GENERAL LACK OF INTELLIGENCE or skills at ARGUING.
If only RON PAUL and his supporters weren’t naive idiots who don’t know anything about HISTORY or international relations… well actually NEVERMIND, they’re just as STUPID AND FOOLISH with their conspiracies about the FED and other general IDIOCY.
Seriously, you guys are so far down the ladder it’s just too funny. What are you going to do when Paul finally gives up? Therapist couch sales will go up 300% once the SAINT PAUL sees his campaign pounded into the dust in the primaries.
Certainly, though, if you guys want to guarantee that the GOP wins, go ahead and run independent Mr. Paul, take away those anti-war liberals from the Democrats.
Ron Paulistos always say the same thing, and it’s always some of the most historically and generally ignorant pap you’ll ever find.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:25 amDude – I’ll give you a hint. Don’t take wager #4. Patterico landed on my ass within the past week.
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:26 amDude is too scared to take any of my wagers, because he knows I can meet them. So I’ll lay out some of my evidence of even-handedness anyway, and then watch him try to pick at it with lawyerly quibbling. I trust that you guys will call him on any more dishonesty; I’ve spent all the time on this I can spend.
Do I police right-wingers? Yes. Here are just a few examples:
To Christoph, a generally right-wing commenter:
To “The Ace,” a right-wing commenter:
To Dan Collins, a right-winger who called Psyberian a “dolt,” a “moron,” and “numbnuts”:
To a bunch of people who were yelling at alphie about Beauchamp:
Dude will say that these are “effete” warnings and that I would never give similar warnings to left-wingers. Dude will be lying. Here are some warnings to left-wingers:
To Rusty, a left-winger who called a right-winger a “fag” and called conservatives “stupid Bush-lickers”:
I really let him have it, huh?
To “Martin,” who criticized Bush and FEMA, and called one of my supporters a “brainless cow” and “stupid”:
To both sides:
To both leftist David Ehrenstein and right-winger kl, who were calling each other racists:
To right-winger “The Ace” and left-winger “AF”:
To daleyrocks and Christoph, who are both generally right-wingers, but who were fighting:
I have noticed one difference between the left-wingers and the right-wingers *after* I warn them. Namely, the right-wingers are generally quick to apologize and promise to do better.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:35 amBy the way, I never thought Dude would take any of my wagers. It was just fun watching him evade them.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:36 amYes, it was, Pat, and I had some fun too, mocking him with his own words. It was game over when he called me “dense” and a “dumbass.”
By the way, I got a direct “cut it out” warning once, too.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:47 amI feel left out I haven’t gotten such a direct warning yet =(
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:49 amThe other problem I have with Paul has already been stated… he is running as a Republican, but he is not.
He is doing this to gain access to Republican national forums and debates for the media exposure he would not get as a Libertarian.
To me that is dishonest… clever yes, but still dishonest.
I do like his shoestring approach to his campaign… flying coach, discount liquor… but it seems more than a few $4.99 2 liter bottles of Taaka vodka have been left lying around for the faithful to take home to their keyboards which takes the luster off the approach for me.
On the threats of violence against Paul supporters, it is clear that an overwhelming majority (99.99999%) less than one in a million would ever run over a Paul supporter just for supporting Paul. However… a Paul supporter holding a sign saying 9-11 was an inside job might incense me to the point I’d express that I’d felt a mild urge to swerve.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:53 amIf code pink set up camp in front of my house I’d feel like turning the sprinklers on them and will express that feeling here in advance… heck, if the Young Republicans threw a party in my neighborhood (beyond unlikely) and parked in my driveway and waved signs at me, I’d call the cops on them and hopefully get to enjoy the spectacle of a guy in a white shirt and tie getting tased.
Do what you like, just don’t do it here (my personal space)
Other than that bit of misanthropy I’m a great guy. Really.
No you aren’t SteveG, you’re a slave to the war machine and you don’t know what the Constitution really means or anything that’s right and pure! And you probably smell too!
/Paulite
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/28/2007 @ 8:58 amAnd therein lies the problem, Chaos and SteveG (getting back to the actual point of the thread).
Paul is really a Libertarian. And while I agree with a lot of libertarian ideals, including small government and getting back to the original meaning of the Constitution, many of them are just humorless and radical ideologues who justly frighten most Americans with some of their crazier ideas.
I remember hearing the last guy who ran for President as a Libertarian on the radio. He said that his first day in office, he would free every person in federal prison on any drug or gun charge.
Now, the mere mention of drug laws in a thread attracting libertarians will of course be considered a green light to re-open the tired old arguments about the “Failed War on (Some) Drugs.” But that’s not the point of this comment. Let’s say the dude had referred only to releasing all gun offenders.
I am a Second Amendment supporter, but the idea of releasing all federal gun offenders scares the hell out of me.
That’s a good example of why no Libertarian will be elected president. They can’t refrain from saying things like that.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:05 amI feel left out I haven’t gotten such a direct warning yet =(
You should. It’s like a badge of honor.
Pat should have a t-shirt made up that says, “I was warned by Patterico.”
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:06 amHeh.
I’m actually thinking of doing up some shirts and mugs.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:09 amWell the war on drugs clearly hasn’t worked, whether you think (some) drugs should be illegal or not, but that’s beside the point. Lots of Paulites and Paulite types are usually fans of the Austrian School of Economics and either die-hard fanatics for anarchy or anarcho-capitalism because they have it in their heads that they have an airtight, complete, totally irrefutable a priori argument for themselves that is impervious to any kind of empirical criticism. So what if some people deserve to be in jail on gun charges? The principle is that there shouldn’t be gun charges in the first place, so who cares if it means releasing some bad people out into society again?
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:17 amThe war on murder clearly hasn’t worked either, but I really don’t want to debate either here, for the umpteenth time. The point is that the idea that there should be no such thing as a gun charge in America is scary. Ex-cons legally carrying firearms? No thanks.
Patterico (bad89b) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:31 amNot to hijack the thread, but I found this link on another site. It’s to the criminal dockets of the Old Bailey 200-400 years ago. It’s fascinating:
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search/
dave (04dde8) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:44 amIf you don’t mind, Patterico, I was going to return to something SiliconDoc said about my comments about Ron Paul.
Ignoring the silly stuff about how smart I am or am not, SiliconDoc did say something that I think supports my concern about Ron Paul, and that is that the various sorts of conspiracy nuts support Ron Paul. And I think he also confirmed my impression that Ron Paul says he is not a Truther but the Truther’s support him and I believe that the Truthers have the impression that he is sympathetic to him. I don’t think it is because of Ron Paul’s skepticism of big government because a large fraction of Truthers are not really libertarian. It is something about conspiracy theorists itself.
And so I remain concerned that Ron Paul appeals to the various conspiracy nuts. As I said before, it is not legitimate to automatically condemn someone for the supporters that attach themselves, but I think it is legitimate to ask why they attach themselves and ask what attracts them.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/28/2007 @ 9:55 amSPQR,
There’s a high degree of emotional, passionate concern about political issues that makes it a crusade for some people. What about anti-abortion zealots and white/black supremacists who are willing to use violence to accomplish their goals? I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some Ron Paul advocates who feel that passionate about libertarian goals but I haven’t heard of anyone who did that nor do I believe it’s fair to say most Paul supporters feel that way. It may seem like everyone who supports Paul on the internet is a zealot but, in real life, I think many are reasonable, normal people.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/28/2007 @ 10:06 amDRJ: Then why is he out there talking to Alex Jones on his nutball radio show?
Alex Jones claims to believe that the Bilderbergers are plotting to exterminate humanity. I say claims to believe, because I think he’s a con man and a fraud who makes a tidy living selling Larouchian arglebargle to the mentally defective.
Ron Paul knows this and continues to associate with him. I don’t care whether there might be some good ol’ boy libertarians supporting him who aren’t Truthers. Ron Paul is reaching out to dangerous tinfoil-skivvied nutbars to sustain his campaign. Those are his buddies.
See Dubya (d4aa96) — 10/28/2007 @ 10:58 amI find the invective that has been floating around these comments hilarious because if all of you were in the same room I seriously doubt the same conversations would take place. I will point out I saw a post that Ron Paul may have paid Alex Jones of Loose Change fame for some service. If true, that was a bad move. His acceptance of $500 from a white supremacist in FL is equally troubling.
Bill M (ee2ae1) — 10/28/2007 @ 10:59 amIf the presidency were split in two, with one president for domestic affairs only and the other handling foreign affairs and the Commander in Chiefdom, I’d support Ron Paul for Domestic President in a flash. In fact, if you’d told me on 10-Sep-2001 that Ron Paul would be running a credible presidential campaign and I would not be supporting him, I’d have called you crazy. Unfortunately I don’t have that option, and none of the benefits of Paul’s other policies outweigh the damage his isolationism would do.
Patterico, if the only law a person has been convicted of breaking is unconstitutional, then it’s not a law at all, and he hasn’t been convicted of any crime; so how can you possibly justify not releasing him?
If you take the Second Amendment seriously, then any law abridging the right it guarantees must survive the same strict scrutiny that applies to laws abridging the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. I don’t see how there’s a compelling government interest in preventing someone from being armed just because he’s been convicted of any crime in the past; to pass muster such a law would have to be narrowly tailored to particular crimes, the commission of which makes it likely that the person is still dangerous after having served his sentence.
Milhouse (f10fb3) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:02 amSee Dubya #137,
And Obama has his pastor but that doesn’t mean everyone who supports Obama is loony.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:06 amBecause of the nuts, in real life I’d rather they stay 100 yards away until I can figure out whether they are the sane or insane wings of the movement.
I think there is legitimate room for concern about any movement or political run where a large and vocal group of loons look at the movement and feel like they’ve found their long lost home and soul mates.
That bit or harshness aside, I believe in freedom.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:10 amI don’t think isolationism works, but I want a balanced foreign policy. Retain the ability to project power to protect ourselves with the smallest possible profile.
Tough to do.
I want a government that stays out of our lives… but protects us by getting into the lives of bad people and a government that attracts wise people to discern who is who.
Freedom can be thorny in the “what to do with those who abuse it” and the definition of what an abuse of freedom really is.
I want the IRS abolished and some other form of taxation implemnted.
I want the nanny state to disappear
None of the candidate answer my concerns about those things (maybe Rudy answers a few)
Ron Paul somehow manages to increase my concerns.. perhaps because it seems that he would “throw the baby out with the bath water”.
I’m all for the wisdom to see big pieces of government are FUBAR and chunking them in the trash… but that takes a strong wise leader who can maintain the confidence of the people, fight the government employee unions, disassemble and rebuild. He or she will need all 8 years to do it and will also need to have a strong likeminded VP who is groomed and empowered to get another 8 years to finish the job.
Is Ron Paul even close to being that man?
Not in my mind.
Does his candidacy raise some thought provoking issues? You bet.
The guy is still a nut who attract the nuttier though.
PS: That’s not to say I agree with every single one of Paul’s domestic policies. I think his position on currency is nuts; but not dangerously so. And I don’t like the fact that he votes against free trade agreements; while those agreements are not perfect, on balance they make trade freer than it would otherwise be, and by voting against them Paul is in effect voting to keep existing trade restrictions. Since free trade is the original liberal (aka libertarian) position, the cause that created the liberal movement in the first place, Paul’s position is troubling.
Milhouse (f10fb3) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:13 amI support Ron Paul because of many of his positions. One reason is that, as a pro-life activist, I believe that he has the best solution for ridding us of abortion. In fact, it is the same solution posited by Phyllis Schlafly in her book, The Supremacists, jurisdiction stripping. For years, Ron Paul has sponsored “The Sanctity of Life” bill which would do just that.
Also, my observation is that he is gaining a lot of steam with Independents. They are one of the most important votes, if not the most important, for winning elections.
In my Ron Paul Meetup Group, white collar professionals, conservative Christians,and grassroots Republicans greatly predominate over those who believe in 911 conspiracies. Many of the libertarians consider themselves members of both the Libertarian and Republican party–and mostly vote Republican.
For the foregoing reason, I don’t understand why people claim that Ron Paul is not a Republican. If the party seeks to include Republicans like Giuliani, whom I consider a RINO and anathema to social conservatives like me, why would it not include the libertarian wing? Further, Ron Paul supported Ronald Reagan in 1976, when the Republican elites were doing their best to trash Reagan. I was active in college politics at the time, and I remember the same kind of invective being thrown at Reagan as at Ron Paul.
Finally, I don’t like Alex Jones, but I have no problem with Ron Paul granting him interviews or buying commercial time on his show. That is because Ron Paul delivers the same message on that show that he delivers in every other forum. He does not pander; whether to the Alex Jones audience, the Hannity & Colmes audience, the Values Voters or his constituency. He does not pander to his audience.
The important thing to him is getting his message of limited, responsible government, sound money and liberty to all people.
And, if you think that he is nutty about Federal Reserve policies and the dollar, go study what Jim Rogers is doing. He’s getting out of the dollar
Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:15 amDitto, Milhouse.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:15 amJerri Lynn,
I believe you are a single issue voter on abortion, so surely you can understand why there are Republicans (like me) who are single issue voters on 9/11 and the war who find Paul’s position on that untenable.
DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:17 amSteveG, if you care at all about civil liberties, then Rudy is not your man. We joke about the way the lefties’ heads explode over Bushitler and Ashkkkroft and how the USA PATRIOT Act gives them deangerous powers which they will use to turn the USA into a police state. It hasn’t happened, and I’m not surprised that it hasn’t happened, but that’s mostly because the current administration aren’t the sort of people the moonbats make them out to be. I opposed the USA PATRIOT Act because I’m afraid of those powers in the hands of a Janet Reno; I’m equally afraid of them in the hands of Rudy Giuliani.
Or of Elliot Spitzer, my current governor, for that matter. Giuliani and Spitzer may represent competing parties, but they have the same personality, one that can’t be trusted with power.
Milhouse (f10fb3) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:19 amP #133:
I am a Second Amendment supporter, but the idea of releasing all federal gun offenders scares the hell out of me.
That’s amazing.
Are they saying there should be no federal laws but state laws are okay, or that there should be no laws at all?
Itsme (82f216) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:21 amDRJ,
Actually, I’m not a single issue voter. For instance, I couldn’t vote for pro-life Huckabee because he is a big government Republican with a lousy border policy.
I am not going to criticize those who vote based on 9/11, I just don’t agree with them. I understand that they don’t agree with Ron Paul’s positions on the war and prefer other candidates.
I have to say that there are things I like about Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter (the latter is a tad bit too big government for me, but I like the man). I simply can’t stomach any of the so-called “frontrunners”.
Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c) — 10/28/2007 @ 11:23 amIs the threat from terrorism really that big of a threat? Could the terrorists ever have destroyed as much of our wealth or ruined as many lives as our over reaction to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 has?
HOw difficult is it to be a terrorist? High School children seem to have little difficulty getting guns and shooting their schools up. What stops Islamic Terrorist from from getting their hands on some pipebombs and AK-47s and shooting up a crowded mall during Christmas shopping season? The Military in Iraq? Strong border defense? Gun Laws? I seriously doubt it.
Whats the worst that the terrorists could do? 9/11 can never happen again because people will fight back. The best they can hope for is to make a few car bombs and go on a few shooting sprees, but there is no way that the carnage that they could cause by these actions could compare to the number of people who die on our highways.
This fear of terrorism has become as irrational as the fear of global warming. I have come to believe that the media has intentionally cultivated these fears with the help of politicians to secure their own power. Neither Global Warming nor terrorism is that big of a threat compared to a large overbearing federal government.
Johnnyb (bb2e11) — 10/28/2007 @ 1:41 pmCivil liberty raises lots of difficult questions and few answers.
Because I’m all for the civil liberties of me and I care little about those who have forfeited theirs.
Can I have my cake and eat it too?
I don’t worry now under the Bush administration about people watching me on camera in the airport or around town and I don’t care if they sift through phone calls and emails because I have nothing to hide.
But if our leadership were to go towards a “thought police” state where sites like this one are monitored and participants censured… well, I’d be worried…. probably worried from a cell block with the rest of you all.
Will we continue to elect people who are good stewards of the public trust or will we need to elect someone who will dismantle this type of program thus putting ourselves at a different type of risk?
I loathe the IRS. Not because they take so much money, nope, I loathe the nanny state for that… but I hate the IRS because it is a lame petty, self serving, tin pot dictatorship inside a democracy.
I do their job for free. Actually I pay people to do the IRS’s job.
I collect payroll taxes, I figure out deductions, forms, withholdings etc. If I make a mistake doing all that work on their behalf I get penalties and interest added.
I get letters asking for $5,347.97 due immediately plus penalties and interest with almost no explanation of why beyond “our numbers do not match yours”. Their phone help system is nearly impenetrable and their local office is staffed by people who are there to point you to the forms.
I had a recent exchange with the IRS where I got a letter saying I owed them $18,000 including penalties and interest, the next day they sent me a check with a letter saying I’d overpaid and here was my money back less the penalty for having to issue a refund check for having doing my math wrong.
So leaving aside the bizzare feeling one gets from getting a demand letter and a refund check minus an overpayment fee on consectutive days I began a written exchange with the IRS about the money they say I owed. My accountant said his numbers added up and to send the IRS a certified letter telling them so.
I get a form letter back saying they will look into it and get back to me. I get a second letter after 60 days telling me it would take another 45 days to get back to me.
Then I get a letter that says due to my non-response to their correspondence a lien was to be placed on everything for the penalties etc.
So after voicemail hell I get a woman who tells me that they use a that particular form letter to let me know that they’d reviewed my case and still maintain my accountant was wrong. I found that baffling but said “OK, but I did respond and I have the return receipts to prove it”.
Very long story short I have to send in the $$ for the penalties and submit another letter asking that the penalties accrued due to and during my “non-response” be removed and refunded.
If they begin to run the NSA data mining like the IRS I won’t be Libertarian… I’ll be a happy anarchist.
The nanny state needs to go too.
Too many entitlements to even get into here.
Bottom line is that all of the Democratic candidates will increase taxes, grow the IRS, grow entitlements beyond that increase, and mismanage national security. They have promised to do so.
SteveG (4e16fc) — 10/28/2007 @ 2:43 pmA few of the Republican candidates at least want to fix the tax system, a few of them will be good on national security, a couple might make inroads in the nanny state… but I can’t name one who can hit 2 out of the 3…
I’m gonna go have a Corona (just to piss Buchanan and his weird protectionism off) out on the deck while mulling over the depressing slate of city council hopefuls I get to vote for in a couple of weeks time. Maybe one of them wants to spend more time on our gang problem than on hounding our local Congressperson to work on impeaching Bush throughout his last year in office, but I’m doubtful…
Johnnyb,
The reason terrorists aren’t shooting up shopping malls is precisely because it is harder for them to get into the country, harder for them to operate inside the country, and yes, because significant amounts of terrorist manpower are tied up fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
I’ve heard this ridiculous car crashes kill more people than terrorism argument ad nauseum and how terrorism really isn’t that costly. It’s nonsense.
Terrorism and the threat of it create a public demand for increased security that necessitates an increase in the power of the State – not that the State doesn’t try to milk it for all it’s worth. It creates fear of investing in countries plagued by it, increases the general publics anxiety which is not good for consumer spending. Car crashes don’t destroy public confidence in cars or transportation in general. Terrorism erodes public confidence in everything. Billions if not trillions are spent on increased security, a riskier economy, any number of things, or not spent at all as consumers hold onto their money for hope of more stable times or in anticipation of something bad happening that may not even have anything to do with terrorism, but terrorism helped put the idea in their minds.
Terrorism creates a siege mentality. Look at how militarized and touchy Israel is; the nation lives in a perpetual siege mentality. Look at how many trillions are being spent or not spent because of the fear of terrorism. There is no strategy of appeasement that has ever worked with Islamic terrorists. We have to fight them.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/28/2007 @ 4:18 pmSay, has anybody seen this Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul by Michael Medved? (emphasis mine)
I’ve listened to Medved’s show over the years. I’ve long admired his “Rain Man”-like grasp of facts and his ability to twist his debate opponents like pretzels. He also doesn’t freely toss charges; you can bet he’s done the research and can back up every syllable.
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 6:55 pmDo your OWN homework.
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
goldenequity (b5d065) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:09 pmNOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!
But does he address any of the questions brought up by Medved?
Paul (66339f) — 10/28/2007 @ 7:33 pm“Oh…and I don’t actually know much about Paul. Don’t really follow politics any more. Pretty turned off. ”
-TCO
Heh. Who’s the pussy now?
That’s intellectual laziness if I ever saw it, and the “I’m-Really-Very-Smart-But-Turned-Off-To-Politics” defense doesn’t hack it in this crowd. See… there are people in this crowd that aren’t turned off to politics, that follow politics obsessively, and that know more about Ron Paul than you can even pretend to care to imagine.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 10/29/2007 @ 8:31 am“WHAT I AM STATING IS THIS:
Plenty of people on this site use colorful language. Those who disagree with Patterico and the rest of the GOP hacks on this site get threatened with immediate banning. Those who play Patterico’s game AND WHO ALSO USE COLORFUL LANGUAGE AND INSULTS, either get a complete pass or AT MOST a mild admonishment.”
– King Dude/a BooNut-Christian X-XI
Yeah… you’re wrong. I disagree with Patterico and “the rest of the GOP hacks on this site” more often than not, with “colorful language” about 50% of the time; I’m a regular left-wing commenter by any standard, and I’ve NEVER been threatened with banning (I’m not even sure I’ve been admonished, because I try not to cuss at fellow commenters – have I ever been admonished, Patterico? I don’t remember… probably though: I’ve been in my share of pissing contests)
Also, as Psyberian said, Patterico “has told rabid [right-wing] commenters to chill, so to speak, on my behalf.”
In yo face, pseudonym-monger.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 10/29/2007 @ 8:48 amBesides the fact that Ron Paul seems to live an an alternate universe, his supporters are disturbing.
B Dubya (1472a4) — 10/29/2007 @ 9:11 amWhy do I keep catching the smell of Brown Shirts and Goebles when I read one of their reflexive responses to any form of criticism of Der Fuhrer, Herr Doktor Paul? It also reminds me of the “adoration” of the North Korean tools to The Leader….
Not many of them, but they do seem to swarm to blogs referring to their candidate.
It’s a faith.
chaos (9c54c6) — 10/29/2007 @ 9:51 amWell what a great thread this has turned out to be. I support Patterico’s challenges in the responses, he actually did a fine job defending his position, and I duly note he gave RP a fair shake in his lead.
SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/29/2007 @ 2:59 pmI appreciated some of what TCO said (my 1st post #67), but realize that too much harsh language is nearly always discouraged and often forbidden. I kind of lament that, as it makes sense that a person who is in real disagreement with the “groupthink” and has real points and makes them, may be frustrated and angry at what they encounter.
I realize though, it can get out of control rather quickly. So what we have is a propensity for people with other opinions to be a bit harsher than regulars, and that is a natural condition.
As far as the good point made about RP either being secretly wacky, or using the truthers support in a dishonest fashion, in the former one can speculate, and in the latter I don’t really find it a problem.
Nowadays we want our politicians to do our will, even if they are our “enemies”. Maybe they are smarter than that. Maybe they don’t think they should attack those that support them for whatever reason, and certainly in this case with RP, his fear of the nutters might be one of the larger factors in the way he handles things. He’s kind of short, he has a girlish voice, he’s rather up in age… he’s clearly in danger. lol
I have seen RP act in a fashion once or twice that made me think or exclaim, “What a nutjob”, but upon further viewing him, I realized it might be my own interpretation of his sound bite, that could be taken several ways.
Sometimes, I would say more often actually, Pelosi and Hillary appear to be nutjobs to me, as well as Kerry, only in a different fashion and form. If I addressed reporters’ in a sting “are they sane”, that would go agains their favor quite often of late.
I think RP has some strong beliefs and is kind to following kooks. On Lew Rockwell there are some doozies on occassion.
I suppose if RP totally nutters out one day on camera, many can say “I told you so”, but that day hasn’t come. Here’s my proof:
” YEAAAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH” HD
Pat (61): I’ll see what I can do. If you have to lower the hammer, I won’t protest it. (Please don’t take my behavior too hard either.)
Dude: Thanks for the kind thoughts. But I can’t defend cursing. (Not saying it’s wrong either. I’m sort of in a silicondoc state of agnostic quantum uncertainty on it. And actually Pat is pretty urbane about allowing me to get away with a small amount of it, he just doesn’t want me completely lowering the discussion or offending too many people who don’t care for those words.) And btw, I AM ON PAT’s side. I’m just way to the right of him and the squishy W lovers. And the only time I’ve seen Pat start to contest my content rather than intranet silliness was when I speculated on his being obsequious with a book review. (And it was an honest speculation…not purely a troll…but at least an idea I was exploring and possibly to some extent true.)
dude and Pat: The whole bet thing is silly. Stop girl-fighting, you all.
Chaos: You are a moron. You really need to bang your head against the bulkhead until great pain makes you start thinking critically. I mean THINK. Examine sides of issues. Come up with more than Rush/Hannity snippets. Disaggregate issues. Benchmark. Be analytical. (See no cursing, Pat. I gotta punish the stupid though. It’s for everyone’s good.)
155. Perhaps so. But at least you know the limitation, so you can weigh my statements with the lack of attention to detail in mind. Cheers–made me smile with your caricature of me.
TCO (79dafb) — 10/29/2007 @ 6:59 pmFEAR AND LOATHING OF THE RON PAUL REBELLION
Ron Paul’s success, sweeping across America like wildfire, is bringing the anti-semite baiters, racist-baiters, homophobe-baiters, xenophobe-baiters, theocracy-baiters, out of their closets.
To see why he such an object of fear and loathing, Google: Human Events Ron Paul Interview; and, PBS Ron Paul Interview.
J. Eugene Norton (578077) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:56 pm