@Thunderbolt - Do you think that Paul is more or less qualified to hold the office of the president than Bachmann?[/quote]
Off the cuff, I’d say pretty equally unqualified - she doesn’t impress me - but she isn’t a libertarian, and that puts her a notch above Paul, and she isn’t a batshit left-wing radical on foreign policy, so on that basis, she’s more qualified than Paul.
Why?[/quote]
Just wondering how you felt regarding her. I asked because it seems as though every person I talk to about Paul, the answer is the same; he’s “crazy”, or “he’s got weird ideas”. But these same people have never read any of his books, they think that Bachmann isn’t crazy as shit, and weren’t even aware that Romney wears and believes in magic underwear. That’s some crazy shit right there.
I’m not sure who you’re supporting in this circus, but I don’t see anyone other than Paul that is making any sense; seriously. These letters have been quite a letdown for me, and his handling of it has been atrocious. But I’m still not seeing one candidate for the GOP, other than Paul that’s worth a shit…not one. Even with this letter debacle, Paul still seems to me the best choice.
You say that his foreign policy is “left wing radical”, but there was a time when Paul’s ideology was just good policy. I’m curious, what books of his have you read that’ve influenced your perception of him?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Link is of an uncut Ron Paul interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger. Interesting how the media spins a story they want.
His answer to the newsletter question whas painfull to watch, posting this vid
did not do ron paul any service. I am actually starting to believe that SM and Bolt
are on to something regarding it.
Still he`s answer to some of the questions in the start where good, to bad he fell under pressure on the last one.[/quote][/quote]
To read the newsletters, as SM has posted them, is even more peculiar. Paul may be a cranky ideologue, or fanatic of extraordinarily narrow horizons, or, maybe, just a very bad huckster selling his $99 newsletters, using racism as its advertising medium.
Newsmen point out how well organized his “campaign” is in Iowa; that is an accomplishment, I suppose, even for a state that has more pigs than people.
…it seems as though every person I talk to about Paul, the answer is the same; he’s “crazy”, or “he’s got weird ideas”. But these same people have never read any of his books,
[/quote]
I can tell you this: whatever you think about libertarianism the fact remains that in the 70’s Rothbard, Rockwell, Paul and others established themselves within the white supremacist/neo-Nazi/neo-Confederate movement and have worked to court them ever since. They have espoused a revisionist version of history that is based on the Lyndon LaRouche school conspiratorial bat guano mixed with Soviet disinfo. His movement is rotten to the core. And I can assure you that in the field of foreign policy/history I am completely familiar with all of Ron Paul’s positions.
She’s not anti-American. The media have tried to portray her as another Palin which she isn’t. She is certainly the most qualified on foreign policy and is a member of the Armed Services Committee. She has a good record on fiscal reform and she is a social conservative. Best candidate the GOP has.
Not a reasonable comparison.
On foreign policy? On U.S. history? On the Constitution? As wrong as you can get on the first two and flagrantly misrepresents the third.
No there wasn’t.
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship by Ron Paul
I can tear it to pieces for anyone who has even an ounce of common sense and a basic capacity for logical reasoning.
Note: the Ron Paul Newsletter, including the ‘Survivalist Report,’ was not dissolved until 2001. Ron Paul was defending the most egregious quotes from the Newsletters in 1996 as his own - so why if Ron Paul suddenly discovered that his Newsletters had been disseminating this stuff in 1996 why did he not disavow it and fire his editorial staff, ghost writer etc? It is established beyond any doubt that Ron Paul at the very least knew about the contents, defended them and agreed that he wrote them which according to Ron Paul was a lie so as to avoid ‘confusing things.’
And Ron Paul’s long association with conspiratorial nuts, extremist groups like the John Birch Society - promoting their views, speaking at their events, gathering their followers to his movement. His long association with Lew Rockwell who was his Congressional Chief of Staff 1978 - 1982; a consultant on Paul’s 1988 Presidential campaign - his association with Alex Jones and repeated appearances on his show; Paul’s comments on camera about the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 ‘cover-ups.’
As Reagan said, if they won’t see the light let them feel the heat. Paul and his apologists are going to be getting plenty of heat over the coming months.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(My comments start on 1/10/2008)
[/quote]
If I’d known orion and LIFTI had been been exhibiting such profoundly morbid symptoms over such a long period of time I would likely have deemed the current treatments to be cotraindicated Doc. Hopeless cases I’m afraid.
Just wondering how you felt regarding her. I asked because it seems as though every person I talk to about Paul, the answer is the same; he’s “crazy”, or “he’s got weird ideas”.[/quote]
Well, he does have werid ideas. Not all fo them are, and alot of the weirdness comes from the degree (with respect to his economic positions). For example, I can get on board with some of his criticism of the Fed - I don’t like the Fed’s statutory jurisdiction (why is our central bank trying to achieve “full employment” policies?) and I agree with him (generally) that our monetary policy is too quick to tolerate (and encourage) inflation. I also agree with him (generally) on the concept of malinvestment.
But, these bizarre jaunts into conspiracy land about the Fed discredit his good ideas. And there is little chance that we are going back to a gold standard. Paul wants to completely de-politicize money - that won’t happen, not in the 21st century.
I have plenty of information on Paul without having to waste my time on his books. There are better books to read.
Right now, I support Huntsman. He is the only GOPer who has come out with legitimate and realistic policy proposals to deal with the kinds of problems that got us into the most recent economic mess. He also is savvy on foreign policy in a way that the other candidates are not, especially with respect to China.
No, it wasn’t. Paul doesn’t support good old-fashioned “isolationism”, which whether you think it’s good policy or not, it’s not terribly unique. No, Paul supports “blame America first” non-interventionism - effectivley, he has the same foreign policy philosophy of Noam Chomsky and Jeremiah Wright.
None - reading his books would be a tremendous waste of time. I’ve read articles published by Paul, and that’s about all I could stand.
I support Huntsman…He also is savvy on foreign policy in a way that the other candidates are not,
[/quote]
I’d agree with this assessment of his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition:
He managed to speak to a Republican Jewish group with a healthy concern about Israel and Iran by mentioning the former once very briefly in passing and the latter not at all.
“We stand with Israel. Today there is ambiguity. Under my administration those days will be gone.”
He then stopped. He added nothing to explain what that even meant.
“Our foreign policy has a little Cold War Overhang, a little George Cannon mindset from 1946, know what I mean?”
Nobody had any idea what he meant.
He questioned American troops in Germany and Afghanistan. Then he offered a remark that he may not have known was dripping with irony.
“We have no foreign policy.”
Neither does he. If he does, he will not say what it is.
Governor Huntsman does understand China. He spent time living in China, which he reminds people of as often as John Kerry reminds people that he served in Vietnam. Governor Huntsman’s knowledge of China is very impressive, but he tends to use that knowledge as a security blanket. When serious problems occur involving Middle Eastern countries that he does not know about or understand, he brings the conversation back to China rather than address those other nations.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ron Paul supporters: Admit that RP was either the author, or is protecting the author and move on. I think one poster said the equivalent of “yeah, his hands are dirty…but I still support him b/c of what he is saying now.” THAT at least is somewhat respectable. [/quote]
Ron Paul protects people who work for him. I wonder if the publishers of The New York Times would have as much loyalty to its writers.
Even still, so what? It’s such a non-issue. At worst he was a “negligent” publisher while he was practicing medicine – and he’s even admitted to as much on national TV.
Besides, Ron Paul’s actions as a congressman over the last 12 terms proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he isn’t racist.
Ron Paul protects people who work for him. I wonder if the publishers of The New York Times would have as much loyalty to its writers.
Even still, so what? It’s such a non-issue. At worst he was a “negligent” publisher while he was practicing medicine – and he’s even admitted to as much on national TV.
Besides, Ron Paul’s actions as a congressman over the last 12 terms proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he isn’t racist.[/quote]
No, sorry. He’s decided to run for President. He is asking for votes. “I didn’t write them, but I won’t say who will” is nowhere near adequate for a man making a go at the office. He can protect whoever supposedly wrote them under his name, but he can’t do it and win. It doesn’t fly. If he manages to grab Iowa, it will become a huge story. It’s already picked up some steam, but it will break out and sink him completely.
1 “Protect” a guy who used his name to write trash, supposedly.
Governor Huntsman does understand China. He spent time living in China, which he reminds people of as often as John Kerry reminds people that he served in Vietnam. Governor Huntsman’s knowledge of China is very impressive, but he tends to use that knowledge as a security blanket. When serious problems occur involving Middle Eastern countries that he does not know about or understand, he brings the conversation back to China rather than address those other nations.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this - Huntsman needs to expand his chops to include smart assessments w/r/t the Middle East. And Huntsman does try and reroute foreign policy issues too often to China, because that is his expertise.
But that isn’t necessarily indicative of having no foreign policy ideas on non-China issues, and in any event, he’s not that much different than his fellow candidates, who also stay pretty general on issues related to Middle East.
What separates Huntsman from the rest of the pack on foreign policy ideas (in my opinion) is not simply ideas, but experience. If 2008 and 2010 taught us anything, there is a premium on candidates who know what they’re doing.
Governor Huntsman does understand China. He spent time living in China, which he reminds people of as often as John Kerry reminds people that he served in Vietnam. Governor Huntsman’s knowledge of China is very impressive, but he tends to use that knowledge as a security blanket. When serious problems occur involving Middle Eastern countries that he does not know about or understand, he brings the conversation back to China rather than address those other nations.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this - Huntsman needs to expand his chops to include smart assessments w/r/t the Middle East. And Huntsman does try and reroute foreign policy issues too often to China, because that is his expertise.
But that isn’t necessarily indicative of having no foreign policy ideas on non-China issues, and in any event, he’s not that much different than his fellow candidates, who also stay pretty general on issues related to Middle East.
What separates Huntsman from the rest of the pack on foreign policy ideas (in my opinion) is not simply ideas, but experience. If 2008 and 2010 taught us anything, there is a premium on candidates who know what they’re doing.
Ron Paul protects people who work for him. I wonder if the publishers of The New York Times would have as much loyalty to its writers.
Even still, so what? It’s such a non-issue. At worst he was a “negligent” publisher while he was practicing medicine – and he’s even admitted to as much on national TV.
Besides, Ron Paul’s actions as a congressman over the last 12 terms proves beyond a shadow of a doubt he isn’t racist.[/quote]
No, sorry. He’s decided to run for President. He is asking for votes. “I didn’t write them, but I won’t say who will” is nowhere near adequate for a man making a go at the office. He can protect whoever supposedly wrote them under his name, but he can’t do it and win. It doesn’t fly. If he manages to grab Iowa, it will become a huge story. It’s already picked up some steam, but it will break out and sink him completely.[/quote]
Nope, sorry, it makes me like him more because he is loyal and a good boss. He’s taken responsibility for the publishing of these articles and will not tarnish the writer who has tarnished him. That is the most presidential thing I’ve ever seen a candidate do.
[quote]Nope, sorry, it makes me like him more because he is loyal and a good boss. He’s taken responsibility for the publishing of these articles and will not tarnish the writer who has tarnished him. That is the most presidential thing I’ve ever seem a candidate ever do.
He makes everyone else look like clowns.[/quote]
He is a loyal and good boss to racist friends/employees writing under his name, who sent Paul a check as part of his share…Please do advance this ‘defense’ of Paul, as this story picks up steam. It’s a loser.
[quote]Nope, sorry, it makes me like him more because he is loyal and a good boss. He’s taken responsibility for the publishing of these articles and will not tarnish the writer who has tarnished him. That is the most presidential thing I’ve ever seem a candidate ever do.
He makes everyone else look like clowns.[/quote]
He is a loyal and good boss to racist friends/employees writing under his name, who sent Paul a check as part of his share…Please do advance this ‘defense’ of Paul, as this story picks up steam. It’s a loser.[/quote]
But he’s always been a loser to you so your opinion carries no weight.
This is a non issue and people who understand Ron Paul understand why they are voting for him.
I get it, it feels smugly good to “know Paul is unelectable” and boy does it feel good to dismiss his supporters as batshit loonballs but guess what, I feel the same about my friends that supported Bush and Obama (as in “are you fucking serious voting for that guy?” I concede the point that the newsletters are disturbing and a pain point. Produce another candidate that stands for the better ideas that Paul puts out (dont yammer on about marxist isolationism, etc.) you KNOW he has some very lucid points amongst the stuff you dont like. Show me a better candidate that will defend the principles of my civil liberty and I’m all ears.[/quote]
Well, his supporters are by and large batshit loonballs - look no further than the lunacy posted by them in PWI - but I have a simple question: why not support Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate? Paul’s true colors have been shown and his message of libertarianism has been tainted with all that sordid stuff - so why not throw your full weight behind a guy like Gary Johnson?[/quote]
Well you’ve just usurped your own credibility with that blanket statement. Yep and Republicans are by and large greedy old white people and Democrats are by and large socialist, nanny state poor people and self-hating elitists. I agree that many in the Ron Paul support camp post retarded shit and a lot of ignorance (I see some friends’ posts on FB and it makes me cringe from the ignorance) but guess what? I see just as much from the MSM that fawns over the two main parties and their candidates. You want to talk batshit loonballs, what about the people that actually bought that hope and change shit hook, line, and sinker. Batshit loonball? Yep if you voted for Bush Jr. cause “he seems like the type of guy you could have a beer with” then you are a loonball, period.
That aside, I like Gary Johnson. My understanding is that he has now officially ditched the Republican ticket and is pushing for Libertarian. Will Americans finally wake up to the bullshit that is our two party system? Will the media let them or continue to paint the picture of irrelevance of a third party? That is a bigger and more important question, but yes Gary Johnson would have my support at a superficial level. I haven’t examined his record to the degree that I have with others but from the bits I have heard from him he sounds like a genuine person that has liberty in his interests.
“More than half of Americans â?? 55 percent â?? say a third party is needed, compared with 38 percent who say the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, according to a Gallup poll this fall.”–Christian Science Monitor, Dec, 2011
