Monday, November 26, 2007
|
|
Ron Paul Has Won
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
9:39 AM
|
|
He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries. But for Ron Paul’s quixotic bid for the White House, it’s “Mission Accomplished.”
Take a look at this from Sunday’s Washington Post. Not just the article but the killer packaging:
In the past few months, Ron Paul has dramatically raised the profile of libertarianism inside the Republican Party. My small-l libertarian friends seem more comfortable describing themselves as such, even though they’ll go out of their way to disassociate themselves from Ron Paul and the big-L kind.
Libertarianism in the GOP took a big hit on 9/11, and it’s slowly coming back, with Ron Paul as the catalyst. Its underlying ideals still have appeal well beyond the cramped confines of the LP. If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. Markos too brands himself a “libertarian Democrat,” though he’s never read Hayek and supports big government social programs.
Some campaigns can win big without ever coming close to winning an actual contest. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign signaled that Christian Conservatives had arrived in the GOP. Ron Paul is doing the same for libertarians. This is not a counterweight to the religious right per se, since Paul is identified as pro-life, but it does potentially open up a new army of activists on the right not primarily motivated by social/moral issues.
Not every losing single-issue candidate succeeds like this. Immigration-restrictionists still lack an outlet in the GOP, thanks to Tom Tancredo’s embarrassing tone-deafness as a candidate. Sam Brownback’s campaign had hoped to galvanize single-issue pro-lifers, but was hobbled by his dry persona. Duncan Hunter looks mostly like a campaign for Secretary of Defense.
Assuming Paul loses, where does small-l libertarianism go from here? His movement already did the smart thing by making peace with social conservatism. Libertarianism is no longer aligned with libertine stances on abortion and gay rights.
To become the ascendant ideology within the GOP, I suspect they’ll have to find a way to do the same thing on national security. The war on terror writ large is the one big thing social and economic conservatives agree on, and Ron Paul is vocally aligned against both.
Mainstream Republican libertarians might be gung-ho for Paul’s small-government idealism, they might adopt Glenn Reynoldsish skepticism of the homeland security bureaucracy, and even John McCain has lately made a thing of ripping the military-industrial complex, but there is no way — I repeat NO WAY — they will embrace Ron Paul if he continues to blame America for 9/11 and imply that America is acting illegally in defending itself around the globe. Even if they aren’t the biggest fans of the war, most people that are available for Ron Paul on the right are by temperament patriotic and will never vote for someone who sounds like Noam Chomsky.
As someone who routinely called myself a libertarian prior to 9/11, here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad. For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s writing right after 9/11 to see this ideal in its purest form; far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death.
The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you.
If they’re serious about defending their ideals and seeing to it that libertarianism survives more than a generation in actual practice, I don’t see any reason why libertarians couldn’t embrace a more conservative positioning on national security.
|
|
|
For many contributors to this site, the words "Ron Paul" and "Andrew Sullivan" are red meat and there will be many slashing comments to follow. Before that happens, I want to affirm the essence of Mr Ruffini's article. I want more freedom, not less, for me and law abiding Americans -- libertarianism. Foreign terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments ought to be destabilized and attacked, then we leave, and repeat when necessary -- realistic conservatism. I appreciate the best of Paul, Sullivan, and Conservatism. |
|
|
more accurate to call Paul a paleolibertarian than a libertarian. Paul holds positions outside of those of the Libertarian party and "Reason" magazine. There are a number of things wrong with this article, the worst offender being the lie that Paul blamed America for 9/11 when he was talking about bad foreign policy decisions that could produce blowback. Gillespie and Welch aren't helping Paul by writing crap. |
|
|
Although Ron Paul's opposition to the war and national security make his candidacy an emphatic NO WAY, I do think his presence as a libertarian republican has been healthy for the party. Personally, I welcome the libertarians in the party. I have a little of a libertarian bent myself. Just don't ask me to stop defending our national security, prosecuting the war on terror, or defending our borders. Limited government has a price that is worth paying, and prosecuting the war is a part of that price. Libertarians should remember that if they want their ideas to hold weight, they shouldn't bail out if they don't get everything they want from the party. They won't get anything by standing by like an armchair quarterback and let everyone else do the heavy lifting while they complain about how badly we do it. Help us to incrementally peel back some of the intrusive government involvement that harms our freedoms. |
|
Where do the libertarians come down on prostitution? I've read an article written by a Mr. Hochberg for the Ayn Rand Institute treating prostitution as a mere cash for service transaction.
The last time I checked, Libertarians oppose any intrusion by any government agency into the so-called "free market."
Please now, don't tell me there are some transactions you'd turn a blind eye to out of loyalty to some ideological "principle" which would leave many young women vulnerable to some of the most exploitative economic conditions, not to mention moral trepadations and physical abuse, if not outright murder and exposure to deadly STDs.
You do have a bottom line. Don't you? |
|
The last thing this country needs is an other big government Republican in charge. We need to promote freedom (and civil liberties) at home with an emphasis on less and smaller government. Dr. Paul is dead on about that. Ron Paul was pro life too, which fits the model of freedom provided it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul goes off the rails with foriegn policy, monetary policy and other issues, but if the GOP followed Paul's principals of smaller government and spending--we would not be in the mess we are in. Heck, Paul even rejected the House-Senate retirement plan, which puts congress outside of Social Security and gives them their salaries for life (plus lots of extras on top of that). |
|
Ron Paul is far different than the Blame America First liberals, who think capitalism is the biggest threat to humanity.
Ron blamed 9/11 on our continually flawed foreign policy of supporting tyrants (Explain to us how supporting Saddam Hussein and bin Laden promoted freedom? Supporting the lesser of two evils is good for us?)
I'll admit, trying to transform a culture of savagery into a modern democracy might be in our best interests, but how much can the American taxpayer afford? Let the savages tear themselves apart, and defend our borders. Selfish, yes, but nobody is stopping the private charities from doing their work overseas. If any decency exists over there, let it earn its' freedom the hard way, or escape to someplace where human rights are valued.
And don't forget, if there was no oil in the Middle East, it would be forgotten and neglected like Africa. |
|
when he blamed the U.S. for 9/11. I am sorry but I have heard this argument before from Sontag (because we are too conservative and not liberal enough), D'Souza (becuase we are too liberal and not conservative enough), and Michael Schuerer (because we are too pro Israel). It was BS then and it is BS now.
Of course we should learn from our mistakes. But when your country is attacked, you need to respond. Even the most isolationist libertarian agrees. |
|
|
Ron Paul is right about 9/11 and the war in Iraq. We can't continue this reckless foreign policy of ours without expecting some bad results. |
|
|
i'm not sure there is any label that suits someone who claims to be pro-life and pro-war other than paradoxical, or perhaps inconsistent. war can be justified -- though most, including the debacle we are in now, are not -- but i have never heard anyone claim to be "pro-war." |
|
"By embracing preemptive war, endless occupation, and forced injection of your version of American culture?"
Why are you so obsessed with Kosovo and the Clinton Administration's misadventures there?
|
|
with the sentiment of this statement.
"Why are you so obsessed with Kosovo and the Clinton Administration's misadventures there?"
Some of us were just as much against that as we were the Iraq invasion. What's interesting was at the time most neocons wanted to bomb Serbia. It doesn't matter whether is it Clinton doing it or Bush. As a foreign policy it stinks. |
|
Whenever I hear someone alleging that Paul is out of the "mainstream" I wonder: When did the Constitution fall out of the "mainstream"?
No other presidential candidate makes a greater effort to uphold his oath of office to "preserve and defend the Constitution", and yet the flag-waving my-country-right-or-wrong Americans seem to miss the fact that Paul is the last best chance to return America to a free and open society.
Compared to that, quibbling about "big L's" and "little l's" is counting angels on the head of a pin: Completely pointless.
|
|
|
The troops are NOT supporting Guiliani or Romney or Clinton or McCain. The Federal Elections commission has reported twoce now that troops have contributed more to Ron Paul than any candidate. Ron Paul is the only candidate saying GET OBL! |
|
|
There is nothing conservative about Liberaltarians " Anything Goes" philosohpy. Ron Paul did blame 911 on US Foreign Policy . |
|
Ron Paul did not blame the US for 9/11 but rather theorized that the misguided foreign policy of the United States for more than 50 years did lead to the inspiration for this blowback attach by these terrorist thugs. There is a big difference and you should be ashamed of spreading this misinformation. This concept is not hard to understand if you become aware of our interventionist polices.
Maintaining an interventionist foreign policy today only serves the needs of special interest concerns such as American oil companies and the other from the military industrial complex. Unless you are a major stockholder in one of these concerns then it does nothing for you. In respect to the national interest of the United States, all it does is make us look like the bullies of the world, which is why we are now loathed all around the planet and dramatically increase the national debt. In contrast to the era before WWII, when The United States had a noninterventionist foreign policy, most all countries and peoples admired the US. We can still have the strongest military in the world and have better national security with our forces here in the US rather than meddling in other people’s affairs all around the planet.
Moreover economic conservatives do not support this "War on Terror" because first, there is no such thing since terror is a tactic with an undefinable enemy besides it is driving us into bankruptcy!
Wake up people elect Dr Paul, stop US hegemony, bring the troops home and put them on our border!
David Douglas |
|
Liberty4All writes: "Ron blamed 9/11 on our continually flawed foreign policy of supporting tyrants "
And he's WRONG.
We supported South American dictators too. But we haven't been attacked by South American terrorists.
We supported African dictators too. But we weren't attacked by African terrorists.
We atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But we weren't attacked by Japanese terrorists seeking revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We have been attacked by MUSLIM terrorists. MUSLIM terrorists.
Ron Paul refuses to deal with the ideological and cultural causes of Islamic terrorism. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who called out the USSR as an "EVIL EMPIRE," Ron Paul doesn't seem to think there is anything particularly evil about the enemies we're fighting. No, to him they're just responding to decades of frustration over U.S. policies.
There are a lot of people in the world who are frustrated by U.S. policies. But the ones who keep attacking us keep getting their marching orders out of the Quran, Sura 9.
|
|
|
I turn a blind eye to all the fat@sses that are waddling out of the McDonalds I pass every day. They are actually killing themselves, same for smokers and some drinkers. Yes I think it would be swell if I could impose MY view of morality on everyone and create the perfect society. But that is not only quixotic but rather immoral in and of itself. I have a personal duty to be the best person I can be for myself and society, but I shouldn't be in the business of throwing everyone I don't agree with in jail because they do not fit my view of morality. I don't feel it is my duty as a citizen or as a voter to protect people from themselves, that is not government's job either, it is PERSONAL responsiblity. If you don't want to get STDs don't follow risky behaviors. There are other behaviors that also spread STDs such as infidelity and promiscuity but we don't prosecute them either. Infidelity is probably one of the biggest problems in society as it breaks up families. |
|
|
Ruffini's penultimate paragraph is exactly Ron Paul's foreign policy position. It is clear Ruffini, and many others, have not looked closely enough at Paul's proposed policy to recognize that he is in favor of strong national defense that does not lose sight of the objective, and then comes home when the objective is achieved. Ron Paul is just not in favor of a strong national offense. |
|
Any theory of Islamic terrorism has to also explain terrorist attacks against India. Bombing of trains in Mumbai last year killed a hundred people.
That is only the latest of a series of Muslim terrorist attacks against Hindus that has gone on for the last thousand years--hundreds of thousands of Hindus have been killed by Muslims, most of them before the United States even existed.
How does Ron Paul explain that? What "blowback" is responsible for that history of aggression by Arab Muslims?
|
|
|
|
"Suicide terrorism arises from specific provocations against relatively powerless peoples, among whom a few are tempted to become kamikazes. "
Oh really?
Tell me, how come is it that there are dictatorships all over the world, many of them have received U.S. aid and backing--yet the terrorists who keep attacking America all seem to be Arab MUSLIMS? Where are the Vietnamese terrorists and the South American terrorists and the Central American terrorists seeking revenge for U.S. backing of dictatorships in those lands?
And what "specific provocation against relatively powerless people" accounts for the killing of tens of thousands of Hindus in India by Muslim terrorists, attacks that have been going on for centuries now?
|
|
What "specific provocation against relatively powerless people" caused the Ayatollahs of Iran to put a fatwa on Salman Rushdie, calling for his death?
What "specific provocation against relatively powerless people" caused the Muslims in Europe to so threaten Ayaan Hirsi Ali's life that she was forced to flee to America?
What "specific provocation against relatively powerless people" caused the Muslims all over the world to launch riots and kill people because some newspaper in Denmark published cartoons lampooning Islam?
STOP DEFENDING THESE PEOPLE. THEIR CULTURE IS EVIL.
|
|
In India, the blow back is from the mass oppression of Muslims within India, mostly in the early years of the state. As one might remember India has a caste system and the Muslims are at the very bottom, even below the untouchables. Many Muslims in India became hateful over this and were radicalized, thus leading to blowback in India.
Likewise 9/11 was a terrorist response to our overblown presence in the Middle East, especially our continuing occupation of Saudi Arabia. These things don't happen in a vacuum, its not like Megatron the Al Qaeda leader just does this for fun, they have real motives too.
That said as a matter of self defense we must fight back. But at the same time it would be a good idea to take pause and see what the stakes are. Is it really worth it for us to colonize the middle east just so we can prop up some oil regimes?
I mean, common, even if they took over Iraq they would still sell the oil to the world commodity exchanges and our access would be exactly the same. I for one haven't noticed any benefit at the pump from this supposed oil war.... |
|
"For libertarian ideals to survive, they must be relentlessly defended against the likes of Islamic extremists... far from a religious crusade, ours was a war for secularism, tolerance, and free societies where gays don’t get stoned to death...The key principle is one of reciprocity. If you behave peacefully and embrace the norms of a libertarian society, we leave you alone. If you seek to destroy a free society, we will destroy you."
We can't afford anything close to this policy. The defense of "libertarian ideals" that you advocate is, plainly, too expensive. Whether it is also counter-productive (as Paul argues) is for the most part irrelevant. We simply can't spend trillions of dollars fighting for gay rights across the globe. |
|
|
Less interference in the Middle East would be a benefit for this country. Neither Israel nor any other country over there needs 'subsidizing' as it leads to detrimental after effects. Ron Paul has sense enough to recognize this problem. There is nothing 'conservative' about authoritarism unless you're a neocon nazi who gets their jollies telling other people what they can't do. More libertarianism would benefit this country! Ron Paul also knows this. Policies can (and should) be improved. We need to elect a candidate with intelligence enough to not spend our country into a hole over a war that needs to be finished. Saddam is dead so there shouldn't be any further reason to leave troops over there in Iraq. Let them sort out their own problems! We have enough problems over here without having to deal with everybody else's problems. |
|
jmklein writes: "In India, the blow back is from the mass oppression of Muslims within India, mostly in the early years of the state. "
You forgot about the Muslim obsession with Kashmir. Kashmir is rightfully Hindu, the very word derives from Hindu Indian culture. They won't let it go. They're obsessed with it, just like the Arabs in the Middle East can't accept even a few square miles of land to be run by Jews.
As for our occupation of Saudi Arabia, I think it's imperative that we learn to separate grievances from goals. As the 9-11 Commission pointed out, al-Qaeda can exploit many local grievances (such as the Saudi situation), but their GOALS go way beyond that. Osama bin Laden's goal is the restoration of the Islamic caliphate and the resurgence of a Muslim empire. He constantly laments the end of the caliphate in the late 1920s.
And that is something the U.S. cannot accept. Because such a caliphate would have to be imposed on top of Western nations like Spain and Israel. And that's unacceptable.
Your other point about oil requires a whole separate discussion. The U.S. did NOT invade Iraq for oil. Here's what the neo-conservatives said about Iraq before 9-11. Oil wasn't even mentioned. At least know what the original reasons were before putting up strawmen to attack.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
|
|
All you pro-war kids and "They attacked us, so we should attack everyone in the middle east" mentality reminds me of a school house fight, in pre-school. "Little Suzy kicked me, I'm going to beat her up and all her friends and people she might know"
Thankfully this mindset is going out faster then it came to power. It's completely unfounded and has been proven to be wrong in almost every sense. This war has been a disaster, period. The cost is going up, our dollar is going down and with people are ignorant as they are they dont seem to get that if the dollar fails we fail. That's it kids, game over.
RP isnt blaming America, he has said many times he blames foreign policy and the Neo Cons.
Regardless, I dont need or want a Govt in which I am supposed to get my identity from, I refuse to play party lines when they dont represent my views and I hate taxes (which pays for all this Govt. intrusions both domestically and abroad)
Right now by far Ron Paul is the lesser of the two evils running, and I dont see that changing anytime soon.
You keep pumping out the polarizing articles Clown hall, the more you do the more apparent your agenda. |
|
Ruffini writes: "If it’s possible to be known as a pro-life, pro-war, pro-wiretapping libertarian, then sign me up. "
No it is not, so quit pretending. The pro-life is ok, but being pro-war and pro-wiretapping completely disqualifies you. You are simply another sheep that believes the absurd notion that Iraq presented a threat to the US in 2003 and Iran does now. You are the person that PT Barnum was thinking of when he said: "There's a sucker born every minute". |
|
Correction: the Muslim Arab terrorists are part of the Jihad, but there are millions involved in Africa, (Against Christians in S. Sudan and Black Muslims in Darfur, Somalia, Libya,Eqypt,etc.)Asia(Indonesia, Phillipines and Malaysia,and South Asia,(already pointed out in India, also Kashmir, Afganistan, Iran,etc) who not Arabs.
This is a spiritual enemy (anti-Christ), who are economic Marxists, rising up all over the globe and will align with the secular humanists (anti-God)who are politically commununists and economic Marxists(China, Russia,N.Korea) Jihadistan stretches from Morroco to the Philiipines also known as the 10/40 window.The Bible decribes the current condition of the world in perfect detail because it is history in reverse (prophecy decribes events before they happen)for more:www.persecution.org
Hint Jews and Christians are not the problem here. |
|
The problem with this article is that Patrick does not seem to fully understand what libertarian ideals involve. Yes it is partially about liberty for the people within the governing nation. But it also means avoidance of interfering with the lives of others - even those in other nations.
I don't understand how Americans don't understand why average people in Iraq of Afghanistan hate us. OUR TROOPS ARE THERE KILLING THEIR PEOPLE. Our troops meddle in their affairs. I don't like conservative muslim culture (and for that matter, conservative evangilical culture either). But I have no right to tell them what to do. And they have a right to resist. I'd be pissed as hell if Chinese troops were in Canada, Mexico and the Caribean. I'd be even more pissed if they were in my town, telling me how to live, and how confucian ideals are so much better than capitalism or christianity.
End terrorism this way. STOP IMMIGRATION FROM TERRORIST RICH COUNTRIES. HECK, STOP ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND BE SELECTIVE. STOP INVADING OTHER NATIONS AND KILLING CIVILIANS LIKE ANIMALS. AND DESTROY ANY NATION THAT ATTACKS US (Noone will). We should also stop letting Israel dictate our policy to our economic chagrin and their political benefit. Israel is not a classical democracy (only the US seems to think that way - it's as much a democracy as Segregationist Southern USA was in the 1950s). They are a strong nation - no one can touch them. No need to sacrifice American lives for them. Unfortunately neo-cons, who hardly have US interests at heart (rather those interests are the military industrial complex, or Israel), don't agree. |
|
American foreign policy from Cater through this President was completely varying. Cater the appeaser of all things Jihad to G.W. the liberator of more Muslims than any human in history, and a little of everthing in between.regan pulled out of Lebanan, HW attacked Iraq,and Clinton had Arafat more often than any other leader at the White House. He also treated the Jihad as a crime problem and that got us where, pray tell?
Thomas Jefferson said we had to fight the war against the "Moselem man" and his "Jihad." Remember the shore of Tripoli, Ron Paulbots??? |
|
Quite some rhertorical legerdemain you use there in that article. On the one hand you nearly damn with faint praise the small government libertarianism that has for a long time now marked true American conservatism, but on the other you suggest that any such warming up to this old libertarianism MUST, quite inconsistently, be accompanied by a commitment to failed neocon foreign policy as it relates to the GWOT.
Sorry, no deal. Drudge reports on Pat Buchanan's new book, and apparently one of Buchanan's recommendations, if America is to be saved, is "a purge of neoconservative ideology and the 'Cakewalk crowd' from national power". He's right of course. (No pun intended.) |
|
SteveL writes:
We have been attacked by MUSLIM terrorists. MUSLIM terrorists. Ron Paul refuses to deal with the ideological and cultural causes of Islamic terrorism. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who called out the USSR as an "EVIL EMPIRE," Ron Paul doesn't seem to think there is anything particularly evil about the enemies we're fighting. No, to him they're just responding to decades of frustration over U.S. policies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SteveL,
Ron Paul doesn't need to call names. He is the only candidate that I know of who has a specific plan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. See Ron Paul's letters of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, and the same bill that he introduced in 2007. Bush has ignored Osama bin Laden in favor of preemptive war against a (relatively) random country.
Perhaps we have never had a candidate for president of the United States be so honest about blowback. However, blowback obviously is common knowledge in the CIA. The former head of the CIA bin Laden unit certainly agrees 100% with Ron Paul about blowback.
Just because Ron Paul doesn't namecall, doesn't want to invade countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, and has a sophisticated understanding of the motivations of the evildoers, doesn't mean that he considers them nice people.
When it comes to the Muslim world, maybe it's time to ratchet down the rhetoric. Look where that got us when we called Iran part of the axis of evil? Initially, they proposed peace. When that didn't work, they dumped their moderate president, Mohammad Khatami, and replaced him with the radical, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ron Paul would negotiate with Iran just as Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union. However, when it comes to Osama bin Laden, Ron Paul would use the Constitution to hire bounty hunters to capture or kill him. |
|
|
This is article is designed to influence the reading who doesn't know anything or very little about Paul. Townhall is a neocon website too. They don't like Paul and they keep saying he won't win. They are trying to shape the debate. Don't buy their tricks! Ron is going to win!! He is going to out raise all the Gop this quarter!! The neocons are scared because they have lost their party and without Paul they will lose the election too. |
|
Attacks in India between different ethnicities is not limited to Muslims against Hindus. In fact, over the last 20 years, the biggest loss of lives within India has between Maoists (mongoloid asiatics in Assam) vs the Government, Hindu Tamil groups associated with the Tigers of Sri Lanka (assasinated Rajiv Gandhi) and Sikh/Hindu violence (Golden Temple, Air India bombing, Assasiantion of Indira Gandhi). Neo-cons only look at one component of India intercommunal violence - and not all of it. Very selective.
P.S. In the last 20 years, more killed in violence in Europe - pop 700 mil(mainly balkan and not always muslim involved)than in India - pop 1.1 billion. |
|
I can not, will not, now or ever vote for anyone professing a supposed libertarian view:
1. Legalizing drugs
2. Isolationist Foreign Policy
3. Elimination of FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc.
4. Free & Open Immigration (no such thing as "illegal alien")
Patrich Buchanan (Reform Party) attempted to espouse many of these same positions. The largest support (2000 Presidential Race) were erroneous butterfly ballots in Broward ~ Miami Dade counties in Florida because the seniors were confused about the ballot!
The fact is - there are more differences between libertarian and republican issues than similarities. |
|
I'd rather Ron Paul get money from brothel owners than a bunch of lawyers and looters.
Your joke of a world will be over soon, the masses are waking up. And just for sh*ts and giggles go look at how the dollar is doing against other currencies. Try not to gasp.
|
|
|
Suicide bombings come from the teaching of Jihad. Soldiers standing and fighting in uniform against their enemy? Oh no, nothing so valiant as that. "Grandfather of Terror" Arafat came up with an ingenuious plan. Get children and teens to believe they would go to Paradise if they commit suicide to kill the Jews. And this is the man Clinton had to the White House more than any other world leader. "Palestians" still teach pre-schoolers the glory of Jihad on kiddie programs in Gaza! Nice, huh? |
|
|
Ron Paul won't do anything becuase he will not win. |
|
"[Ruffini's] heart is with libertarianism; but his head is with the Bush security state and current Republican coalition. When the two conflict, his brain hurts." http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/ 11/fighting-over-l.html
You can be libertarian and still promote an active defense of the country. Ruffini is right on that.
I agree we need to defend civil liberties at home, but I also know that you can be pro civil liberties and allow the NSA to listen in on cell phone conversations between Bin Laden and Zarqawi that happen to be routed through the US. Spying on American citizens is one thing, spying on our enemies overseas is something entirely different. We need some common sense in our decision making and less partisan politics over this. |
|
Kosovo is Muslim (part of the Balkin War)Everywhere there is violence, Communists or Jihadists are involved, everywhere. Denial (of Jihad in Jihadistan)is not going to cut it with the Republican Party. iraq was not a "random" country.
http://www.husseinandteror.com |
|
Since the main beef that many conservatives have with Ron Paul is the foreign policy, here is my analogy (poor as it may be) on the issue.
If a woman dresses very scantily and wanders around a large city in the middle of the night in the wrong part of town, and ends up being raped do we blame the woman or the assailant? Well we obviously blame the assailant because they were the ones committing violence. However, at the same time, we say to ourselves, "that woman needs to wise up a bit because she was asking for trouble." Now I know it doesn't fit perfectly but that is one way to view what led to 9/11.
We have been sticking our nose in the middle east for decades and our culture and values are very different than those countries. We try to "westernize" them, we help prop up certain governments that many of the people despise, and we base our troops on their soil. If China was to try that near us, we'd get pretty ticked off too and who knows what would happen.
I am no defender of some of the pond scum in the middle east. They have a violent streak that goes back centuries. But when we keep poking a stick in a hornets nest and end up getting stung, laying partial blame on our policies is not only correct but much needed. If we don't identify what causes their hatred of us, then we will be fighting with them for ages.
Now Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan as that was a logical defensive action. But Iraq? You would think that Congress would at least have to make a formal declaration of war to invade Iraq like Ron Paul proposed at the time, in keeping with the Constitution. I do not see how Congress can abrogate its responsibility to declare war and instead grant the President the power to declare war when the Constitution is quite explicit that declaring war is solely the responsibility of Congress.
|
|
|
The liberation of Japan, Germany and Eastern Europe all prove you are wrong and silly. |
|
|
So are you a Jew hater too. It's all we hear from the RP troops. |
|
What ever happend to Home of the Brave? I mean if you want to hide behind Guiliani's skirt that's fine with me. I'll take care of myself, thanks. |
|
"We have been attacked by MUSLIM terrorists. MUSLIM terrorists. Ron Paul refuses to deal with the ideological and cultural causes of Islamic terrorism."
who cares about the causes of their evil? that is an academic question, not a practical question.
yes, they are evil but that is irrelevant. the fact is that terrorism is a minor nuisance and not a major problem. how many people have died of terrorism? the probability of dying in a terrorist attack in the US is lower than the probability of being hit a lightning. to borrow 600 billion dollars to save oneself from terrorism is ridiculous. |
|
|
Soros or Iranian money behind Paul and I'll start to listen to talk about that eightball... |
|
"Several readers think the comparison of Judge Kathe Tuttman to Bernie Kerik is unfair. I'd just point out that Tuttman is why Romney can no longer go on the attack against Giuliani on Kerik; it's easy to picture during some future debate Giuliani responding to the jab, "Yes, my friend had ethical problems that he hid from me. I didn't look hard enough. But none of my appointees put a murderer back on the streets to kill again; no wrong decision I've made has ever cost an innocent couple their lives. How about yours, Governor?" It would be a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment." http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTZmYjEzN2I wZWJjNDhmYWFjMzJkYzEzOWQxODUxYjQ=
That would be quite the zinger, but even I, a strong Giuliani supporter, thinks it unfair. Mitt Romney could not have foreseen Tuttman releasing this murderer (unless she had some track record for this before her appointment) and certainly did not know a young couple would be murdered as a result. Nevertheless, it is a serious lesson to all GOP candidates. Judicial appointements are serious and can easily go wrong.
|
|
Good one. Yes, as a Ron Paul supporter I'm a rascist jew-hater. Happy?
Just don't tell my wife, who happens to be a member of the tribe. |
|
"Several readers think the comparison of Judge Kathe Tuttman to Bernie Kerik is unfair. I'd just point out that Tuttman is why Romney can no longer go on the attack against Giuliani on Kerik; it's easy to picture during some future debate Giuliani responding to the jab, "Yes, my friend had ethical problems that he hid from me. I didn't look hard enough. But none of my appointees put a murderer back on the streets to kill again; no wrong decision I've made has ever cost an innocent couple their lives. How about yours, Governor?" It would be a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment." http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTZmYjEzN2I wZWJjNDhmYWFjMzJkYzEzOWQxODUxYjQ=
That would be quite the zinger, but even I, a strong Giuliani supporter, thinks it unfair. Mitt Romney could not have foreseen Tuttman releasing this murderer (unless she had some track record for this before her appointment) and certainly did not know a young couple would be murdered as a result. Nevertheless, it is a serious lesson to all GOP candidates. Judicial appointments are serious and can easily go wrong.
|
|
|
America' middleastern policy has never been anything but a bastardized form of extortion! We just commited 20 billion to the Saudis in high tech military equipment, which caused AIPAC to threaten their hostages in congress, who have now agreed to give 30 billion to Israel over a 10 year period!(Already giving them 3.5 billion a year with no accountability.)......That was your TAX DOLLARS Neocons! Israel has over 300 nukes that they will not allow inspection of, yet they need our Tax Dollars for defense(While being the largest importer of military hardware in the world?)...........It's a SCAM!.....And congress goes along inorder to receive wealthy donations so they can be career politicians......CAVE DWELLERS THAT DRIVE TOYOTA PICK-UP TRUCKS ARE NOT A SERRIOUS THREAT TO AMERICA! |
|
SteveL, Looks like you've been reading too many Hindu hate sites. The BBC reports that over 50,000 riots have occured in India since 1947, and over 2 million killed, mostly Muslims and mostly by Hindu extremist organizations like RSS and VHP. This culminated in the horrible massacres of Muslims in the state of Gujarat, over 5000 killed as reported by private charities.
Muslims ruled India for over 800 years, and in 1947, 80% of India was Hindu. Does that point to large scale killings of Hindu's? Even the most orthodox Muslim ruler of India, Aurangzeb had a Hindu Brahmin as his prime minister.
These kind of lies are just propagated by these hindu racist organizations for gaining political power. |
|
"here’s how I would square the circle: Absolute freedom within our borders, for our own citizens; eternal vigilance and (when necessary) ruthlessness abroad."
As long as you are honest in aquiring money for your "ruthlessness abroad" campaigns. If politicians in Washington would honestly tax the people for this war, instead of conterfeiting new bills devaluing the dollar, then @ $29k per family; which is the going rate this week, Americans of all creeds would be shouting from the rooftops "Get em out!" |
|
Mr. Ruffini writes,
"He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries."
Congratulations on being the 1 millionth columnist to write this!!
If you keep telling yourself this you might start to believe it. But we know you really don't believe it.
Let's see how confident you are.
I am willing to bet $50.00 at 100 to 1 odds that Ron Paul will win at least one primary. I will bet you $50.00 at 1000 to 1 that he will win the Republican nomination.
Since you are so confident he won't this should be easy money for you.
Is that a pin dropping. |
|
"Libertarians should remember that if they want their ideas to hold weight, they shouldn't bail out if they don't get everything they want from the party."
My issue with the GOP over the last 12 years is that libertarians like me have gotten almost NOTHING that we've wanted from the party. Every single policy negotiation since 1996 has pushed our concerns aside. That's not acceptable. I don't want to have to abandon the GOP, but I cannot continue on the party's present course.
"Help us to incrementally peel back some of the intrusive government involvement that harms our freedoms."
I'll be happy to do that. All I ask is that you give us a deal that shows you are committed to making real changes to size and scope of government. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is an example of a compromise I can accept. The Prescription Drug Reform Act is an example of a compromise I cannot accept. |
|
|
That is my $50 vs your $5000.00 for a primary win and my $50 vs your $50,000.00 for the nomination. |
|
|
God help us when there are so many loons who actually think Ron Paul is the answer. Quite frankly he is more dangerous to this country and our security then --gast--Hilary. |
|
Excerpt
Why Romney needs to talk about his faith.
By Christopher Hitchens
Mitt Romney appears to think that, in respect of the bizarre beliefs of his church, he has come up with a twofer response. Not only can he decline to answer questions about these beliefs, he can also reap additional benefit from complaining that people keep asking him about them. In a video response of revolting sanctimony and self-pity last week, he responded to some allegedly anti-Mormon "push poll" calls in Iowa and New Hampshire by saying that it was "un-American" to bring up his "faith," especially "at a time when we are preparing for Thanksgiving," whatever that had to do with it. Additional interest is lent to this evasive tactic by the very well-argued case, made by Mark Hemingway in National Review Online, that it was actually the Romney campaign that had initiated the anti-Mormon push-poll calls in the first place! What's that? A threefer? Let me count the ways: You encourage the raising of an awkward question in such a way as to make it seem illegitimate. You then strike a hurt attitude and say that you are being persecuted for your faith. This, in turn, discourages other reporters from raising the question. Yes, that's the three-card monte.
REST IS ON SLATE |
|
That is your opinion sir. However, if you'd like to convince me as to how Dr. Paul is dangerous I'm all ears. |
|
peirces_girl said:
"the fact is that terrorism is a minor nuisance and not a major problem."
3,000+ dead is not enough for you? How many deaths, then, must we suffer to justify a response? 30,000? 300,000? 3,000,000?
Do you not realize that if the jihadists had it within their power to inflict these larger body counts, they would do so without hesitation?
I, too, am opposed to the partial, limited, nation-building "police-action" approach being taken in Iraq. It would be far more effective (and much cheaper) to pick a major sponsor of the Islamic jihad -- Iran, I think, is the best candidate -- and do to it exactly what we did to Japan in WWII. If we did that, and then told the rest of the Muslim nations of the world that we are prepared to do the same thing to them if we are attacked again, that would probably be the end of the jihad.
So, yes, I am opposed to the way we are handling things in Iraq, but to suggest that Islamic terrorism is a minor problem that does not need to be addressed militarily is nonsense. |
|
"God help us when there are so many loons who actually think Ron Paul is the answer. Quite frankly he is more dangerous to this country and our security then --gast--Hilary."
On the "loon" allegation: http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_18/article.html . (That last sentence should sting you.)
On who's more dangerous. (Written by Jonah Goldberg, of all people.): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JonahGoldberg/2007/11/2 1/ron_paul_isnt_that_scary
No sir, it is your and your fellow neocons' benightned commitment to Real Bad Ideas that is more dangerous to this country than anything else. Buchanan is right that the whole lot of you need to go.
|
|
"I'll be happy to do that. All I ask is that you give us a deal that shows you are committed to making real changes to size and scope of government. The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is an example of a compromise I can accept. The Prescription Drug Reform Act is an example of a compromise I cannot accept. "
I am a Republican and was against the Prescription Drug Plan from the beginning. You won't find me dragging my feet on that. I would love to get rid of it. While Bush was pushing that through, I was gritting my teeth. The more people like you in the party who aren't going anywhere, who will vote in the primaries and the generals and become involved, the better.
I'm looking at this as a center of gravity issue. I hope the center of gravity of the Republican party moves a bit more libertarian on many issues. If libertarians don't hang in there though, the center of gravity of the party by default will move away. I know it takes patience, but I see no other way. |
|
|
...Patrick wrote this article, not Hugh. I don't know what got you excited, but this article isn't about Romney or his religion either. |
|
Libertarian is to libertarian as Republican is to republican, and as Democrat is to democracy. There is nothing unique about the distinction. A "libertarian" is someone who places personal liberty as the highest goal of organized society, and who is skeptical of all efforts to infringe upon individual rights, regardless of their pretext (e.g., "the benefit of the many versus the rights of the few"). A "Libertarian" is a member of a political party that may or may not adequately express that founding ideal.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams was speaking to the Tories who were too comfortable with the status quo to oppose the colonial version of the PATRIOT Act, or to busy themselves establishing a new republic, but he could just as easily be calling out from the grave to the NeoCons who've become the Republican Party establishment.
When any society places a higher value on group security than individual rights, it has courted and will receive tyranny. "Police-state libertarianism" is an oxymoron.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
Join the Ron Paul Revolution:
RonPaul2008.com |
|
"3,000+ dead is not enough for you? How many deaths, then, must we suffer to justify a response? 30,000? 300,000? 3,000,000?"
i am not sure - we can decide about that as the time passes. counts in millions are obviously a cause for military action. 5000 a year not so much. and that is much worse than what we had so far.
what we had so far is - obviously - close to zero. it is not worth 10 billion dollars - let alone more than a trillion (and all of this assuming that wars actually decrease the probability of terroristic acts to zero - which is not at all obvious). we had terroristic attacks before and we didn't bankrupt ourselves over it. there are evil people in this world and bad things happen. as they say, you can't make the perfect enemy of the good.
|
|
"Do you not realize that if the jihadists had it within their power to inflict these larger body counts, they would do so without hesitation??"
they probably would but that is irrelevant. if they do we will nuke them. but you can't nuke them on counterfactual grounds.
"If we did that, and then told the rest of the Muslim nations of the world that we are prepared to do the same thing to them if we are attacked again, that would probably be the end of the jihad."
i actually have more sympathy to that proposal than to what we are currently doing. if we were the only nuclear power in the world that could be a rational option. but we are not - not any more - so that possibility is lost. if we now nuked anybody pre-emptively we would be nuked back by somebody else (china, russia or somebody of the sort). in short, it's a low cost option in principle but it's too much risk.
"So, yes, I am opposed to the way we are handling things in Iraq, but to suggest that Islamic terrorism is a minor problem that does not need to be addressed militarily is nonsense."
it is a comparatively minor problem - ten times more people die in traffic accidents every year than were killed on 9/11 yet we accept it as a fact of life and do not declare "war on traffic accidents". to borrow over a trillion dollars (not to mention thousands of dead and injured US solders) to reduce the probability - if at all - of a terrorist attack that would kill a few thousand people from 0.0001 to 0.00005 is insane. |
|
Thank you for the article, Patrick!
Don't "assume" Ron Paul can't/won't win the Republican nomination and presidential election.
He can, and as he facetiously commented to Jay Leno, there's a "risk I could win". :) |
|
"3,000+ dead is not enough for you? How many deaths, then, must we suffer to justify a response? 30,000? 300,000? 3,000,000?"
and, btw, this is not about 'justifying' anything to anybody. it is about what pays off and what doesn't - to us and by our own judgment. to borrow trillions of dollars to prevent a total of, say, 500 deaths a year is irrational. |
|
The 20 Jihadist attacks (that the FBI has let us know about) that have been twarted make it easy for you to call $600 billion too high a cost. Do you acturally believe we would NOT have had another attack without taking the fight to Jihadists in Iraq? If,you said yes, you are naive.
9/11 cost $2 trillion, the aversion of another one is priceless. You should thank the President and the troops for keeping you safe for the last 6 years. |
|
|
The real question politically is when all is said and done, where will the Paul voters go in the general election after he loses the nomination? He is an isolationist; supported by many kooks as well as good Americans who are tired of massive outlays in foreign policy of tax monies. Still, he is quirky and should remain as a back bencher in TX. in the House and be the gadfly he has become to keep pols honest on tax issues at least. His foreign policy is silly and inane in the facing of a worldwide Islamofascist threat and war. So if Pat's views are correct, how much will Libertarian views be assimilated in the GOP agenda and platform? Will those voters feel comfortable in supporting the nominated candidate? They better or we will all face a Democrat socialist pacifist. Neither Paul or any other Pub follower and leader wants that. So where will they split in the general? Will any support Dems? |
|
1500 Christians die or are imprisioned at the hands of Marxists and Jihadists every month. Minor problem to you? You live in a bubble and very naive.
http://www.persecution.org |
|
|
They use the fact that our losses have been relatively low and that we have not had a terrorist attack in our country since 9/11 to argue that the perceived threat from the Jihadists is overblown. They can thank the President and the troops for that fact. With you, I call the price we've paid a relative bargain. |
|
Very good question and that is the basic problem. If Paulbots go third party Hill/Rod will win just like Billy did because of Perot. I would much rather we take the fiscally sound policies of Paul and elevate him to a cabinet spot or something.
Jackshite please stop your foul language, didn't your mother teach you anything?
Roho please take your medication.
http://www.persecution.org |
|
"1500 Christians die or are imprisioned at the hands of Marxists and Jihadists every month. Minor problem to you? You live in a bubble and very naive."
no, i am just being pragmatic. we don't have the money to end the world's woes. if you feel like you must help then go there and fight, or give money or whatever. please don't drag all of us into it.
"Do you acturally believe we would NOT have had another attack without taking the fight to Jihadists in Iraq? If,you said yes, you are naive."
nobody is actually able to answer that question. so don't pretend that you have access to an alternative history of the world where you counted how many attacks happened when we didn't go to iraq.
the past is imperfect but still the best available predictor of the future. how many terrorist attacks happened on the american soil in the past 10 years? that is the best estimate we have of how many will happen in the next 10 years, give or take 1 or 2.
what you are doing is performing a wild speculation about how many would have happened based on no empirical data whatsoever. you are saying that history of the actual attacks is completely irrelevant, and that you are somehow able to estimate realistically how many of them would have happened had we not done this or that.
well, sorry, but i don't think you are omniscient. |
|
KGK writes:
"Where will Paul's support go?
[...]Will those voters feel comfortable in supporting the nominated candidate? They better or we will all face a Democrat socialist pacifist."
Monday, November, 26, 2007 1:43 PM
Here's your problem, KGB: Paul voters aren't going to vote for anyone else -- except as a protest vote. Most Paul supporter would probably sit the GE out, and let the chips fall where they may -- especially since there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the remaining candidates, from either major party. A sizeable portion of Paul voters would probably vote Democrat, to punish the NeoCon establishment for stiff-arming their candidate in the primaries (as this would double the impact of simply sitting it out or going third party). A minority would hold their noses, and vote for Rudy MittCainabee (who would probably end up with about 41% of the GE vote).
It's really this simple, though: if Paul gets the nomination, Republicans get the White House (which is the real reason that he is also getting attacked by Hillary shills on the left: they KNOW this). If you really don't want Hitlary in the White House, you should be voting Paul in the primary. The only way Paul loses to Hitlary is if the NeoClowns support a third party spoiler (a la John Anderson) in the GE (ironic, no?).
Just say "NO" to NeoClowns: RonPaul2008.com
|
|
by referring to me as a paid Romney shill. Romney would be in serious trouble if he was paying me to stump for him. You have obviously not read many of my posts.
You also get points for thinking up creative ways to use profanity by substituting other alpha-numeric symbols.
I support many of the things Dr. Paul is supporting. But he is not going to be the nominee and definitely will not win the general (even if he runs as a third party candidate).
And my favorite name for Dr. Paul supporters remains Ronulans, although the terms Paulistinians and Paul Bearers fit too. |
|
You're such a nice advertisement for Dr. Paul? Why don't you call headquarters and offer yourself to thme? How to win GOP friends and influence people?
My 2 adolescent children have more manners than you have in your toe.
|
|
But I know the One who is!
It's very easy to be dismissive of the successes. But it is a FACT 20 attacks have been twarted. Much of the intel came from Jihadists in Iraq. We can quite fighting them,(and follow the folly of the 90's) but they will never stop trying to destroy us. |
|
Even your name is a scatalogical phrase. While the libertarian side of me remains unoffended by your use of language, the puritanical forces at Town Hall will likely purge all your posts soon. They purged mine once because I used an alpha numeric tuned terms that is the equivalent to a donkey and the center of a doughnut to describe Hugh after he raised cancer scares about Fred Thompson.
But more power to you brother! You are a regular George Carlin, but without any humor or wit. |
|
|
Banned and comments deleted! I love it. Did a member of Redstate take over this site? That's the way to generate real consensus, isn't it? |
|
Just so people know, I have been a member of TownHall for nearly a year now, and have been reading it much longer. Nothing I have said is any different than anyone else has said.
Be watchful, obviously somebody with someone is trying to control the conversation. |
|
Banning people and then acting like you are still inviting discussion with them?
So, if people offend you, SEEHAWK, you will ban them? Even though you are calling for forcible medication on those you disagree with? |
|
JackofAll writes:
"Ahhh
Banned and comments deleted! I love it. Did a member of Redstate take over this site? That's the way to generate real consensus, isn't it?"
Monday, November, 26, 2007 2:34 PM
Well, Jack, you know the old sayin': "If you can't beat 'em, silence 'em!" Isn't that what Stalin used to say? |
|
to lure in all Ron Paul supporters to this article and ban them. Yep Redstate did this, too.
|
|
|
If it is a choice between Hillary and Guiliani what is the point? Like you, I have too much self respect to throw my vote away on either one of these candidates. |
|
The posts they deleted were about Ross Perot and about being right in hindsight.
But, apparently, they have no problem with trolls running free around here. I honestly thought Townhall.com was better than this? |
|
|
your name but your character comes shing through, Jack. Yes I always want to help the mentally ill, and I gave shock treatments to patients in the 70's. Was that you? |
|
"It's very easy to be dismissive of the successes."
i am not dismissive. i am just pointing out the fact that we had the same success in the past 200 years. terroristic attacks are rare. and that is partly due to the default vigilance (FBI etc).
"But it is a FACT 20 attacks have been twarted. Much of the intel came from Jihadists in Iraq. We can quite fighting them,(and follow the folly of the 90's) but they will never stop trying to destroy us."
it is not a fact. even general petraeus was reluctant to claim that iraq lowered the probability of attacks here - let alone prevented exactly 20 attacks.
in your calculation, you are assuming that before we went to iraq there was no such thing as a 'thwarted terrorist attack'. so you are comparing this 20 thwarted attacks to assumed zero attacks previously thwarted and saying that iraq saved 20.
but that is a mistake. terrorist attacks were routinely thwarted. in the alternative history of the world, in which we never went to iraq - there are also some thwarted attacks.
so the gain is nowhere close to 20. there is, perhaps, some gain. but that brings us back to the point that the cost of this gain is too big - in lives of american soldiers as well as national debt. |
|
Jack Shiite/JackofAll wrote,
----------------------
"Be watchful, obviously somebody with someone is trying to control the conversation."
----------------------
Jack, we have also bugged your home telephone, as well as your 1983 Ford pick-up truck.
P.S. Your neighbors have been complaining that the old station wagon you have on cinder blocks in your front yard is an eyesore.
And they're not thrilled about the way your dog soils their lawn, either !
Ha, ha, ha.
|
|
MY character comes shining through? You BAN people and delete their comments because they disagree with you or offended you, and you are worried about MY character?
There are characters all over TownHall.com I would LOVE to see go, but would I BAN them and DELETE their comments? No. That's what fascists do, not Americans. |
|
A site that will let people like One Hot Minute run around trolling threads, yet ban someone for disagreeing with them...
I am taking screenshots, folks. Not going to look very good for you. Go ahead and claim I said things I didn't. I have the screenshots to prove you are lying. |
|
You are making alot of assumptions, that do not hold water.I'm talking about the attacks directly related to Iraqi Jihadists.
Ricin attack twarted was from Iraqis in Mar 03
Ammam Jordan chemical attack 05'
See Deroy Murdock's piece at NRO on KSM/Waterboarding.
http://www.husseinandterror.com |
|
I am taking screenshots of what you are doing. It's not going to look real good for TownHall.com
Go ahead and claim I said things I didn't say. I have the screenshots to prove otherwise.
You can't even say I faked swearing in my last posts. :)
Go ahead, Townhall. Ban a long-time reader and user of this site. Obviously, you didn't learn a lesson from Redstate.com |
|
My name is Devil's Paintbrush. I've been off GOP for 14 months now. I can think clearly now and appreciate how important the Constitution is to America. Unfortunately, people call me a "kook" or "racist" for supporting an "isolationist" "gadfly" who also believes in the Constitution. Yes, it's hard thinking for myself but I'm a better person for it. I guess some people just need to feel Hannitized. I hope they will realize how destructive GOP is before it's too late for them. Maybe mandatory sentences will deter them from their self-destructive ways. But I doubt it. It's their children and grandchildren who will pay the price for their short-sightedness. As well as society as a whole. Sad really. |
|
|
...to ban a person? Anybody know? |
|
Yes,I flagged you as offensive because your are. That was long after I asked nicely that you stop vulgarity.
You will win no one to your side here, Jack. You cannot express yourself without profanity. It is childish and offensive, and yes, feel free to go to other sites and see if they put up with you. Do we have to sink to Kos Kids vulgar profanity? You are an angry, ugly person, And I am sorry for you and any one you may live with.
I do not flag all profanity used here by a long shot, only the angry hostile type.In fact I never have. It's just wrong. |
|
Really? I have screenshots to prove otherwise.
People. Start flagging these fascists as offensive. Obviously, they want to start a war. |
|
Ryan01 writes:
"Like you, I have too much self respect to throw my vote away on either one of these candidates."
Monday, November, 26, 2007 2:43 PM
I have no plans of wasting my vote. If the NeoClown censorship of Paul and his supporters continues, I have every intention of voting for whomever the Dems put up (even if it's Hitliary). I will not be a good boy, and keep working the fields on the NeoClown plantation. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I will NOT be abused and used, like some simpering, thick-headed victim of domestic violence. I've suffered too much for too long. No more!
If it's sooo important to the NeoClowns that Paul is blocked from nomination, I will make it even more important to me (and to whomever else I can persuade) to block the NeoClowns from another term in the WH. And THAT is the 2nd best use of my vote and voice of which I can conceive (nothing ends "conservative" collaboration with socialists quite like a Democrat in the Oval Office). |
|
|
What would happen if we did capture or kill bin Laden (who is most likely already dead)? If that's such a high priority, what are the gains, or other possible consequences? Is is just a sense of revenge, or is there a strategic component to it? If the latter, what is it? |
|
I have no idea. I didn't even know they banned people. I thought T.H might want to know when the Kosite language became constant in it's useage.
By the way,did you deploy a black helicoper to circle Jack's house or was that NEO?
|
|
|
The statement that you will vote for a Democrat exactly proves that the far Left and far Right converge in the back of the political sphere. I have said this for months and you prove it so thank you. |
|
|
Please email me if you want to discuss the matter. Chris.regal@townhall.com |
|
Kosite, huh? You just admitted that you don't flag people for using offensive language usually, but you did me. Why?
Because I was winning the argument.
People, there is no room for fascists like this on TownHall.com, flag their sorry buttons.
SEEHAWK, especially. |
|
|
I flagged you too, but only your two comments with profanity. In my lifetime on townhall.com, I think there have been around 5 comments that I have ever had to flag. I don't flag disagreement, only profanity and nastiness. Keep it cool and you will never get flagged by me no matter how we may disagree. |
|
I understand the sentiment and have thought of doing that myself. There is one problem that I see and that is to the elites of both parties either Hillary or Guiliani is acceptable to them. They are both big spending, warmongering, deformed in character power freaks-- just the sort of folks the elites like.
==========
Jack,
I'm sorry to see this. I hope to see you back. Just remember, the bulk of the people you argued with are lacking in critical thinking skills and the use of logic and reason. |
|
|
Yep, that was one of my guys. How did you know? |
|
Thanks, I appreciate that. Do realize that my response really wasn't unwarranted in the face of what SEEHAWK wrote. It is not usual for me to talk like that, but SEEHAWK deserved it in my opinion. He was suggesting medicating people he didn't agree with. Hitler did that, too, you know. Would you hesitate cursing at Hitler?
Don't support fascists, Alex, even when they seem to be on your side.
And I'll be back, don't worry. ;) |
|
|
Alex1 and I flagged you as offensive for foul language, that is Kos' trademark, isn't it? You cursed me out before there was an argument to be made. You really sound like a prarnoid schiz!I don't care even if you are profane,(many on this site are and I have never flagged them) but as Alex said it is your nastiness (and anger)that is not acceptable. You're living in denial if you don't see this. |
|
Small-l, big-government 'libertarians' hate us for our freedom and wealth.
That's why they trash the Bill of Rights, suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus, support torture, and stir the stinkpot of pre-emptive war against weak nations, spending huge sums of borrowed and printed money to destroy our currency. The lives lost along the way are but collateral damage.
|
|
SEEHAWK writes:
"The statement that you will vote for a Democrat exactly proves that the far Left and far Right converge in the back of the political sphere."
Monday, November, 26, 2007 3:16 PM
There's no such thing a "political sphere"; there is only a spectrum:
(0%Gov't)Freedom>>>>>>>>>>>>Slavery(100%Gov't)
Everything else is just a set of false alternatives. The left/right paradigm asks us to choose the design of our cages, without offering the option of escaping them. "What color would you like your shackles, sir, red or blue?" It's complete BS.
The only difference between Hitlary and Rudy MittCainabee is that Hitlary will inspire opposition from the so-called right, while [place name of NeoClown waterboy here] will not. The program will not change, only the degree of resistance to it among the duped masses will change. If Hitlary will invigorate the slumbering "right," then bring her on.
Harbor no illusions, though, the only vote for a reversal of the statist march toward totalitarianism is Ron Paul. Any other vote is a "wasted vote" -- unless you're a socialist. Are you a socialist, seehawk? |
|
I pray to you:
Lead us into a collapsed dollar and another Great Depression by means of a huge empire, ever-expanding fiat currency, and unpayable debt, so that you can deliver us into the new currency and government control over the economy, O Great Ones. When we have lost our homes and are standing in bread lines, we will beg for it, demand it!
Keep us mesmerized with foreign wars, evil enemies, imminent global catastrophe, threats of plagues, and news of rich sluts' every foible. We will never see the real transformation coming, and we will happily pay for our own demise as you impoverish us and kill off businesses to pay for our salvation from each new threat.
If any man should come forth drawing our attention to inconvenient facts, he must be smeared, ridiculed, misrepresented, and slandered to keep we, the unwashed uninformed, from learning for ourselves, and we will be glad to ignore him, for it is easy to avoid knowledge and comfortably warm to laugh with the crowd, so that we can dismiss the disturbing message. No one has the right to disturb out peaceful comfort; they must be silenced.
And we, who had the means to know, but willfully avoided knowledge so that we could fit comfortably into the group, will richly deserve what we are surely going to get as we assume our assigned places in the New World Order.
And finally, we give thanks for your wisdom, in telling us what to think, so that we don't have to learn the lessons of history for ourselves.
Except by learning them the hard way.
Amen.
No group of religious fanatics can threaten me anywhere near as much as fascists undermining my wealth and liberty here at home. |
|
As you see, the far Left and the far Right meet in the back of the political sphere. Also they have no sense of humor and can't tell a joke from a serious threat? "go take your medicine" is said here all the time in jest to those who get wordy or worked up.
|
|
The political spectrum is a sphere, sir. Read Dr. David Noebels annalysis of worldviews for more.
I have been to Africa 8 times, where are you from? |
|
"He won’t win the nomination. He won’t win any primaries."
Seriously, what's the deal with these longshot-canards: you can't deal with the first popular candidate we've had since JFK?
If he doesn't "win" "any" "primaries", it's hard evidence that we're living in a neo-Soviet-Union. |
|
Ah, yes, and telling people they should be forcefully medicated is less offensive... I see. So, if YOU say it, it isn't offensive. If I say it, it is offensive and deserving of a ban.
But, hey, I am here posting on another name, but you are calling me "paranoid?" Duh! I was banned and my comments were deleted, including the comments that were NOT "foul language." More than a dozen comments gone. I am pointing this out and you are saying I am "just paranoid?" Do you want to forcibly medicate me, too, SEEHAWK? Tell you what, give it a try and see how "kosite" I am when it comes to the second amendment.
You know who invented the condition, "paranoid?" Hitler. Again, you have something in common with a fascist.
Obviously, it takes more than just flagging someone as offensive to have all their posts removed and them banned.
You, know, being a conservative, I have NEVER flagged anyone for "offensive speech." So, I bet you enjoy McCain-Feingold and Hate Speech crime bills as well? And you call others liberals? |
|
"What would happen if we did capture or kill bin Laden (who is most likely already dead)? If that's such a high priority, what are the gains, or other possible consequences? Is is just a sense of revenge, or is there a strategic component to it? If the latter, what is it?"
i am not sure that there are some big strategic consequences. so i guess it is a sense of revenge. which is a perfectly legitimate reason in my book. |
|
BTW, I have the screenshots to prove you are lying.
The truth always wins in the end. |
|
SEEHAWK,
Am I to understand that you are ceding the debate, with your flimsy appeal to authority, and by shifting the topic from politics to geography? |
|
Ron Paul was a (L)libertarian. How does someone call themselves (L)libertarian when they consistently vote with democrats against free trade? How does someone call themselves (L)libertarian when they discovered a new found love for pork?
Why would you vote for a candidate who willingly takes money from white supremacists?
Why is Ron Paul so willing to sit down with truther loon alex jones but ducks Glenn Beck?
|
|
AA4P,
I reckon that depends on the party you belong to. You nailed it, far too many are caught up in the old left/right paradigm. Today, that has as much meaning as words like "racist", "nazi", "antisemite" and other terms of endearment used by people who either intend to avoid having to make a serious argument, or by people who haven't a clue of what the words mean. I'll add this as well. Far too many modern day "conservatives" base their beliefs on what some fool of a talk show host says.
Seahawk,
I read your reply on the other thread and instead of replying there I'll just say that most of the above applies to you. You are stuck in an ideological box that you can't escape from nor want to even if you could. Anyone who doesn't agree with you on this war is a socialist. That is totally ridiculous in view of the number of people who could be called paleoconservatives that were against from the get go, long before the Left started complaining. This sort of collectivist group think I used to regard as a trait of the Left. I can see that when the neoconservatives came over here that that was some of the unwanted baggage they brought with them. |
|
The Libertards can attempt to wrest a place at the Republican table, but frankly if they even give off the scent of being anything like the PaulTards, there will be no room at the Republican Inn for them.
None.
|
|
"Why is Ron Paul so willing to sit down with truther loon alex jones but ducks Glenn Beck?"
I suspect it has to do more with Beck than Paul. Paul has had to deal with such pleasant people as Bill O'Reilly. One thing I do know. Paul isn't afraid of Beck, but Beck is afraid of Paul supporters.
=========
Here you go, Seahawk. RPisaTerrorist is a lot worse than Jack, now turn him in!
As for me I will never hit the whine button even being threaten like one jerk on this board did one time.
|
|
AfricanAmerican4Paul,you are the one with the geogrphically name in your moniker. I was serious because I have been there 8 times and love the people, which you obviously are not one of.No love here.
My appeal to authority as in the FBI when I forward the threat from JackS toward my person?
You guys all need to chill. |
|
|
I already turned RPisaTerrorist in. He can take his tripe elsewhere. My guess is he is a Ron Pauler posing as someone else. |
|
jdkchem writes:
[1]"How does someone call themselves (L)libertarian when they consistently vote with democrats against free trade?
[2]Why is Ron Paul so willing to sit down with truther loon alex jones but ducks Glenn Beck?"
Monday, November, 26, 2007 4:01 PM
1. Ron Paul opposes Managed Trade, which is what FTAA, NAFTA, and NAU are. If it were really "FREE," it wouldn't require a huge multinational bureaucracy, now would it? You probably believe that "FREE" healthcare is really free, too.
2. Glenn Beck has an ax to grind with Dr Paul. As much as I'm sure that Glenn could use the ratings boost that an appearance by Dr Paul would provide, why should he unnecessarily enter a forum where a sworn enemy controls the microphone? If Glenn so desperately needs the ratings boost, maybe he should take a Paxil, then ask again. |
|
Well so glad you are a big tough guy.Hang out there with the nice folks supporting Paul. "Enjoy" as they say!
I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a socialist and I apologized to you on the other thread if I got you in the wrong box.
You call me, mad? ha
I've studied worldviews for a long time(since 1999) taught and studied the Bible for 20years,have an RN and been overseas 20+ times to help people. Have three exceptional children and been married to one man who doesn't ever curse for 25 years. But my world's view is very narrow and I'm sure you'll show me the way. |
|
|
I think you are correct after reading that one post where he wanted to run over me and another poster. If that person is a Paul supporter he/she isn't being helpful. There is no need to portray Paul detractors as narrown minded, ignorant bigots. All one has to do is to point out some of the crap posted on this thread and others speaking foul of Paul. Their own words are excellent weapons. |
|
|
|
"But my world's view is very narrow and I'm sure you'll show me the way."
I don't need to. You do well enough without any help from me. |
|
|
Gawd! Those posters over there are as bad as some of the ones here. I was saying long before Michael Savage ever saw a microphone that liberalism was a form of insanity. I'll add neoconservatism as well. Both are from the Left. |
|
losts of cursing, kind of sounds like hell on earth in Paulbot World.
Enjoy! |
|
|
Here we go again to the JEW hating words. Is this what RP stands for? |
|
|
Mr. Ruffini's pragmatism toward the ascendant libertarian ethos in the GOP is a refreshing voice in the crowd. I appreciate his speculation on how to align the recent popular resurfacing of Constitutional freedom with the current GOP bent toward the US protecting their foreign interests around the world. However, I disagree with Mr. Ruffini that allowing for the protection of foreign interests through troops deployed overseas is the best answer to assimilating a desire for strong national defense into a truly conservative platform. I think the military protection of our national borders as well as the establishment of strong military presences in our domestic centers of commerce will actually accomplish a strong national defense, while removing us from foreign military entanglements as a nation. If Big Oil wants to wage war to protect their resources, why not raise and pay for their own army rather than making the US tax base ensure these multi-national entities—far more wealthy than any government—can do business overseas, all the while international financers reap guaranteed interest payments? Private security contractors make exorbitantly more than US soldiers and are deployed without the pretense that they are somehow engaged in combat for the high principles. The point is that if we were to pull troops out of strategic economic targets—such as the Middle East—free market forces would replace them. Similarly, the extrication of US forces could be much more easily accomplished in areas not in the throes of an open armed conflict, such as South Korea. |
|
|
The reason I suspected a Ron Paul supporter is because JackShiite was banned, presumably for profanity. I figure that some Ron Pauler wanted to test whether vulgarity with an anti-Paul flavor would pass where a pro-Paul profanity didn't. With my comment and flag, I wanted to make it clear that it wouldn't pass with me, regardless of viewpoint. |
|
Quite aside from all this discourse on the principle of unifying the conservative platform is the one unavoidable fact that many who value a strong national defense seem to ignore: we cannot afford our current deployment strategy.
To illustrate, I personally like the idea of charitably contributing to good causes. I gave for the Katrina relief, I support several charities and am a faithful giver to my church. However, even if I thought every orphan in the US deserved a new Mac to help with schooling, I could not afford to pay for that, nor would it be wise for me to do so in my current financial situation. If I did by chance happen to obtain a $100 million loan to pay for this initiative by—let’s say—having my wife co-sign without her knowledge, how would I then explain to my wife when the first payment came due? If I were like our Congress, I would borrow more money to make the loan payment and then play down where our money was going; I might possibly highlight to my wife how nice the shiny new blender I got her for Christmas was. Eventually however, I would have to either 1) come up with hard cash to actually pay for my idealism or; 2) I would have to continue borrowing upon borrowing or 3) I would have to go bankrupt. It’s time that we as conservatives highlighted a fiscally responsible platform that emphasizes a strong national defense but that will not eventually destroy our greatest international bargaining chip: that of a sound, free-trading economic policy. If we default on our loans, then we will not be able to maintain even the military necessary to defend our own borders. We will then truly be at the mercy of whatever force COULD afford to defend our borders: whether state or local governments or any other feudal force that seemed to offer protection. |
|
|
Kudos to Mr. Ruffini for raising the question: perhaps more dialogue is needed to come up with a few more viable solutions to the unification issue that will maintain the essential ideals of libertarianism, while facilitating a pragmatic assimilation of the platform within the GOP. Perhaps a parallel effort could be made within the Democratic camp? |
|
SEEHAWK writes:
[1]"AfricanAmerican4Paul,you are the one with the geogrphically name in your moniker. I was serious because I have been there 8 times and love the people, which you obviously are not one of.No love here.
[2]My appeal to authority as in the FBI when I forward the threat from JackS toward my person?
You guys all need to chill."
Monday, November, 26, 2007 4:19 PM
1. What are you saying here? You love my people -- except for me, because I disagree with you? Black people are okay with you, as long as they're on the other side of the Atlantic, where they pose no threat to the domestic balance of power? Or are you suggesting that I'm really an "uncle Tom," because I "sound white" to you, or because I'm a black conservative? Spit it out, racist.
You were the one getting personal with me. I didn't ask if you lived in Seattle or were illiterate, because of your handle. This is a political blog, NOT a singles chatroom. What's next? You gonna ask me to meet you at the mall? Lose the crush.
2. The only "threat" I saw Jack make "against" you was to defend himself, if YOU attacked him. Is a promise of self-defense now considered a "pre-emptive threat"? That's a chicken-hawk for ya. |
|
|
thank you for telling it like it is |
|
|
And you are a demon liar, be gone in the name of Jesus! |
|
Some guys just never get it. So...again:
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, as Bush has publically admitted.
Osama was supported by many in Afghanistan, which RON PAUL voted to invade.(but not to nation-build)
PATRICK, since when is 'defending' our country involve attacking a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11?????
RON PAUL 2008
DROP A C-NOTE FOR THE TEA PARTY DEC. 16
|
|
Dustoff-507 writes:
[nothing worth repeating]
Monday, November, 26, 2007 4:45 PM
You NeoClowns are REALLY getting desperate, aren't you? What would you Troksyite Republicans like to be called, now? Should we just drop the pretense, and begin referring to you Replicans (looks like a Republican, but isn't) or Republi-cons ("cons" as in "con artists")? How about "Hegelians"?
I'll await your memo. Until then, it'll remain "NeoClowns."
|
|
what? keep up the fight bro.
are you drinking the ronpaul flavored coolaid now, too? it is just like the twoofer virus MM was talking about. i hope the fbi sees this threat before it is too late.
come and join us at hotair.com that will cure it |
|
husseinandterror.com
Deroy Murdock has a good article at NRO about KSM. You just can't put these Jihadists into nations or states.It is a war against Jihadistan.And yes,they are anti-Christ.(and Jews) |
|
Thank goodness we have liberated Iraq!!!
Let the liberated masses be thankful for our great act of benevolence and stop blowing our asses up over it. The US is NOT ENGAGED IN NATION BUILDING, neither are we POLICING THE WORLD!!! It just seeeeems that way to the lesser intelligent hick-forces in the Ron Paul brigade. Bush didn't invade Iraq, he libertated it. See the difference...its all in the wording. |
|
Is bound to our monetary policy. Research the the term "dollar hegemony."
In brief, Nixon's closing of the gold window on 15 August 1971 made us dependent on Saudi influence within OPEC to establish the dollar as the unit of account for international petroleum transactions. The U.S. military keeps the oil flowing, as Saddam discovered in 1991. Imperialistic nation building, wars of aggression and parasitic inflation are implied in our profligate, counterfeit monetary scheme. Study Rome.
I find Dr. Paul's platform far less quixotic than the war-mongering, Israel-worshipping GOP "top tier" who fancy America continuing in its role of World Cop despite a collapsing currency. But I wouldn't want mere mathematics to interfere with their faux-patriotic bluster and chest thumping.
Ron Paul's plan to secure the Mexican border and bring much of our military home would make me feel far more secure than the neocon m.o. of stretching our fighting forces thin while grinding them down. Imagine if China or Russia were to engage us in a conventional conflict in our current condition.
Finally, Dr. No voted yeah to the invasion of Afghanistan, so he is not a peacenik. But he does consult the constitution, first. |
|
thanks for standing up against this psycho. I might have been wrong about you and Alex. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes us angry enough to swear like I did.
I mean, threatening violence against us? RPisfreak, you are a mental case.
I've flagged him several times now and he just keeps posting. What's the deal?
I have been a longtime poster of Townhall.com for nearly a year (at least) under JackShiite, but this nutjob just keeps posting? Oh, that's right, One Hot Minute keeps posting too, apparently they have friends at townhall.
Well, thanks for trying at least, guys. What's fair is fair. I do hope I get my name back, though, I hate posting under this name. People loved the name JackShiite.
Anyway, this thread has taken a shiite, so I am off to something more productive. |
|
RPisaTerrorist writes:
"seehawk
what? keep up the fight bro."
Pretty sad when even SEEHAWK wants nothing to do with people like you!
|
|
|
I have never defended Ron Paul's position. Cool it with the profanity and bomb-thrower language. By the way, I still think your anti-Paul rant is phony and I think that SEEHAWK agrees with me too. |
|
like "SEEHAWK" is vying for the Dumbest TH Poster Award.
AfricanAmericans4Paul - outstanding posts, particularly the one at 4:51 PM. I wouldn't want to meet up with SEEHAWK either, in keeping with my philosophy to limit the number of sub-room temp IQ folks I have to deal with.
"You gonna ask me to meet you at the mall? Lose the crush."
--LMAO! It doesn't get much better than that.
|
|
We have gathered many thousands of Jihadists in Iraq and they have gone to receive their eternal reward. I don't know what you think they would have been doing the last 6 years had they not been otherwise engaged.Buty ou obviously didn't read the article or the website.
And at the risk of stirring up the demons again, Ron Paul will not win.
He's got a great cheering section though, ya'll go change the world now, ya'll hear!
yeah right. |
|
|
|
The Republican party, at least for the next few years will be the party of hawks. If libertarians in the party can't handle that, then they can try their luck with the socialist doves.
The Republican party is the party of a less government and less intervention in the economy, the party of lower taxes and free trade, as well as being the federalist party which believes in states' rights. Heck, most of us even support legal immigration and amnesty if we can reliably shut down the flood of illegals coming over our southern border. All this, while being socially conservative.
The Democrat party is the party of more government programs and more intervention and taxes on the economy, is anti-free trade, wishes to impose its libertarian social views on the entire nation through the unelected judiciary, and support unregulated immigration.
If your a libertarian, we (the Republicans) offer you so much more than the Democrats. All we ask is that you keep your libertarian social policy in your state, and let us defend this nation.
If we can make this ideological compromise, both conservatives and libertarians can prosper, and keep the authoritarian populists and liberals at bay. |
|
thanks, I'll notify my friends and family in Ghana that you gave me an award.
Such a nice bunch of folks!
Jack, glad you don't think I'm a nazi facist censor monger anymore, sympathies to your wife there for me. You are one hot/cold dude. |
|
For a candidate who has "no chance to win," Ron Paul sure draws a lot of detractor trolls who continue to tell everyone that he has no chance to win.
SEEHAWK - if Paul really has no shot, then why do you feel the need to spend hours of your day trolling Paul threads? If he's such a joke, why spend your precious time telling everyone that? Or maybe you heard that Paul is the only GOP candidate with any momentum who's running an economically solvent campaign. Maybe you fear him because you know he does have a chance... and a pretty good one at that.
|
|
al writes:
"AfricanAmericans4Paul - outstanding posts"
Monday, November, 26, 2007 5:40 PM
Thanks, al. Just trying to carry my share of the message. |
|
|
|
Whoa now boys!! Settle down now.
Things are getting mighty hot over here in "conservative" land, aren't they? Everyone is all in a high and mighty dudgeon over Ron Paul and his Paultards, Paulties, kooks, isolationists, and terrorists.
I have noticed one recurrent theme I would like to address, and that is the notion that libertarianism has no answer for Islamic terrorism and that Ron Paul is wrong about the 9-11 attacks. Although Paul has talked about blowback and bad foreign policy, I think that he has missed an opportunity to explain that Constitutional libertarianism really did have an answer for 9-11.
In fact, strict adherence to the unalienable rights in the Constitution would have prevented the attacks from occurring in the first place - certainly from occurring in the devastating way they did.
I have made this point repeatedly in the pages of the Washington Times, most notably "Neocon War Dance," but to make that long story short.
We Americans have the right to keep and bear arms - period. The Constitution doesn't list any exceptions, so I don't know why there should be any now. Large gatherings of people were targets then, just as they are now. They had bombs then, just as they do now. Disarmed environments were vulnerable then, just like now (Va. Tech.)
The hijackings could have never happened the way they did if every single person on those planes were not disarmed. If you aren't getting this, then think of Todd Beamer and his cohorts, fighting terrorists with books, shoes, and laptops. They shouldn't have had to do that. They were Americans; they should have been able to be armed.
The lesson is that freedom is important, even out at the fringes where you might think that limiting it makes sense. No. That is the true lesson of 9-11, the one that no one talks about: The more vulnerable the situation, the more individual freedom must be honored, not restricted.
|
|
Now a message to those who think that there is some answer, some path, other than that offered by Dr. Paul. You're wrong - all the other paths have already been tried and found wanting. The reason is that all those paths were just disguised to look different, but they all really led the same place - statism. Statists are addicted to government; they see it, whether they realize it or not, as the solver of all problems and the preventer (or mitigator) of all evils.
Actually, statism is how evil works. The devil loves to get you worked up for God and Country. Every new front you open up in the "War on Terror" is a blessed moment for Satan, because it means more destruction and death are on the way. Anyone who questions the farflung military operations and invasions of our once-great republic is called an "isolationist." Satan cackles with joy every time he hears it, I don't doubt.
Please, realize that tinkering around the edges and invoking Reagan isn't going to get it done anymore. We have problems that have been festering for over a hundred years to deal with - problems that Reagan, may he Rest in Peace, never touched the surface of, like the Fed and the regime of irredeemable currency it has spawned, the Drug War which has destabilized neighbors, communities, and our court system, and plenty more issues besides.
|
|
It's not kiddie time anymore; America can't afford any more navelgazing like "getting the conservative message out" or to erect T. Blankley's big- tent conservatism. It's high time you guys realized that lack of commitment to individual freedom is what is harming the Republican Party and America. Since you are too addicted to government to set down the pipe and honor the Constitution, we Paultards are simply doing a much-needed intervention.
Please remember, there can be no virtue without free will, and we can not bring freedom to others by force, because freedom is a lack of coercion, and one cannot coerce a lack of coercion. C'mon you all, wake up!!!
This message written by Ron Paul spambot number 100100100101010101001
|
|
Look, phony or not, do you want to influence the dialogue or do you just want to be a bomb thrower? In my view, you are doing nothing at all to help. The power of our ideas are in their ability to influence. It is not being sissy to keep your weapons sharp. Your accusatory words have greater effect when they are deliberate and pointed, not when they are indiscriminate smoke.
Let me be clear. I have not, would not, and could not ever support, or sympathize with Ron Paul's position on this war in any way, shape, or form. Period. That said, remember that the word terrorist also has a special meaning. They are real people who really want to kill you, me, and Ron Paul. So unless you have some intelligence that I am unaware of, then I don't know where you get off calling Ron Paul a terrorist.
This is not a game to me. I want our guys to wipe the Jihadists out and I have zero confidence in Ron Paul to do that, not because he is a terrorist, but because I don't trust his judgement based upon the position he has taken. |
|
Set the pipe down. Jesus does not want us to take over the world. You can't serve Jesus while you're a slave to government, ok?
Tom deSabla
spambot unit out.
100101010101001001010!!!!
(our code is unbreakable, please waste time on it) |
|
thanks for a voice of true reason in this sea storm of emotion. You are right, right, right.
AA4Ron's comments were to low to stoop down and answer.
WW'sHero: So will these emotional Ron supporters, give Her Thighness (Hillary) the Presidential powers to conviscate our weapons by sitting home if their candidate does not win? I will support any Republican nominee, period. But I'm just stupid. |
|
wrong! glenn beck said ronniepaul and the paultards are terrorists. miechal medved said they hate jews and isreal. did you not read about rupaul printing his own money out of gold and silver!?
what more intelligence do you need? the paulestinians are jew-hating anarchist terrorists. glenn beck said the military should be used against them and i agree with him.
domestic terrorism is just as much a threat as the islamic terrorists. rupauls support comes from the branch dividians like mona charen said right here on TH.
if you can not recognize a threat right before your eyes i don't now what to do for you. |
|
Excuse me, but I keep hearing people like Hannity and others hounding Ron Paul about whether he will support the Republican candidate if he doesn't get the nomination. The implication, of course, is that he is not a team player, not a true Republican if he doesn't agree to do it.
I don't hear anybody asking the Republican/conservative mainstreamers if they will support Paul if he were to win. How about it? And I don't think just saying "he'll never win" over and over qualifies as an answer people. |
|
i, like many other posters here on TH will do something we thught we could never do. we will vote for hilldebeast. at least she will continue the war and deal with iran. at least until we can can regain control and clean up whatever mess she makes
but rupaul doesn't stand a chance, so i will never have to make that decision |
|
188 comments and climbing fast. I'll say it again, Ron Paul causes quite a stir. Is it good, is it bad, just maybe it is good for our party and will bring back what we have lost. The respect of the American People. You know, the ones that vote.
I don't even support the guy, but can't help but to like a man that sincerely believes in what he says. Hes got balls, no doubt about it. Could be a refreshing thing to have him in the White House and straighten out many of the things that have gone wrong with our government. Maybe thats the ticket, then we argue all we like, but stay within the confines of the Constitution.
You go Paul!! You've got em listening now!
|
|
An excellent article ( Ron Paul Wants Republican Liberty Revolution http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com ) takes Hewitt's theme one step further.
Ultimately, what Ron Paul wants is to use the Republican Party to get back to the ORIGINAL American Revolution before Alexander Hamilton started his trickery.
But Hewitt is right about foreign policy. Knee-jerk non-interventionism is every bit as bad as the knee-jerk Marxism of Obama. |
|
And we left topic about 100 back...
Since when did tossing insults and discussing reasons for getting nixed from Townhall have anything to do with the article? |
|
|
They won't find comfort in the warmongering, big government lollapalooza that is the GOP candidacy - virtually everyone except Paul. I am betting that they'd rather go with John Edwards (check the stats, people) than any of the remaining GOPers. I mean seriously, is there a single Rethug interested in letting the little l's smoke dope with impunity? |
|
or whatever your handle is now, I would not have banned you or deleted your comments. It is Townhall that does it. Even if SEEHAWK marks your comment offensive, I think it is someone at Townhall that decides to do the actual banning. So blame Hugh and Town Hall. They have no tollerance for any profanity, even if justified and done in the form of asterisks.
Frankly seeing you and your fellow Ronulans freak out about Dr. Paul is funny (not that you are trying to be funny, but it is funny nevertheless). Keep up the good work. |
|
I had NO interest whatsoever about this thread or, for that matter, Hugh's posting above. But, I heard rumors on another HH thread that there had been some carnage over here and got morbidly curious. Damn, I learned something! My friend 'Hawk's a GIRL!
Cool. I'm gonna be mo' careful about my danged language. 'Hawk's a GIRL! |
|
Really? ANY profanity? Not only did I have my ONE offensive comment deleted, but had ALL my comments deleted. Not only did I have ALL my comments deleted, I was banned. And I have been a regular here on townhall.com probably longer than you, I am sure.
So, let's recap:
I had my "offensive" post deleted
I had ALL my posts deleted
And I was banned. Twice. Not once, but twice. The second time, there was NO foul language in my posts.
Yet, this rpisaterrorist fellow has been posting for literally hours. A few of his comments were deleted. Not ALL of his comments, and he is probably still not banned since his comments are still here.
So, really? You think townhall just had a problem with the ONE SINGLE COMMENT I made that hundreds of other posters have done and decided not only to delete that ONE SINGLE COMMENT, but delete ALL my comments AND BAN me? Really?
You are right though, I am sure my posts were not deleted because a few people flagged my ONE comment. So why were they deleted and why was I banned? Need screenshots to be reminded of what just happened, Joe? Are you going to laugh when you suddenly find YOU have an opinion that "someone at townhall" doesn't like and decides to delete everything you have said and ban you? Do you think it will be funny then?
Libertybob, think my complaints aren't justified? |
|
|
everyone would be banned and only my opinion would matter. Hey, isnt that just like whats happening in our government? There I go again, come up with a great idea and wouldnt ya know it, already taken. Darnit. |
|
".......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security........"
line from the Declaration of Independence, 1776
Republicans, Democrats, small-l and big-L Libertarians, and everyone else. Read this Document please!!! ".....let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
|
|
When you vote in the primaries, choose the candidate who most closely mirrors your values. Don't buy the propaganda being pumped out by the MSM. They want Rudy to be the nominee, they know it will split the GOP.
If a cross-dressing, former mayor of a sanctuary city who marches in gay pride parades reflects your values, vote for Rudy. If not, vote for the man you think would make the best President. |
|
|
Where have you been? I've known Seehawk was a woman for quite some time. |
|
Obviously the blogs are doing it now, too. What they have been doing is deleting and banning people and telling everyone that it is because Ron Paul's supporters are so vile and profane. Of course, then you read 50 comments from anti-Paul people using every name in the book against RP and his supporters. We have had to start taking screenshots to prove we were not being vile.
It is their property and they can do whatever they want on their property, but they are misleading people and being very dishonest about it. I have been defending townhall.com for months now that they never stoop this low. Apparently I was wrong and have now been added to my folder of places to expose for their tactics.
Obviously, there is someone here posting with us that is an admin at townhall.com and haven't identified themselves as such.
That's OK though, we are going to ban the fascists once we win. Just makes me want to fight harder. |
|
|
chant. There is, to repeat, HELP available for the compulsion. Paxil, in sufficient doses and some nice, quiet therapy. There...There. |
|
|
thought it. Girls' got her stuff together. You go girl. |
|
Here is an interesting article concerning Dr. Paul's alleged support by a brothel owner.
How does it feel to serve your masters? Are you proud or disgusted?
http://www.jbs.org/node/6438 |
|
Jack,
I didn't comment on whether or not you were justified. But this isn't a forum to complain about Townhall posting procedures. Heres a thought, if you have complaint, talk to THEM, since THEY are the ones who deleted your comments.
Here's another thought, now that you have another handle: just start posting, and don't let anyone know that you are the same person, or they may go through and delete you again, after all, it is a HUGE conspiracy to silence all forms of opposition. But they do it sneakily, only silencing one voice at a time while allowing the multitudes of others to keep on posting whatever they wish to be lulled into a false sense of security. But we both know that one day, they will be deleted as well for not falling into the ideological footstep.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind trying to express itself forcefully. |
|
Patrick is yet another small government GOP man who can't wrap his head around the concept of declaring and defining enemies. He talks about "ruthlessness abroad" as if that has actually been our policy for the last 6 years. Yes, Patrick, we're so ruthless that we have yet to bring the top powers in Al Qaeda to their knees and Osama runs free. We're so ruthless that we've let the Mahdi Army run wild in Iraq and the Taliban to continue to stir up trouble in Afghanistan. We're so ruthless that we pressured the Isralis to halt military offensives in Lebanon against people we have declared to be terrorists. Yes, very ruthless indeed.
Hey, I'm just getting excited about The Ron Paul Blimp. Call me a dreamer... |
|
|
Rudy-Border thing above...Had not yet seen your 'Hawk's a girl response. Sorry. |
|
Hey, I am wondering if any of you can convince me to support him.
A discussion is started at:
http://cometcorner.townhall.com/Default.aspx |
|
Yes, quite a day.
Thanks for sticking up for the girl:-) |
|
I got it, ;-). We probably agree on more than we disagree. I just think we have run out of time on the illegal alien inundation. We stop it now or we lose our country. Rudy won't do it. He thinks it's impossible to enforce our laws. I want someone who doesn't.
The GOP cedes their best issues by running Rudy. He agrees with Hillary on abortion, gays, guns, and amnesty. I want someone who doesn't.
America is worth saving. Vote conservative. |
|
|
|
Libertybob writes:
"Here's another thought, now that you have another handle: just start posting, and don't let anyone know that you are the same person, or they may go through and delete you again, after all, it is a HUGE conspiracy to silence all forms of opposition."
Maybe because I have nothing to hide, LiberalBob. Unlike you, I have made friends AND enemies here that I respect under my old name. That name had value to me. Not to mention my blog is complete gone now, too. Almost a years worth of stuff is gone.
So, don't just come in here and act like you have a clue about what just happened. Several people here saw what happened to me, and it is disturbing. Just who the heck are you, anyway, LiberalBob?
Buzz off and mind your own business.
Mocking people and acting superior is the effort of the liberal... umm weak mind trying to express itself forcefully out of the other side of its body. |
|
I am not defending Hugh's Orwellian editing of the comment section. But if you say things that are not 100% pro Romney (or at least anti Huckabee and McCain), Hugh will use your attempt at profanity to ban and purge you.
I am still laughing that you called me a paid Romney shill.
SEEHAWK is a gal? It is funny how we just assume gender. This is like when people assumed Virginia Patriot was a gal.
Maybe we need Atavar symbols. |
|
Did I get that wrong? My apologies then. If you are not a Romney (or gasp - Guiliani) supporter, you are alright in my book, regardless of anything else.
The paid Romneyshill comment comes from the fact that I have yet to meet a Romney supporter that wasn't paid to be wherever I met them. And when you talk to them, they know very little about his positions and use the out that they are not allowed to comment.
Romney paid two of them to man a gunshow that 15 of us were at. Not a single person stopped to talk to them, except a reporter. They said they couldn't talk to the press, other than to tell them they were getting paid. We managed to get Ron Paul signs put up at every booth at the show. My friend had to go out to the car and grab more and when he came back, he was empty handed. He said, people stopped him while he was coming back to get one. Over 20 signs gone in a matter of minutes. The Romneybots didn't care though, they were getting paid to sit there and talk to each other.
We even have video of Romneys paid supporters at the last straw poll admitting to us that they were paid to come and paid to vote. They ended up picking up Ron Paul shirts and whispering to us that Romney just paid them to vote for Ron Paul.
Again, I have yet to meet a single Romney supporter not being paid. Even his 'supporters' that talked to the media recently about the push-polling turned out to be staff members.
No wonder Hugh likes him.
And yeah, I had no idea SEEHAWK was a gal. I most likely would not have said what I did to her if I had known. That probably sounds sexist, but I call it chivalry.
Low blow against V-Pat, though. He's an alright guy. At least he is supporting a respectable candidate, IMO. |
|
But I do support Rudy. Ha. I am actually supporting McCain and Thompson too. I am not getting paid for it.
Perhaps you should say you are sorry to Seehawk, since I think you did offend her. |
|
|
| | |