Your are an idiot. Iran is no threat to the USA. Ron Paul represents the USA, get it? Also, familiar yourself with the Declaration of Indpendence and the Constitution and maybe you should also read the 911 Report. Perhaps then you will not make such idiotic statements.
The Paulbots sure are raising a lot of money online, though. Their campaign set a goal of $500,000 in online donations for the last 7 days of Sept. (also the last 7 days of Q3).
Well, after 1 1/2 days they are at $310,000 and are already saying in their forum that they are going to hit the 500K mark tomorrow by midnight, with four full days left, and then aim for a million bucks or more.
All money down a rathole FZappa! I’ve asked this before and none of you Paulians have an answer:
When it comes down to the choice in November 2008 are you going to vote for:
A. Rudy
B. Hillary
C. Not vote (which defaults to Hillary)
Ron Paul is a distraction from the real debate and he is politically irrelevant. Instead of focusing on the difficult and painful reality of the issues we face you folks go off on some fantasy crusade.
I’ve seen it all before, going back to John Anderson in 1980 and later Ross Perot. We can all thank Ross and his followers in 1992 and 1996 for inflicting Bill Clinton on the world.
Time will tell, Mike. For someone who’s not worried about Ron Paul you sure spend a lot of time writing about him. If you really think Rudy’s going to win the Republican nomination, I think you have a paradigm shift coming. It’s going to be Ron Paul vs. Hillary and Ron will win 45 states.
Incidentally, your blog appears to be misnamed. Judging from the cartoon logo, you’re confusing having two aces as your hole cards with aces coming out on the flop.
All the Ron Paul sock puppets can bitch and whine as much as they want , but the news today is Ralph Nader is forming up looking for campaign volunteers in several early primary states.
Internet spammed polls and such don’t make a winner.
They are simply paralleling google bombing trying to give the idea there is really support for him.
I almost wonder if half of those net supports of Paul are wonks working from the nutroots to give him cred.
Well fellas, you guys might want to take a look at Ron’s site. It seems that he is going to blow away last quarter’s performance, and has managed to raise over $300,000 dollars in about 36 hours from private donors on the internet.
I would think that this would indicate real support from real people, not just a few dozen clickbots spamming your polls. Since Ron Paul supporters are more passionate about their candidate, expect for them to show up at the primary polls in far greater numbers than supporters of other candidates. No one seems really hard core about any of the weak field that the Republicans are feilding this year, and there is no way that Christian Conservatives can go for Rudy, and after they learn more about Thomason he will soon lose his appeal too.
By swarming the primaries Ron Paul supporters can beat the base of this deminished Republican Party, and if we can’t then Hillary is going to win the election because a prowar candidate cannot win. You cannot win the election when 2/3rds of the people are against on a major issue, and when your frontrunner Guilliani is widely dispised by a majority of values conservatives, and the NRA members who would just as soon stay home.
No one but Ron Paul can win the national election for the Republicans. The sooner you recognize that fact, the better, otherwise you are just useful idiots for the CFR.
He still lacks the the organization necessary to win EVEN ONE PRIMARY.
Is there any poll in which he is more than an asterik?
And you can keep repeating that out of context poll # about 2/3′ds of Americans being against the war. What the American people won’t stand for is defeat and that’s the only soap you are selling.
Perhaps we need to go through the other issues Ron Paul claims to support and ask: “Will a President Hillary, or a President Giuliani do a better job addressing those issues?”
Hillary is just as pro-war as the rest of them. I don’t understand why people are failing to see that. She’s already gone on record saying the war in Iraq may not end in her first term and is open to using force against Iran.
President Bush has even recently been campaigning for her saying,
“I believe our candidate can beat her but it’s going to be a tough race.”
“She’s got a great national presence and this is becoming a national primary,” Bush told Sammon. “And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated.”
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News love to eat lunch and publicize her.
And even Alan Greenspan has been stumping for Hillary, by singing praises to the former Clinton administration, and bashing Bush for his fiscal policies. (Although not admitting to his own role in our current fiscal dilemmas.)
They are priming us up for a Hillary win and continued decline in the dollar. We are told to prepare for a 4 year economic recession. The dollar is going down in value by a penny a day.
When things keep getting worse, people will be looking for a solution to the problem. The solution that they want to present to us will be Hillary Clinton as a great socialist democratic leader to carry us forward in the future. Then the second new deal will begin and the loss of the free market and individual rights will continue.
It’s all coming to a head and the only candidate who has the courage to stand up against this establishment is Ron Paul. Were there people who were willing to talk about the economic realities we face, it is likely they could draw just as much – if not more attention than him. But he is the only one who seems to understand how we’ve got here and who is willing to stand up for the American people.
You might say it is a pipe dream, but I would say it is you and the American media establishment who are dreaming. The economic realities we are going to begin facing will be harsh and it will be time for a sober conversation about how we got here.
They will try to lay the blame for the current housing crisis with the borrowers themselves, not acknowledging the fact that the borrowing is a natural reaction to the artificially low interest rates that the Fed had set for so long. In this system, the low rates have punished those who save the currency – as their dollar value has gone down and unable to keep up with inflation. It has encouraged our debt as the means to investment and now the well is running dry.
If it came down to Rudy or Hillary, I would write in “Secede”. Simple as that.
I’m not worried about Rudy getting the nod. He’s got the name recognition now, but he got torn up last week at the value voters debate, and at the NRA. As people wake up to the fact that Rudy is really little different than any democrat on the issues that matter most to them, Rudy will be a goner.
Rudy is a gun grabber.
Rudy favors gay marriage.
Rudy favors abortion on demand.
Rudy has a nasty personal life.
Rudy has appeared on National Television in drag kissing another man.
Rudy’s foolish decision to place an emergency command center in the World trade Complex, left him running the streets on 9/11 instead of calling the shots.
The real heros of 9/11 think that Rudy is a choad.
Both the Libertarians and Constitution Party have endorsed Ron Paul. You might not think too much about libertarins or constitutionalists, but we are the people who have tolerated voting for what we perceived as the lesser of 2 evils for a long time. Unfortunately for people like you and the Republican Party, you guys over played your hand and neglected our desires for too long, then Bush was just over the top. The Republicans cannot win without our support, and they have lost it.
The vote of the Moral Majority used to be appreciated by the Republican Party, but the leadership in the Republican Party failed to keep homosexuals and pedophiles out, now the Republican frontrunners have chosen not to even participate in the morals debate. Looking at the candidates personal moral values Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are clearly on top.
Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter are the most electible Republicans, after Ron Paul, but they do not have the money or the national standing in the polls that Ron Paul does, and they don’t appeal to as broad of a spectrum of voters. All of the frontrunners are unelectable. McCain is a very nice man, but he’s done.
Americans may hate to lose, but what do you think is victory in Iraq? It seems to me that we won a long time ago. What do you want to establish bases there like we did in Germany and Japan, is that success? Cold War is over, we no longer need bases all over the place unless we are planning on going to war with Iran.
Wanna see Oil prices jump $70 bucks over night? Go to war with Iran, and thats exactly what you will see.
Wanna see oil Prices drop to $40 a bbl? Elect Ron Paul, and see what happens when short sellers feel safe to come back into the market.
There is no military solution in Iraq, all of the top Generals including Petreaus has told us that. Our presence there does nothing but piss them off. Wanna know why? Read Denish D’Souza’s book about how the cultural Left is the Reason that we were attacked on 9/11. The Islamists think that we are trying to make all of their women like Britney Spears and Madonna. They think that we want them to have gay pride parades down the center of Baghdad, and abortion on demand.
Can you blame for not wanting crap like that?
Our Military is the most badass in the World, but ethically we can not kill all the Muslims, and we can’t convert them to Christianity. Those are the only ways to win, but ethically we cannot do that, so fuck it! We are just weakening our military, getting our boys hurt and killed, and pissing our wealth away.
2/3rds of us have figured out that this “war” has already accomplished everything that it was intened to do, and further sacrifice on our behalf, does not help the Iraqis and does not help us. It time to come home. Run a candidate that does not realize this, and you lose something much more important than Iraq, you lose America.
Thats why if it should come down to Rudy of Hillary, I’m voting to secede. Simple as that.
When it comes down to the choice in November 2008 are you going to vote for:
A. Rudy
B. Hillary
C. Not vote (which defaults to Hillary)
Actually, not voting is only half as bad as actually voting for Hillary, even if we otherwise accept your perspective. I’m sure if you talk to a Hillary supporter who expects you to turn out and vote D, he’ll tell you that not voting is the same as voting for Giuliani – at which point the flaw in your logic should become apparent.
Anyway, I don’t expect Giuliani to get the nomination. The race seems to be shaping up for Romney versus Thompson. ‘What about the polls?’, you say? Well, everything I’ve seen so far suggests a significant inverse correlation between ‘degree of support for Giuliani’ and ‘actual energy level and commitment to voting’. If you call people up, or make it super easy for them to vote, Giuliani does well. But as soon as you actually make them go somewhere or do something, Thompson and/or Romney kill him. If Romney does well in early states (and he has the organization), he’ll get name recognition and the perception that he can win (and keep in mind he has the money to get his message out). After that most of the vote will split between pragmatists (who would have supported Giuliani, but now see Romney as viable), and the more religious or conservative, who will mostly vote Thompson or some other minor candidate.
Anyway, I would vote Romney or Thompson over Hillary. Hillary versus Giulani is actually a tougher choice: power-hungry, corrupt, ideologically warped and smart, or power-hungry, authoritarian, psychologically warped and stupid? I would probably vote Giuliani just because the Dems look set to take Congress, and I’d sooner have the branches of government in different hands. But if the congress were Republican I’d likely go the other way. Not a fan of Giuliani.
Cold War is over, we no longer need bases all over the place unless we are planning on going to war with Iran.
We have military operations going on ALL OVER THE WORLD. And it’s a good thing. Not a bad thing. Making the distinction between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism” is a moot point. “interventionism” is exactly what we are doing, and have been doing for a very long, long time, all over the world. It’s a romanticized fairy tale, this RP notion of going back “to the good ol’ days” where America minded its own business and didn’t entangle itself in foreign alliances.
There is no military solution in Iraq, all of the top Generals including Petreaus has told us that.
That is such a dishonest bumpersticker slogan, utterly misrepresentative of what General Petraeus or even President Bush has said on the matter. Of course military alone isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s a meaningless point; but anti-war advocates grasp at it, clouding the argument.
Our presence there does nothing but piss them off. Wanna know why? Read Denish D’Souza’s book about how the cultural Left is the Reason that we were attacked on 9/11. The Islamists think that we are trying to make all of their women like Britney Spears and Madonna. They think that we want them to have gay pride parades down the center of Baghdad, and abortion on demand.
Oh…so then you do acknowledge that they “hate us for our freedoms” and not the ridiculous Ron Paul/Michael Scheuer assertion that it’s “America’s foreign policy” that’s to blame for “blowback”? Good on you!
“The race seems to be shaping up for Romney versus Thompson.”
Oh my… and the Paulians are smoking dope again! Yikes!
I haven’t made up my mind which of the top tier GOP candidates to support. But I do know one thing: I won’t be troubled by considering Ron Paul as he’ll never get past the starting gate.
and this little gem:
“Well, everything I’ve seen so far suggests a significant inverse correlation between ‘degree of support for Giuliani’ and ‘actual energy level and commitment to voting’.”
Oh PUHLEASE! What crap!
How many campaigns have you worked on bbart? You’re just spouting words that have no basis in fact.
You simply affirm the conclusion that you’re all a bunch of wind up dolls with no brain.
I’m basing this on the polls conducted so far. Call people on the phone, and Giulani does well. Conduct a straw poll that’s unannounced and just sort of ask everyone who comes by to vote, Giuliani does well (New Hampshire). Ask people to pay and/or transport themselves (Iowa, Mackinac, Georgia, Minnesota straw polls) and you see various results, but in general Giuliani’s voters don’t show up in large numbers. Preselect your voters for ‘Republicanness’ (Texas, South Carolina, Florida), which I assume has some positive correlation with voting, and Giuliani still doesn’t do well. If you have some other way of estimating voter enthusiasm, I’d be happy to hear it. You could argue that Giuliani’s supporters don’t see any need to contest the straw polls because they already have momentum, but I’m skeptical that this kind of reasoned lack of participation would explain the degree of underperformance.
and the Paulians are smoking dope again
If I wanted to make up something goofy, I’d tell a story about how Paul was going to do well. I don’t like either Thompson or Romney that much. And I can certainly imagine Thompson sinking himself through simple mismanagement, though that seems less likely for Romney.
affirm the conclusion
That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. Maybe you were looking for the word ‘confirm’ but decided that ‘affirm’ sounded fancier. Speaking of brains, or lack thereof.
You guys seem awful worried about Ron Paul, for him not having a chance at all.
You should be worried too, because Ron Paul supporters are going to overwhelm the polls in Hew Hampshire and he is going to win by a wide margin. Ever heard of the Free Staters?
Not at all worried about Ron Paul winning anything Johnnyb.
I am worried what you misfits are going to do when the bubble bursts and your fantasy crashes into hard reality.
There are just enough of you out there in key states to push the state one way or the other. But if that 1 or 2% stays home because they are disillusioned (because of their own fault) then Hillary could win.
I’ve recited the history of 1992 and 1996 and Ross Perot. Even though Ron Paul will get nowhere near Ross’s numbers, he could still throw the election to Hillary.
Your earlier comment about “seceding” isn’t funny. Especially because I live in South Carolina, not far from Fort Sumter.
You guys seem awful worried about Ron Paul, for him not having a chance at all.
I made that series of anti-Paul posts a couple of weeks back as a form of entertainment. My own amusement, to pass the time. Just because of this internet phenomenon where a conservative blog will badmouth RP, and suddenly all the Paulmites will come crawling out of the woodworks, mostly with the usual talking points. I wanted to experience that firsthand. You RPers have not failed to disappoint; although it seems that of late, the Paulbots seem rather fatigued. I’ve seen a couple of conservative blogs where Ron Paul’s name was mentioned negatively, and little activity of protest from the Paulbots. You Ronulans are slacking!
Some of his supporters have been worth debating with; others are just….bizarre!
I do not see him as a consequential candidate. Just a fad, selling snake oil and tilting at windmills.
I’ll admit, I’ve heard him say a couple of things that I like. But as an overall package, and as a realistic shot at winning the Presidency? Uh-uh. Even if I liked him and even if he had a snowball’s chance at winning the Republican nomination, he’s unelectable in the general. No name recognition, no charisma, and the only thing he has in common with the lefties is his anti-war stance. I know you think he’s the only one who stands a chance against Hillary. I disagree.
And my biggest problem with him is his position on foreign policy. On that, he really shares more in common with a Howard Zinn.
I strongly encourage anyone who thinks American interventionism is creating problems in the world, to go buy and read Robert Kaplan’s books “Imperial Grunts” and “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts”.
I’d like to know what the RP supporters think of Robert Kagan’s “Dangerous Nation”, too. They will probably just dismiss him as a “neocon” revisionist.
I was not joking about seceding, and I think the current powers assumed by the United States Federal Government are so far outside of the Parameters of constitutional limitations that the Government stands in Breach of Contract, which is what the Constitution actually is a contract between the States.
I had great hope when Bush came into office that he would restore this great nation, but instead he did nothing that he said he would do and instead decided to run this country into the ground. The Republican Party used to be the party that supported a constitutionally limited government, but they do not even pretend like they support the constitution anymore. Bush has done nothing but create more government bureaucracy, as more of our jobs have gone over seas.
Every great problem currently in this country has been created by the government. Terrorism is a response to our foreign policy. Budget deficits which devalue the dollar are the result of social ands corporate welfare along with out of control military spending to keep our troops all over the world. These are not Republicans ideas! These are all democrat ideas, and even when we had the power to change the system our party failed to do anything.
Seriously, I do not understand what Hillary would do that would be any different than what Guilliani would do. Both of them would just create more government which would just make America worse off than she was before.
The only guy out there talking about seriously reducing the size of government and increasing personal liberity is Ron Paul. While Hillary is talking about socializing entire industries, and Rudy is talking grabbing people’s guns without any sort of due process. Neither one of them will do a damned thing about the illegals pouring over the borders, or allowing States to make their own laws regarding abortion.
Have you taken a look at the Forex Markets lately? The Dollar is going to shit. Foriegn Banks are not going to want to hold dollars that are losing value, so eventually they are going to dump them and quit buying our debt. We will lose our world reserve currency status, and with it our advantage over the rest of the World.
And why? Iraq? Terrorists? Sorry, but I would rather take my chances with terrorists, than face the certainty of disaster that we would face if the people in charge do not recognize that they are the problem and start doing exactly what Ron Paul is promoting, but I have the feeling that the welfare of the American people is not their agenda.
“More Government is not the answer to the Problem, more government is the Problem.”-Ronald Wilson Reagan
“The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of Paper”-George W. Bush
I am worried what you misfits are going to do when the bubble bursts and your fantasy crashes into hard reality.
There are just enough of you out there in key states to push the state one way or the other. But if that 1 or 2% stays home because they are disillusioned (because of their own fault) then Hillary could win.
Or if we go out and vote L or C, which amounts to much the same thing for you. I agree that it’s a problem. However, the two party system tends to fall victim to a political version of the Hoteling Paradox, so that both candidates end up at the very center with very little difference in positions. One counterweight to this is that the fringes can act as a spoiler, destroying the chances of the candidate on ‘their side’ if he’s not sufficiently to their liking.
The French system of elections (multiple runoffs) handles this situation better.
Oh, and you’re still wrong about affirm/confirm. Someone needs to state something themselves in order to affirm it. Confirm is shown as a meaning or synonym because affirming something is indeed one way to confirm it, but the meanings are not identical. You can confirm something by providing evidence of it (which is no doubt what you had in mind), but affirming something requires that someone explicitly says it themselves.
Starting your own dictionary now bbartblog? You’re just one step away from becoming a full fledged Clinton: “depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’.”
Keep it up and you’ll be completely crackers by November 2008.
As for Johnnyb:
All of us wish that Bush would have done a better job of controlling government spending.
But to elect Hillary by default and see that problem get much worse makes no sense.
And it’s inconceivable to me that anyone who has lived through or even read about the history of the 1930′s would want to put the U.S. back in such a dangerously weak position.
Isolationism invited attack. Not the other way around.
First, lame, reactionary bloggers tagged Ron Paul so they could get hits for their dead-in-the-water blogs, now the GOP Presidential Trust Dinner is pretty much doing the same thing by inviting Ron Paul to their dinner, only replace ‘hits’ with ‘cash’, and dead-in-the-water ‘blog’ with ‘political party’ instead.
In part, perhaps. But it’s also based upon a slanted propagandized perception of American foreign policy.
Another thing: What RP fails to address is the “root cause” of terrorism. It isn’t our foreign policy. It’s fundamentalist, militant, radical Islam. It is the Qutbist advocacy that killing innocents is acceptable. It is the wahhabist rejection of modernity and intolerance of infidels.
Of all the people griping over American foreign policy, only one group turns that perceived grievance into violent action. Islamists.
France and Germany were against the Iraq War. Is it their foreign policy that’s to blame for terrorist attacks/plots by Islamists? How about all the other countries all over the world? Does caving in and appeasing terrorist demands diminish Islamic terrorism? Didn’t Spain still receive terror threats after the Madrid Bombing and on the heels of a perceived influence on the outcome of their elections?
What Ron Paul does not understand is the nature of the enemy we face, who has been at war with us since the 70′s. Their terror threat has only metasticized for the last 30 years, culminating in 9/11. And it has a lot to do with their religion. You don’t see anti-American foreign policy Europeans and Buddhists strapping on homicide bomb vests because they disagree with American foreign policy.
The problem is not us. It’s them. I again urge anyone who thinks American interventionism is a bad thing, to pick up Robert Kaplan’s books.
“More Government is not the answer to the Problem, more government is the Problem.”-Ronald Wilson Reagan
And yet, Reagan did not reduce the size of government, now did he? Why is that? Why quote him? You criticize President Bush for “not delivering”, yet cite Reagan to support your criticism on the size of government?
First, lame, reactionary bloggers tagged Ron Paul so they could get hits for their dead-in-the-water blogs
Yes, Paul. Thanks for visiting the page and giving us the much needed hits. You’ve been a most useful idiot, falling for our ingenious plot of creating more traffic at FA. Muwahahahahaha!!!!
Now that you brought the subject of Buddhists up… It’s important to note that Islamists are slaughtering Buddhists by the thousands in places like Thailand.
None of these Buddhists have any connection whatsoever to U.S. foreign policy or support for Israel.
And yet, the muzzies are murdering them for being Buddhists.
It’s probably the best example of how deluded the Paulian thinking is on terrorism.
The muzzies won’t stop killing us just because we abandon our hard fought strategic position in the Middle East and allies like Israel and other Mid East friends.
But the only way to prove that point is do as you suggest. By then, it would be too late and the cost too great.
So, I’ll just repeat the words of Winston Churchill from his six volume history of the Second World War as he recounts all the advantages thrown away and the inevitable consequences:
Here is a line of milestones to disaster. Here is a catalogue of surrenders, at first when all was easy and later when things were harder, to the ever-growing German power. But now at last was the end of British and French submission. Here was decision at last, taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground, which must surely lead to the slaughter of tens of millions of people. Here was the righteous cause deliberately and with a refinement of inverted artistry committed to mortal battle after its assets and advantages had been so improvidently squandered. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
–Winston Churchill
Still, outside of our favorability towards China. What legitimate grievances would Buddhists have with American foreign policy?
Ideologically there might be some, but America has done little to affect them directly.
Europe loves us, or at least their governments do. Considering we have pretty much conceded a good share of our economical dominance to them, with still a good ways to run.
What other group besides the people of the Middle East have been greatly affected by American policies towards their region?
Were the situation reversed, would the world be at war with radical Christianity?
Germany and appeasement. The untold history is that we (The Fed) helped finance their growing power. As told by Congressman McFadden in 1934:
“On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are blow parity with the dollar.”
And also sowed the seeds in Russia, China, and Japan:
“These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. “Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.”
And this is a taste of what likely is happening as we speak! Please consider what this man has said. Again Congresmman McFadden:
“”In 1930 while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Fed advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States as represented by the Fed currency they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins- and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. “My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60,000,000,000 advances and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges.”
“For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928, they lent $33.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States. “
Well “Mike’s America”, you wanted to talk about appeasement and I can’t think of any greater appeasement the Nazis received than financial assistance.
Its unfortunate that there are Buddhists being murdered in Thailand by Muslims. Is the motivation purely religious? Or are there other factors at play other than religion?
Is the solution to destroy all people who read the Quran?
If we are so concerned with protecting ourselves from terrorism, why have we done so little to secure America’s borders between Mexico and Canada?
Poor “mike” so many trees you can’t see the forest.
But really… bringing up some irrelevant 1930′s financial connections to the Nazis is about as intellectually dishonest as saying Bush and bin Laden are conspiring together.
And then you go on to try and excuse the Jihad against innocent Buddhists in Thailand.
You folks have an endless supply of excuses to keep you from dealing with the REALITY of the situation.
Again, I wonder what you are going to do when that fantasy House of Canards comes crashing down and you’re faced with a choice of Giuliani or Hillary?
You brought up German appeasement, I merely was trying to show you how far the appeasement went in the example of Germany.
I’m not really trying to excuse anybody from killing. What I want to know is what is really going on? Is the motivation Jihad? You are the first to tell me that Muslims are fighting against Buddhists in Thailand.
Let me ask, what are you going to do when the fantasy house of fiat dollars comes crashing down? If the dollar keeps going in decline, your working wage is worth less and the value of the goods continues to climb. We are just beginning to really feel this stress.
Soon there will be a lot more people on the streets as they can’t afford their adjustable rate mortgages. Meanwhile fraudulent lenders and speculators, the ones who created artificial inflation of the housing prices in the first place, are going to be getting Fed bailouts.
If I am faced with a choice of Giuliani or Hillary, I would not choose either. You might say that choosing a third party candidate is a throw away vote for Hillary, but I disagree.
I have no need to be on a winning team in my choices of politicians, nor can I accept voting for a candidate who I feel is unworthy of our trust.
The American people are completely jaded with the viewpoints espoused by these top-tier candidates. They understand that our policies are driven by lobbyists and common outside forces. A vote for Hillary or a vote for Rudy will not make much difference. The war will keep going on, the borders won’t be secured, the police/surveillance state will increase, the feds will keep interfering with education, more corruption, more scandals, more corporatism, etc..
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ If you want to know something about how the economy has gone I suggest you start at this website. Read their viewpoint on the issues of the day and check out their “Archives”. These people are largely investors who just follow the economic realities of the times. They have watched, as many have, the decline in the value of our currency and some of them have made out well for it.
Or if you just want to sit by while they debase your equity, savings, and wages, thats fine with me too.
Hasn’t George Bush taught you anything? There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and all the supposed “front runners” are bigger democrats than Bush.
So a show down between Hillary and whoever, is really no choice at all. Its like which would you prefer Stalinism or national socialism. I would prefer neither, and do not see any sort of qualitative difference between any of them, with the sole exception of Ron Paul.
What legitimate grievances would Buddhists have with American foreign policy?
You still kind of missed my point in using Buddhists as a generic example.
Buddhists are engaging in peaceful protest in Burma. What they aren’t doing, is strapping on bombs and targeting childcare centers as a way to attack the government for their “domestic policies”.
The point is, only one group of people resort to terrorist activities in the name of their religion. And it happens irregardless of ANY nation’s foreign policy.
Ron Paul says one reason why “they” attacked us, is our military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, citing troops in Saudi Arabia in particular. After the fall of Saddam, we removed our troops from Saudi Arabia. And yet the government there is still victimized by al-Qaeda terrorism.
Because someone disagrees with our foreign policy, doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the foreign policy. There might be; but it should not automatically mean we take marching orders from groups with grievances, unless those grievances are justified.
Is the solution to destroy all people who read the Quran?
Why can’t people get it into their heads the difference between radical Islamists, who advocate “jihad” against the west and anyone who does not subjugate themselves under Sharia Law, and peaceful moderate Muslims who just want to go on with their lives? Sheesh!
You are the first to tell me that Muslims are fighting against Buddhists in Thailand.
Islamists are fighting with everyone, everywhere! Are you not paying attention that radical Islamists are killing innocents all over the globe?! And Mike’s America’s point, in using Thailand as just one example, is that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO with a wahhabist/salafist fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. That is at the core of the problem. Other groups that have a problem with American foreign policy don’t go around flying planes into buildings, setting off bombs in subways, to express their displeasure or their anti-Americanism. More Muslims have been killed by fellow Muslims than by American foreign policy.
If Ron Paul doesn’t win this election, the C.F.R. wins….
The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations are best described by its very own members.
Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley says in his book Tragedy & Hope: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… (and) …believes national boundaries should be obliterated and One World rule established.”
Mr. Quigley is only different from Bill Clinton, George Bush and the rest of them in the fact that he thinks they shouldn’t try to hide this any more.
These groups brag and laugh about how America’s two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but still operate like bitter rivals.
As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.”.
Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to ” dominate the political system… …and economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he believes the CFR’s intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn’t understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.
Alright now that you know what the CFR is up to here’s a list of 2008 Presidential Candidates that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations:
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Paul: Ron Paul won’t get nominated, let alone elected.
And unless you think Hillary Clinton would do a better job protecting American sovereignty than the Republicans you list your support should be directed to one of them.
If Ron Paul does not get nominated then Hillary has already won, what do you not understand about that?
The GOP does not have the votes to win without independents, libertarians, constitutionalists and the christian coalition. Only Ron Paul can unite all of the various groups that have tended to vote Republican in the past and bring in political newcomers into the fold.
The war of ideas on Iraq has already been lost. The only choice now is a choice between freedom in the USA and Socialism in the USA.
Many Ron Paul supoporters are Ayn Rand devotees, and if you are familar with Ayn Rands 2 most popular works you should know that objectivists believe that creative destruction must sometimes occur. In ‘The Fountainhead’ Howard Roark blows up his own building because it had been corrupted through commitees. In ‘Atlas Shrugged’ John Galt deprives society of its victims, the productive class, and allows the entire world to implode.
If the GOP fails to nominate Ron Paul, then Hillary automatically wins. Newt Gingrich has said as much. So its not Ron Paul supporters who are in favor of Hillary winning the election, but rather the Ron Paul bashers who just don’t understand that its impossible for the GOP to win riding the coattails of an unpopular President while promising a continuation of what is percieved as a disasterous foriegn policy. Ron Paul and only Ron Paul can win the national election, no other GOP nominee can beat Hillary.
Even if another Republican Nominee could win, which they can’t, they would be just as disasterous as Bush has been, and America will eventually suffer a financial collpse which will result in a global depression, and unless we return to our principles everything that we hold dear will disappear.
Ron Paul is the only option for the GOP. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nod, then he wins the National Election, if the GOP fails to nominate Ron Paul then Hillary wins. Pretty simple in the end isn’t it.
Here’s my two cents.
I have known that all of this was coming for a long time. I met Ron Paul during his 1988 campaign and he warned me then about all that is happening now. From terrorism to the unwarranted searches to the debasement of our money, he predicted it all. If you won’t take my word, read the book he published in 1987 called “Freedom under Siege.” It’s all spelled out in that book.
There are two, and only two possible outcomes here. One, Ron Paul is the GOP nominee and beats Hillary to a pulp in the general election. Hillary simply doesn’t stand a chance against the fact based arguments Ron Paul will slap her with in the debates. Then, although it will be a difficult journey, at least we will be on the road to getting our country back.
Two, the GOP goes completely insane and nominates anybody other than Ron Paul. Hillary wins hands down, no contest. Once Hillary gets in the White House it’s back to business as usual. The SPP goes forward (if you don’t know what that is, look it up on the White House website) and US sovereignty continues to weaken. The dollar goes to hell in a handbasket and the US economy crashes. A new Depression gets under way that makes the 1930 look like a birthday party. US troops are withdrawn from around the world because we simply cannot afford to maintain our empire. The convulsions and turmoil caused by these events cause Hillary to declare martial law (as permitted under existing Executive Orders) and cancels all future elections. The returning troops are deployed to keep the American people under control. Thus, we have Madam Dictator for life.
That’s the choice folks. Freedom with Ron Paul, or socialist dictatorship with Hillary.
And no, I will not accept any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, I will vote third party or not vote at all. There simply is NO difference between Hillary and the other GOP candidates. They are all, literally, members of the same club and committed to the same agenda. None of them is acceptable. Period.
I agree completely with Johnnyb and Michael Wagner.
Ron Paul has the best record on the Constitution of anyone in Congress, and he has more honor and integrity than the rest of Congress combined.
I seriously doubt that he hates Israel. Giving billions in foreign aid to other countries isn’t authorized by the constitution.
I’ll vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and like most Ron Paul supporters I’m ecstatic to finally have a candidate who isn’t just another sock puppet for the oligarchy.
“If Ron Paul does not get nominated then Hillary has already won, what do you not understand about that?”
What I understand about that is that you have said you will not vote for any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul and thus, like many of your fellow Ronulan Paulbots you’ll strengthen Hillary.
And tapping my campaign experience which runs from the Court House to the White House (in comparison to what experience you have acquired while living in your mother’s basement) the loss of 1-2% in certain key states could very well swing the election to Hillary.
Though that outcome is not likely, one thing is certain: Ron Paul can NOT win the GOP nomination. All your efforts are nothing more than a distracting sideshow which benefits one person: HILLARY CLINTON.
Let me just repeat this again: RON PAUL CAN NOT WIN THE GOP NOMINATION. And I’ll go further: RON PAUL COULD NOT WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EVEN IF HE WERE THE GOP NOMINEE OR IF HE RAN AS AN INDEPENDENT OR AS A DEMOCRAT!
At what point will reality dawn on you????
P.S. If you folks care so much about the Constitution, why are Paulbot gangs behaving like Nazi Brownshirts harassing other candidates?
Ron Paul will have more difficulty winning the GOP nod than winning the general election, thats true. The GOP is stacking the deck against Dr. Paul by rapidly passing laws to close the Primaries in certain key states such as New Hampshire.
The whole business is dirty.
Supporting Ron Paul in the Primaries is not like supporting Hillary in the General Election at all. perhaps if Ron Paul were running as a third party candidate then it would be like supporting Hillary, but the same thing could be said about people supporting the Republican candidate if Paul is not nominated. Either way the vote will be split.
Very much unlike the NAZIs, Ron Paul supporters are trying to prevent this country going the same way that Germany went in the 1930s. Remember, the Prelude to the Nazis coming into power was the collapse of the Deutsche Mark and the Great Depression. Foriegn banks are no longer as motivated to keep as many dollars in Reserve as the dollar crashes, and first they will stop buying US dollars, then they will start selling US dollars for other currency, this will define a trend and the US dollar will rapidly collapse, we will have to sell our debt at deep discount, which regardless of what the federal reserve does will cause steep inflation and high interest rates.
Hillary will proclaim a crisis, propose all sorts of socialist legislation which will pass through congress quickly, because they Democrat majority will increase as people will continue to vote the GOP out of office.
All of this will combine to cause great civil unrest, and as Hillary taught us in Waco, she’s not above using gestapo tactics, and she will stage another Waco, which she will use as an excuse to grab our guns, then things will get really bad.
For the sake of the War in Iraq, the GOP would sellout America and let her go the way of the Soviets. Please try and see the big picture.
The GOP Plot to Defeat Ron Paul
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 – FreeMarketNews.com
NEWS ANALYSIS AND OPINION
It is not enough that seemingly every state that can is desperately moving up primary contest dates to as close to January 1, 2008 as possible in the hopes of derailing the momentum that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) will derive from a good New Hampshire finish. Now the GOP in many states has apparently taken to shutting down the possibility that Independents or Democrats can vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
Such contests, inviting a broad electoral spectrum, have taken place in the past without controversy or interference.
Why now? What is the hurry? Is it all coincidence?
Well Richard, it seems that the fascists in power have realized that freedom is popular, Ron Paul has $5.3 million bucks in the bank, and if they do not get in his way he will win!
The only fascists I see are the Paulian Zealots harassing the leading GOP candidate.
Let me know when you raise $100 million.
Until then, you’re nothing but a distraction and you serve only the interests of Hillary Clinton and a socialist takeover of America under the direction of the UN and one world government.
I’ve been to Munich and traced the steps of the fascists Brownshirts Johnnyb.
On that same trip I visited Dachau, the first Nazi Concentration Camp built in 1933.
I’ve seen the evil of fascism first hand. Ask your mom to send you on a trip to Europe tracing the history of that disease before you vainly try and lecture me on the subject.
Yet, you folks with your “America First” roots were at the heart of efforts to stop the U.S. from defending itself against the NAZI menace until it was too late.
And now you would do the same regarding Islamo-fascism.
Ask your mom for $6 and go see the movie “The Kingdom.” Then answer the question: whose side are you on?
You should watch the video. I think that you might beable to learn more about America based on a documentary about America, than taking a vaction to Germany.
Welp, I tried. Only made it 48 seconds into it before the loony conspiracy theory of how the US was taken over in 1913 got to me.
Nice try.
Problem is, it might as well be the screenplay for an Austin Powers movie. No joke, this was so stupid it’s not even funny. They have medication for people who buy into this crap. Suggest you see a doctor. Schizophrenia is a disease that can be treated.
I wonder if they pass out a tin foil hat with the DVD for that video?
Johnnyb’s claiming in a separate email to be a well traveled man of the world type (I guess he can afford to travel since he lives in his mom’s basement).
But when he starts using that “true conservative” codeword you know he’s pegged himself as a loon.
Should I repeat the short list of all the REAL conservatives I’ve worked for met or stood next to during speeches: Ronald Reagan, Phil Crane, Phyllis Schlafly, John Ashbrook, Ed Meese, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley Jr.
I’ll stack all of them and my own experience learned directly from them anyday over the tin foil “true conservative” crowd.
Mike’s America, I don’t care who’s stooge you claim to be, it does not make you any less of a stooge. I do not remember Ronald Reagan getting us into an unwinnable war, in fact I remember Reagan pulling the troops out of Lebanon, and when we had to have a confrontation with the Libyans or Iranians he bombed them, but was not so foolish as to try and build a western democracy in the middle east.
Goldwater ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam, and Goldwater’s son has endorsed Ron Paul as the flag bearer for the Goldwater legacy.
“The administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work.”-William F. Buckley Jr.
Your boy Phil Crane is one of the idiots who screwed up the republican party, no wonder he was voted out in 2006.
I’m left to question, why is it that your support of Republicans is mostly centered around the Republican policies that limit freedom and rally support for a lost war that can never be won with results that would justify the sacrifice of our Armed Service men and women, or the sacrifice of every American in terms of their liberty and financial well being? YOu Mike’s America, are a tool for the machine politics that have screwed this nation up and subverted the conservative movement. Its this subversion of traditional conservatism that has lead to the disillusionment of the vast majority 60% of Americans who do not even bother to vote, because like me, they can no longer see a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrats.
Run down the only descent man running for President if you want, most likely he won’t get the nomination anyhow, but the cost for shutting Ron Paul out is going to be Hillary Clinton as commander in chief, and so be it! Perhaps she will run this country into the ground even faster than a Republican would, but if we do not change course in this country and the Republican party the trajectory remains the same, and sooner or later we are going to crash and burn, and its all because of the failure of both parties to abide by the constitutional limitations on Government.
You really are impressed with yourself aren’t you johnnyb?
I’m nobodies stooge pal. But I do have experience in government from the court house to the White House and have been privileged to be part of the REAL conservative movement, not this fantasy that you and your fellow Paulbots dreamed up in your respective mother’s basements.
The bottom line remains that Ron Paul doesn’t have a prayer of getting the GOP nomination. And unlike you selfish, self centered spineless wonders I’ve pledged to suppor the nominee of the party and defeat Hillary.
It’s clear to me that you haven’t got the maturity to see sense and would rather impose Hillary Clinton on the world rather than support any other candidate than your boy wonder.
That’s a prescription for losing more than an election. It’s a forecast for rollback on every issue you claim to care about.
How stupid is that?
But you don’t really care. As I said, a very immature, childlike, self-centered, foolish, STUPID outlook.
That, and you’re a time waster.
I think we are through with your comments on this thread. If you want to comment on newer posts, feel free and you can continue your ranting diatribe.
Furhter comments by you on this thread will be deleted.
I do not remember Ronald Reagan getting us into an unwinnable war,
No. Neither has George W. Bush. Islamic extremists got us into this war. It happened before Bush’s watch; and it will more than likely end generations from now, just as the Cold War was brought to an end by Reagan, fifty or so years after it started.
in fact I remember Reagan pulling the troops out of Lebanon,
Yes. And it’s one of those things that Osama points to as an example for why America is safe to attack, for why America has not what it takes for achieving victory.
Even a lame victory, such as the one Osama had at the Lion’s Den, is enough to feed the “jihad” movement, and provide recruitment propaganda for more hirabists with a death wish.
For the Soviets, it was nothing. But for the future al-Qaeda, they propagandize and mythologize that as a huge victory, and claim their “heroics” drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
and when we had to have a confrontation with the Libyans or Iranians he bombed them, but was not so foolish as to try and build a western democracy in the middle east.
The soft bigotry of low expectations, huh?
Just because the groundwork for democracy involves commitment and hardwork, doesn’t mean that it will fail or that it is impossible. For how many more centuries do you wish the Middle East to subjugate its people in the backward 7th century?
Goldwater ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam, and Goldwater’s son has endorsed Ron Paul as the flag bearer for the Goldwater legacy.
Hey…Ron Reagan Jr. is a big lefty. If he endorses Ron Paul, does that mean ArPee also gets to wave the banner of the Reagan legacy?
As much as RPers like to cloak themselves in Reagan’s mantle, remember that in 1988, RP ran against Bush #41 as a Libertarian because he DISAGREED with Reagan policy. He feared that George Herbert Walker Bush would continue with an aggressive foreign policy toward the Soviets that would piss them off. ArPee is an appeaser…or ArPeeser. If he were in power then, we’d still be in a Cold War, and probably worse.
“The administration has, now, to cope with failure.
What failure?!?! Victory is a process. Patience, commitment, fortitude, are the virtues. Or do you and Buckley just go in for quickies?
I’m left to question, why is it that your support of Republicans is mostly centered around the Republican policies that limit freedom and rally support for a lost war
Because Harry Reid says it’s lost, don’t make it so. Do you not understand that we are in a war, and wishing it away by “bringing the troops home” does not end the war? Iraq is one battlefield. We are fighting all over the world, but Iraq is important, because it is the theater that the media most focuses upon. And where the media is, is where propaganda can pay out its biggest dividends.
And it is you and the Ronulans who wish to limit freedom. I agree with President Bush that freedom is a “God-given right” of everyone. And I’m not even religious. There is no peace in the absence of justice and freedom.
that can never be won with results that would justify the sacrifice of our Armed Service men and women, or the sacrifice of every American in terms of their liberty and financial well being?
Bring the troops home prematurely, and yes, a lot of those deaths will have been sacrificed in vain, to a degree and maybe two.
I find the following of great relevance for you, JohnnyB:
Despite his own background as a journalist, Kaplan is no friend of the elite media. He warns that today’s media is hypercritical, hypocritical (demanding zero defects in others but refusing to acknowledge any of their own), and unaccountable. They tyrannize government and the military with their shrill demands for perfection and this leads inevitably to risk-averse leaders. (The troops are no fans of the press either. They particularly resent the media’s efforts to make them victims of a failed policy. They don’t agree that the policy has failed, and they are nobody’s victims. “[T]he overall effect of the media,” Kaplan concludes was to foster impatience on the home front.”)
Kaplan also questions the media stories of low troop morale. Among the troops he visits from the mean streets of Fallujah to the tropical backwaters of Mindanao, he finds almost universally high morale. (If the media was interested in the truth, they’d take a look at reenlistment statistics. While recruiting is lagging, reenlistments are exceeding targets — often by wide margins — and are highest among deployed troops.) Everywhere, troops tell him that they willingly — even eagerly — chose what they’re doing. After traveling days over rough roads, sleeping in icy frontier outposts, and subsisting on local cuisine, Army Col. Thomas Wilhelm, a Foreign Area Officer in Mongolia, announces simply, “I love my job.”
The troops are also quick to admit that they are getting as much out of the service as they are giving. Again and again, they talk about the sense of direction, the self-discipline, and the maturity that the military has helped them develop. Generically working-class and disproportionately southern, they often feel a disconnect with civilians. In Iraq in 2004, Marine Cpl. Michael Pinckney explained his disillusionment with his countrymen who had “‘lost the meaning of sacrifice. They expect things to be perfect and easy. They don’t know that when things go wrong you persevere; you don’t second-guess.’“
because like me, they can no longer see a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrats.
Dr. Paul is giving you the wrong prescription glasses, my friend. You need a new optometrist who will not blind you with thorn-rimmed glasses.
Your are an idiot. Iran is no threat to the USA. Ron Paul represents the USA, get it? Also, familiar yourself with the Declaration of Indpendence and the Constitution and maybe you should also read the 911 Report. Perhaps then you will not make such idiotic statements.
Good grief Will! You people are just soooooo predictable!
What planet are you on anyway?
Ron Paul’s a loon, and the only way he can become President is if his supporters can vote multiple times electronically.
Iran is no threat to the US?
These Paulbots are just retarded.
The Paulbots sure are raising a lot of money online, though. Their campaign set a goal of $500,000 in online donations for the last 7 days of Sept. (also the last 7 days of Q3).
Well, after 1 1/2 days they are at $310,000 and are already saying in their forum that they are going to hit the 500K mark tomorrow by midnight, with four full days left, and then aim for a million bucks or more.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
All money down a rathole FZappa! I’ve asked this before and none of you Paulians have an answer:
When it comes down to the choice in November 2008 are you going to vote for:
A. Rudy
B. Hillary
C. Not vote (which defaults to Hillary)
Ron Paul is a distraction from the real debate and he is politically irrelevant. Instead of focusing on the difficult and painful reality of the issues we face you folks go off on some fantasy crusade.
I’ve seen it all before, going back to John Anderson in 1980 and later Ross Perot. We can all thank Ross and his followers in 1992 and 1996 for inflicting Bill Clinton on the world.
Time will tell, Mike. For someone who’s not worried about Ron Paul you sure spend a lot of time writing about him. If you really think Rudy’s going to win the Republican nomination, I think you have a paradigm shift coming. It’s going to be Ron Paul vs. Hillary and Ron will win 45 states.
Incidentally, your blog appears to be misnamed. Judging from the cartoon logo, you’re confusing having two aces as your hole cards with aces coming out on the flop.
Holy crap, I have a cramp from the laughing at that line.
You guys take the cake.
As for the logo, it gets even better. There are five aces on the ground. But thanks for the “poker” lesson. You’ve been most informative.
Sigh….
OK Zappa: I noticed you dodged the question AGAIN!
What are you going to do when reality comes crashing in on your fantasy?
Five aces on the ground, but only three cards in a flop.
In the logo in the upper left, there are two pairs of hole cards, both bullets.
Neither part of the logo justifies the term “flopping aces.”
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Are you kidding me? Your now telling me how I should have MY logo for the name of MY blog?
Don’t like the number of aces…then go away.
Geez, just when I thought you Paulbots couldn’t get anymore annoying.
And he still didn’t answer the question….
Enjoy your fantasy Zappa… But just remember, if the worst happens, we can thank you for 4 perhaps 8 years of PRESIDENT HILLARY.
All the Ron Paul sock puppets can bitch and whine as much as they want , but the news today is Ralph Nader is forming up looking for campaign volunteers in several early primary states.
Internet spammed polls and such don’t make a winner.
They are simply paralleling google bombing trying to give the idea there is really support for him.
I almost wonder if half of those net supports of Paul are wonks working from the nutroots to give him cred.
Yeah sock puppets for the sock puppets.
Well fellas, you guys might want to take a look at Ron’s site. It seems that he is going to blow away last quarter’s performance, and has managed to raise over $300,000 dollars in about 36 hours from private donors on the internet.
I would think that this would indicate real support from real people, not just a few dozen clickbots spamming your polls. Since Ron Paul supporters are more passionate about their candidate, expect for them to show up at the primary polls in far greater numbers than supporters of other candidates. No one seems really hard core about any of the weak field that the Republicans are feilding this year, and there is no way that Christian Conservatives can go for Rudy, and after they learn more about Thomason he will soon lose his appeal too.
By swarming the primaries Ron Paul supporters can beat the base of this deminished Republican Party, and if we can’t then Hillary is going to win the election because a prowar candidate cannot win. You cannot win the election when 2/3rds of the people are against on a major issue, and when your frontrunner Guilliani is widely dispised by a majority of values conservatives, and the NRA members who would just as soon stay home.
No one but Ron Paul can win the national election for the Republicans. The sooner you recognize that fact, the better, otherwise you are just useful idiots for the CFR.
Ohhhh Johnnyb! You keep feeding those delusions to that fantasy!
Again, I ask the same question I do above: Who are you going to vote for in the General election:
A. Rudy
B. Hillary
C. stay home or vote for some other fringe candidate in which case it’s a default vote for Hillary
$300,000 or $500,000 is chicken feed to a serious presidential campaign. While Paul is 4th in last quarter’s cash on hand tally:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
He still lacks the the organization necessary to win EVEN ONE PRIMARY.
Is there any poll in which he is more than an asterik?
And you can keep repeating that out of context poll # about 2/3′ds of Americans being against the war. What the American people won’t stand for is defeat and that’s the only soap you are selling.
Perhaps we need to go through the other issues Ron Paul claims to support and ask: “Will a President Hillary, or a President Giuliani do a better job addressing those issues?”
Hillary is just as pro-war as the rest of them. I don’t understand why people are failing to see that. She’s already gone on record saying the war in Iraq may not end in her first term and is open to using force against Iran.
President Bush has even recently been campaigning for her saying,
“I believe our candidate can beat her but it’s going to be a tough race.”
“She’s got a great national presence and this is becoming a national primary,” Bush told Sammon. “And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated.”
Rupert Murdoch and Fox News love to eat lunch and publicize her.
And even Alan Greenspan has been stumping for Hillary, by singing praises to the former Clinton administration, and bashing Bush for his fiscal policies. (Although not admitting to his own role in our current fiscal dilemmas.)
They are priming us up for a Hillary win and continued decline in the dollar. We are told to prepare for a 4 year economic recession. The dollar is going down in value by a penny a day.
When things keep getting worse, people will be looking for a solution to the problem. The solution that they want to present to us will be Hillary Clinton as a great socialist democratic leader to carry us forward in the future. Then the second new deal will begin and the loss of the free market and individual rights will continue.
It’s all coming to a head and the only candidate who has the courage to stand up against this establishment is Ron Paul. Were there people who were willing to talk about the economic realities we face, it is likely they could draw just as much – if not more attention than him. But he is the only one who seems to understand how we’ve got here and who is willing to stand up for the American people.
You might say it is a pipe dream, but I would say it is you and the American media establishment who are dreaming. The economic realities we are going to begin facing will be harsh and it will be time for a sober conversation about how we got here.
They will try to lay the blame for the current housing crisis with the borrowers themselves, not acknowledging the fact that the borrowing is a natural reaction to the artificially low interest rates that the Fed had set for so long. In this system, the low rates have punished those who save the currency – as their dollar value has gone down and unable to keep up with inflation. It has encouraged our debt as the means to investment and now the well is running dry.
Please watch this video of Rep. Paul question Ben Bernanke on this issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w
If it came down to Rudy or Hillary, I would write in “Secede”. Simple as that.
I’m not worried about Rudy getting the nod. He’s got the name recognition now, but he got torn up last week at the value voters debate, and at the NRA. As people wake up to the fact that Rudy is really little different than any democrat on the issues that matter most to them, Rudy will be a goner.
Rudy is a gun grabber.
Rudy favors gay marriage.
Rudy favors abortion on demand.
Rudy has a nasty personal life.
Rudy has appeared on National Television in drag kissing another man.
Rudy’s foolish decision to place an emergency command center in the World trade Complex, left him running the streets on 9/11 instead of calling the shots.
The real heros of 9/11 think that Rudy is a choad.
Both the Libertarians and Constitution Party have endorsed Ron Paul. You might not think too much about libertarins or constitutionalists, but we are the people who have tolerated voting for what we perceived as the lesser of 2 evils for a long time. Unfortunately for people like you and the Republican Party, you guys over played your hand and neglected our desires for too long, then Bush was just over the top. The Republicans cannot win without our support, and they have lost it.
The vote of the Moral Majority used to be appreciated by the Republican Party, but the leadership in the Republican Party failed to keep homosexuals and pedophiles out, now the Republican frontrunners have chosen not to even participate in the morals debate. Looking at the candidates personal moral values Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are clearly on top.
Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter are the most electible Republicans, after Ron Paul, but they do not have the money or the national standing in the polls that Ron Paul does, and they don’t appeal to as broad of a spectrum of voters. All of the frontrunners are unelectable. McCain is a very nice man, but he’s done.
Americans may hate to lose, but what do you think is victory in Iraq? It seems to me that we won a long time ago. What do you want to establish bases there like we did in Germany and Japan, is that success? Cold War is over, we no longer need bases all over the place unless we are planning on going to war with Iran.
Wanna see Oil prices jump $70 bucks over night? Go to war with Iran, and thats exactly what you will see.
Wanna see oil Prices drop to $40 a bbl? Elect Ron Paul, and see what happens when short sellers feel safe to come back into the market.
There is no military solution in Iraq, all of the top Generals including Petreaus has told us that. Our presence there does nothing but piss them off. Wanna know why? Read Denish D’Souza’s book about how the cultural Left is the Reason that we were attacked on 9/11. The Islamists think that we are trying to make all of their women like Britney Spears and Madonna. They think that we want them to have gay pride parades down the center of Baghdad, and abortion on demand.
Can you blame for not wanting crap like that?
Our Military is the most badass in the World, but ethically we can not kill all the Muslims, and we can’t convert them to Christianity. Those are the only ways to win, but ethically we cannot do that, so fuck it! We are just weakening our military, getting our boys hurt and killed, and pissing our wealth away.
2/3rds of us have figured out that this “war” has already accomplished everything that it was intened to do, and further sacrifice on our behalf, does not help the Iraqis and does not help us. It time to come home. Run a candidate that does not realize this, and you lose something much more important than Iraq, you lose America.
Thats why if it should come down to Rudy of Hillary, I’m voting to secede. Simple as that.
“If it came down to Rudy or Hillary, I would write in “Secede”. “
OK… another vote for Hillary!
You make Rudy sound like a libertarian. So I wonder again why you wouldn’t support him over a default vote for Hillary?
“Wanna see oil Prices drop to $40 a bbl? Elect Ron Paul”
Now there’s a campaign promise! Too funny Johnnyb! You should be a comedy writer.
When it comes down to the choice in November 2008 are you going to vote for:
A. Rudy
B. Hillary
C. Not vote (which defaults to Hillary)
Actually, not voting is only half as bad as actually voting for Hillary, even if we otherwise accept your perspective. I’m sure if you talk to a Hillary supporter who expects you to turn out and vote D, he’ll tell you that not voting is the same as voting for Giuliani – at which point the flaw in your logic should become apparent.
Anyway, I don’t expect Giuliani to get the nomination. The race seems to be shaping up for Romney versus Thompson. ‘What about the polls?’, you say? Well, everything I’ve seen so far suggests a significant inverse correlation between ‘degree of support for Giuliani’ and ‘actual energy level and commitment to voting’. If you call people up, or make it super easy for them to vote, Giuliani does well. But as soon as you actually make them go somewhere or do something, Thompson and/or Romney kill him. If Romney does well in early states (and he has the organization), he’ll get name recognition and the perception that he can win (and keep in mind he has the money to get his message out). After that most of the vote will split between pragmatists (who would have supported Giuliani, but now see Romney as viable), and the more religious or conservative, who will mostly vote Thompson or some other minor candidate.
Anyway, I would vote Romney or Thompson over Hillary. Hillary versus Giulani is actually a tougher choice: power-hungry, corrupt, ideologically warped and smart, or power-hungry, authoritarian, psychologically warped and stupid? I would probably vote Giuliani just because the Dems look set to take Congress, and I’d sooner have the branches of government in different hands. But if the congress were Republican I’d likely go the other way. Not a fan of Giuliani.
We have military operations going on ALL OVER THE WORLD. And it’s a good thing. Not a bad thing. Making the distinction between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism” is a moot point. “interventionism” is exactly what we are doing, and have been doing for a very long, long time, all over the world. It’s a romanticized fairy tale, this RP notion of going back “to the good ol’ days” where America minded its own business and didn’t entangle itself in foreign alliances.
That is such a dishonest bumpersticker slogan, utterly misrepresentative of what General Petraeus or even President Bush has said on the matter. Of course military alone isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s a meaningless point; but anti-war advocates grasp at it, clouding the argument.
Oh…so then you do acknowledge that they “hate us for our freedoms” and not the ridiculous Ron Paul/Michael Scheuer assertion that it’s “America’s foreign policy” that’s to blame for “blowback”? Good on you!
“The race seems to be shaping up for Romney versus Thompson.”
Oh my… and the Paulians are smoking dope again! Yikes!
I haven’t made up my mind which of the top tier GOP candidates to support. But I do know one thing: I won’t be troubled by considering Ron Paul as he’ll never get past the starting gate.
and this little gem:
“Well, everything I’ve seen so far suggests a significant inverse correlation between ‘degree of support for Giuliani’ and ‘actual energy level and commitment to voting’.”
Oh PUHLEASE! What crap!
How many campaigns have you worked on bbart? You’re just spouting words that have no basis in fact.
You simply affirm the conclusion that you’re all a bunch of wind up dolls with no brain.
spouting words that have no basis in fact
I’m basing this on the polls conducted so far. Call people on the phone, and Giulani does well. Conduct a straw poll that’s unannounced and just sort of ask everyone who comes by to vote, Giuliani does well (New Hampshire). Ask people to pay and/or transport themselves (Iowa, Mackinac, Georgia, Minnesota straw polls) and you see various results, but in general Giuliani’s voters don’t show up in large numbers. Preselect your voters for ‘Republicanness’ (Texas, South Carolina, Florida), which I assume has some positive correlation with voting, and Giuliani still doesn’t do well. If you have some other way of estimating voter enthusiasm, I’d be happy to hear it. You could argue that Giuliani’s supporters don’t see any need to contest the straw polls because they already have momentum, but I’m skeptical that this kind of reasoned lack of participation would explain the degree of underperformance.
and the Paulians are smoking dope again
If I wanted to make up something goofy, I’d tell a story about how Paul was going to do well. I don’t like either Thompson or Romney that much. And I can certainly imagine Thompson sinking himself through simple mismanagement, though that seems less likely for Romney.
affirm the conclusion
That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. Maybe you were looking for the word ‘confirm’ but decided that ‘affirm’ sounded fancier. Speaking of brains, or lack thereof.
“If I wanted to make up something goofy, I’d tell a story about how Paul was going to do well. “
Don’t let your fellow Paulians hear you say that. You’ll be drummed out of the club.
Oh, and check this out:
So much for “Maybe you were looking for the word ‘confirm’ but decided that ‘affirm’ sounded fancier. Speaking of brains, or lack thereof.”
Speaking of brains, or lack thereof….look in the mirror dimwit.
You guys seem awful worried about Ron Paul, for him not having a chance at all.
You should be worried too, because Ron Paul supporters are going to overwhelm the polls in Hew Hampshire and he is going to win by a wide margin. Ever heard of the Free Staters?
Not at all worried about Ron Paul winning anything Johnnyb.
I am worried what you misfits are going to do when the bubble bursts and your fantasy crashes into hard reality.
There are just enough of you out there in key states to push the state one way or the other. But if that 1 or 2% stays home because they are disillusioned (because of their own fault) then Hillary could win.
I’ve recited the history of 1992 and 1996 and Ross Perot. Even though Ron Paul will get nowhere near Ross’s numbers, he could still throw the election to Hillary.
Your earlier comment about “seceding” isn’t funny. Especially because I live in South Carolina, not far from Fort Sumter.
I made that series of anti-Paul posts a couple of weeks back as a form of entertainment. My own amusement, to pass the time. Just because of this internet phenomenon where a conservative blog will badmouth RP, and suddenly all the Paulmites will come crawling out of the woodworks, mostly with the usual talking points. I wanted to experience that firsthand. You RPers have not failed to disappoint; although it seems that of late, the Paulbots seem rather fatigued. I’ve seen a couple of conservative blogs where Ron Paul’s name was mentioned negatively, and little activity of protest from the Paulbots. You Ronulans are slacking!
Some of his supporters have been worth debating with; others are just….bizarre!
I do not see him as a consequential candidate. Just a fad, selling snake oil and tilting at windmills.
I’ll admit, I’ve heard him say a couple of things that I like. But as an overall package, and as a realistic shot at winning the Presidency? Uh-uh. Even if I liked him and even if he had a snowball’s chance at winning the Republican nomination, he’s unelectable in the general. No name recognition, no charisma, and the only thing he has in common with the lefties is his anti-war stance. I know you think he’s the only one who stands a chance against Hillary. I disagree.
And my biggest problem with him is his position on foreign policy. On that, he really shares more in common with a Howard Zinn.
I strongly encourage anyone who thinks American interventionism is creating problems in the world, to go buy and read Robert Kaplan’s books “Imperial Grunts” and “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts”.
I’d like to know what the RP supporters think of Robert Kagan’s “Dangerous Nation”, too. They will probably just dismiss him as a “neocon” revisionist.
I was not joking about seceding, and I think the current powers assumed by the United States Federal Government are so far outside of the Parameters of constitutional limitations that the Government stands in Breach of Contract, which is what the Constitution actually is a contract between the States.
I had great hope when Bush came into office that he would restore this great nation, but instead he did nothing that he said he would do and instead decided to run this country into the ground. The Republican Party used to be the party that supported a constitutionally limited government, but they do not even pretend like they support the constitution anymore. Bush has done nothing but create more government bureaucracy, as more of our jobs have gone over seas.
Every great problem currently in this country has been created by the government. Terrorism is a response to our foreign policy. Budget deficits which devalue the dollar are the result of social ands corporate welfare along with out of control military spending to keep our troops all over the world. These are not Republicans ideas! These are all democrat ideas, and even when we had the power to change the system our party failed to do anything.
Seriously, I do not understand what Hillary would do that would be any different than what Guilliani would do. Both of them would just create more government which would just make America worse off than she was before.
The only guy out there talking about seriously reducing the size of government and increasing personal liberity is Ron Paul. While Hillary is talking about socializing entire industries, and Rudy is talking grabbing people’s guns without any sort of due process. Neither one of them will do a damned thing about the illegals pouring over the borders, or allowing States to make their own laws regarding abortion.
Have you taken a look at the Forex Markets lately? The Dollar is going to shit. Foriegn Banks are not going to want to hold dollars that are losing value, so eventually they are going to dump them and quit buying our debt. We will lose our world reserve currency status, and with it our advantage over the rest of the World.
And why? Iraq? Terrorists? Sorry, but I would rather take my chances with terrorists, than face the certainty of disaster that we would face if the people in charge do not recognize that they are the problem and start doing exactly what Ron Paul is promoting, but I have the feeling that the welfare of the American people is not their agenda.
“More Government is not the answer to the Problem, more government is the Problem.”-Ronald Wilson Reagan
“The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of Paper”-George W. Bush
I am worried what you misfits are going to do when the bubble bursts and your fantasy crashes into hard reality.
There are just enough of you out there in key states to push the state one way or the other. But if that 1 or 2% stays home because they are disillusioned (because of their own fault) then Hillary could win.
Or if we go out and vote L or C, which amounts to much the same thing for you. I agree that it’s a problem. However, the two party system tends to fall victim to a political version of the Hoteling Paradox, so that both candidates end up at the very center with very little difference in positions. One counterweight to this is that the fringes can act as a spoiler, destroying the chances of the candidate on ‘their side’ if he’s not sufficiently to their liking.
The French system of elections (multiple runoffs) handles this situation better.
Oh, and you’re still wrong about affirm/confirm. Someone needs to state something themselves in order to affirm it. Confirm is shown as a meaning or synonym because affirming something is indeed one way to confirm it, but the meanings are not identical. You can confirm something by providing evidence of it (which is no doubt what you had in mind), but affirming something requires that someone explicitly says it themselves.
Starting your own dictionary now bbartblog? You’re just one step away from becoming a full fledged Clinton: “depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’.”
Keep it up and you’ll be completely crackers by November 2008.
As for Johnnyb:
All of us wish that Bush would have done a better job of controlling government spending.
But to elect Hillary by default and see that problem get much worse makes no sense.
And it’s inconceivable to me that anyone who has lived through or even read about the history of the 1930′s would want to put the U.S. back in such a dangerously weak position.
Isolationism invited attack. Not the other way around.
Who’s going to try and right the course of the dollar collapse?? Rudy, Hillary, Thompson, Obama?
Why is that not the most important issue of our day???
First, lame, reactionary bloggers tagged Ron Paul so they could get hits for their dead-in-the-water blogs, now the GOP Presidential Trust Dinner is pretty much doing the same thing by inviting Ron Paul to their dinner, only replace ‘hits’ with ‘cash’, and dead-in-the-water ‘blog’ with ‘political party’ instead.
In part, perhaps. But it’s also based upon a slanted propagandized perception of American foreign policy.
Another thing: What RP fails to address is the “root cause” of terrorism. It isn’t our foreign policy. It’s fundamentalist, militant, radical Islam. It is the Qutbist advocacy that killing innocents is acceptable. It is the wahhabist rejection of modernity and intolerance of infidels.
Of all the people griping over American foreign policy, only one group turns that perceived grievance into violent action. Islamists.
France and Germany were against the Iraq War. Is it their foreign policy that’s to blame for terrorist attacks/plots by Islamists? How about all the other countries all over the world? Does caving in and appeasing terrorist demands diminish Islamic terrorism? Didn’t Spain still receive terror threats after the Madrid Bombing and on the heels of a perceived influence on the outcome of their elections?
What Ron Paul does not understand is the nature of the enemy we face, who has been at war with us since the 70′s. Their terror threat has only metasticized for the last 30 years, culminating in 9/11. And it has a lot to do with their religion. You don’t see anti-American foreign policy Europeans and Buddhists strapping on homicide bomb vests because they disagree with American foreign policy.
The problem is not us. It’s them. I again urge anyone who thinks American interventionism is a bad thing, to pick up Robert Kaplan’s books.
And yet, Reagan did not reduce the size of government, now did he? Why is that? Why quote him? You criticize President Bush for “not delivering”, yet cite Reagan to support your criticism on the size of government?
Yes, Paul. Thanks for visiting the page and giving us the much needed hits. You’ve been a most useful idiot, falling for our ingenious plot of creating more traffic at FA. Muwahahahahaha!!!!
European Buddhists are hardly affected directly by our foreign policies in the Middle East.
mike,
I said Europeans and Buddhists. I could just as well have pulled some other group out of the air, to state a point.
Please don’t confuse the finger pointing to the moon.
You misread Wordsmith Mike.
He didn’t mean “European Buddhists.”
Now that you brought the subject of Buddhists up… It’s important to note that Islamists are slaughtering Buddhists by the thousands in places like Thailand.
None of these Buddhists have any connection whatsoever to U.S. foreign policy or support for Israel.
And yet, the muzzies are murdering them for being Buddhists.
It’s probably the best example of how deluded the Paulian thinking is on terrorism.
The muzzies won’t stop killing us just because we abandon our hard fought strategic position in the Middle East and allies like Israel and other Mid East friends.
But the only way to prove that point is do as you suggest. By then, it would be too late and the cost too great.
So, I’ll just repeat the words of Winston Churchill from his six volume history of the Second World War as he recounts all the advantages thrown away and the inevitable consequences:
The bottom line: APPEASEMENT KILLS!
Still, outside of our favorability towards China. What legitimate grievances would Buddhists have with American foreign policy?
Ideologically there might be some, but America has done little to affect them directly.
Europe loves us, or at least their governments do. Considering we have pretty much conceded a good share of our economical dominance to them, with still a good ways to run.
What other group besides the people of the Middle East have been greatly affected by American policies towards their region?
Were the situation reversed, would the world be at war with radical Christianity?
Good for Ron Paul!
He’s got balls!
Germany and appeasement. The untold history is that we (The Fed) helped finance their growing power. As told by Congressman McFadden in 1934:
“On April 27, 1932, the Fed outfit sent $750,000 belonging to American bank depositors in gold to Germany. A week later another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Fed. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold to Germany. These shipments are not made for profit on the exchange since the German marks are blow parity with the dollar.”
And also sowed the seeds in Russia, China, and Japan:
“These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. “Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.”
“Mike” are you paying the slightest attention to what people write in response?
Buddhists in Thailand are being murdered and it has ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION TO U.S. FOREIGN POLICY!
Then you launch off on some nutwing moonbattery about U.S. support for the Nazis.
You guys are swinging on the high trapeze at the circus without a net.
One wonders what the crash will be like when the ground hits you?
I like disinter’s comment. And using “mike’s” creative filter I read it this way: “Good for Ron Paul!
He’s got goat balls!
And this is a taste of what likely is happening as we speak! Please consider what this man has said. Again Congresmman McFadden:
“”In 1930 while the speculating banks were getting out of the stock market at the expense of the general public, the Fed advanced them $13,022,782,000. This shows that when the banks were gambling on the public credit of these United States as represented by the Fed currency they were subsidized to any amount they required by the Fed. When the swindle began to fall, the bankers knew it in advance and withdrew from the market. They got out with whole skins- and left the people of these United States to pay the piper. “My friend from Kansas, Mr. McGugin, has stated that he thought the Fed lent money on rediscounting. So they do, but they lend comparatively little that way. The real discounting that they do has been called a mere penny in the slot business. It is too slow for genuine high flyers. They discourage it. They prefer to subsidize their favorite banks by making them $60,000,000,000 advances and they prefer to acquire assistance in the notorious open discount market in New York, where they can use it to control the price of stocks and bonds on the exchanges.”
“For every dollar they advanced on discounts in 1928, they lent $33.00 to their favorite banks for whom they do a business of several billion dollars income tax on their profits to these United States. “
Well “Mike’s America”, you wanted to talk about appeasement and I can’t think of any greater appeasement the Nazis received than financial assistance.
Its unfortunate that there are Buddhists being murdered in Thailand by Muslims. Is the motivation purely religious? Or are there other factors at play other than religion?
Is the solution to destroy all people who read the Quran?
If we are so concerned with protecting ourselves from terrorism, why have we done so little to secure America’s borders between Mexico and Canada?
Poor “mike” so many trees you can’t see the forest.
But really… bringing up some irrelevant 1930′s financial connections to the Nazis is about as intellectually dishonest as saying Bush and bin Laden are conspiring together.
And then you go on to try and excuse the Jihad against innocent Buddhists in Thailand.
You folks have an endless supply of excuses to keep you from dealing with the REALITY of the situation.
Again, I wonder what you are going to do when that fantasy House of Canards comes crashing down and you’re faced with a choice of Giuliani or Hillary?
You brought up German appeasement, I merely was trying to show you how far the appeasement went in the example of Germany.
I’m not really trying to excuse anybody from killing. What I want to know is what is really going on? Is the motivation Jihad? You are the first to tell me that Muslims are fighting against Buddhists in Thailand.
Let me ask, what are you going to do when the fantasy house of fiat dollars comes crashing down? If the dollar keeps going in decline, your working wage is worth less and the value of the goods continues to climb. We are just beginning to really feel this stress.
Soon there will be a lot more people on the streets as they can’t afford their adjustable rate mortgages. Meanwhile fraudulent lenders and speculators, the ones who created artificial inflation of the housing prices in the first place, are going to be getting Fed bailouts.
If I am faced with a choice of Giuliani or Hillary, I would not choose either. You might say that choosing a third party candidate is a throw away vote for Hillary, but I disagree.
I have no need to be on a winning team in my choices of politicians, nor can I accept voting for a candidate who I feel is unworthy of our trust.
The American people are completely jaded with the viewpoints espoused by these top-tier candidates. They understand that our policies are driven by lobbyists and common outside forces. A vote for Hillary or a vote for Rudy will not make much difference. The war will keep going on, the borders won’t be secured, the police/surveillance state will increase, the feds will keep interfering with education, more corruption, more scandals, more corporatism, etc..
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ If you want to know something about how the economy has gone I suggest you start at this website. Read their viewpoint on the issues of the day and check out their “Archives”. These people are largely investors who just follow the economic realities of the times. They have watched, as many have, the decline in the value of our currency and some of them have made out well for it.
Or if you just want to sit by while they debase your equity, savings, and wages, thats fine with me too.
By not voting AGAINST Hillary by casting your ballot for a viable candidate like the GOP nominee, you are voting FOR HILLARY by default.
And I am soooo not surprised you didn’t hear about the massacres of Buddhists in Thailand by Jihadis:
http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2006/07/buddhist-teacher-murdered-in-thailand.html
Somehow they didn’t quite get around to that in your tiny Paulian universe. I am shocked!
Do let me ask you: Are you by chance an “America First” kind of guy?
Just wondering?
Hasn’t George Bush taught you anything? There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, and all the supposed “front runners” are bigger democrats than Bush.
So a show down between Hillary and whoever, is really no choice at all. Its like which would you prefer Stalinism or national socialism. I would prefer neither, and do not see any sort of qualitative difference between any of them, with the sole exception of Ron Paul.
Welllll…. It only took about a week, but we finally got an answer:
Ron Paul supporters don’t care if Hillary Clinton is PRESIDENT!!!
No surprise to me… I know you folks have been working for her all along.
You still kind of missed my point in using Buddhists as a generic example.
Buddhists are engaging in peaceful protest in Burma. What they aren’t doing, is strapping on bombs and targeting childcare centers as a way to attack the government for their “domestic policies”.
The point is, only one group of people resort to terrorist activities in the name of their religion. And it happens irregardless of ANY nation’s foreign policy.
Ron Paul says one reason why “they” attacked us, is our military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, citing troops in Saudi Arabia in particular. After the fall of Saddam, we removed our troops from Saudi Arabia. And yet the government there is still victimized by al-Qaeda terrorism.
Because someone disagrees with our foreign policy, doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the foreign policy. There might be; but it should not automatically mean we take marching orders from groups with grievances, unless those grievances are justified.
Why can’t people get it into their heads the difference between radical Islamists, who advocate “jihad” against the west and anyone who does not subjugate themselves under Sharia Law, and peaceful moderate Muslims who just want to go on with their lives? Sheesh!
Islamists are fighting with everyone, everywhere! Are you not paying attention that radical Islamists are killing innocents all over the globe?! And Mike’s America’s point, in using Thailand as just one example, is that IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, AND EVERYTHING TO DO with a wahhabist/salafist fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. That is at the core of the problem. Other groups that have a problem with American foreign policy don’t go around flying planes into buildings, setting off bombs in subways, to express their displeasure or their anti-Americanism. More Muslims have been killed by fellow Muslims than by American foreign policy.
If Ron Paul doesn’t win this election, the C.F.R. wins….
The goals of the Council on Foreign Relations are best described by its very own members.
Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley says in his book Tragedy & Hope: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… (and) …believes national boundaries should be obliterated and One World rule established.”
Mr. Quigley is only different from Bill Clinton, George Bush and the rest of them in the fact that he thinks they shouldn’t try to hide this any more.
These groups brag and laugh about how America’s two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but still operate like bitter rivals.
As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.”.
Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to ” dominate the political system… …and economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he believes the CFR’s intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn’t understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.
Alright now that you know what the CFR is up to here’s a list of 2008 Presidential Candidates that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations:
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson
Paul: Ron Paul won’t get nominated, let alone elected.
And unless you think Hillary Clinton would do a better job protecting American sovereignty than the Republicans you list your support should be directed to one of them.
If Ron Paul does not get nominated then Hillary has already won, what do you not understand about that?
The GOP does not have the votes to win without independents, libertarians, constitutionalists and the christian coalition. Only Ron Paul can unite all of the various groups that have tended to vote Republican in the past and bring in political newcomers into the fold.
The war of ideas on Iraq has already been lost. The only choice now is a choice between freedom in the USA and Socialism in the USA.
Many Ron Paul supoporters are Ayn Rand devotees, and if you are familar with Ayn Rands 2 most popular works you should know that objectivists believe that creative destruction must sometimes occur. In ‘The Fountainhead’ Howard Roark blows up his own building because it had been corrupted through commitees. In ‘Atlas Shrugged’ John Galt deprives society of its victims, the productive class, and allows the entire world to implode.
If the GOP fails to nominate Ron Paul, then Hillary automatically wins. Newt Gingrich has said as much. So its not Ron Paul supporters who are in favor of Hillary winning the election, but rather the Ron Paul bashers who just don’t understand that its impossible for the GOP to win riding the coattails of an unpopular President while promising a continuation of what is percieved as a disasterous foriegn policy. Ron Paul and only Ron Paul can win the national election, no other GOP nominee can beat Hillary.
Even if another Republican Nominee could win, which they can’t, they would be just as disasterous as Bush has been, and America will eventually suffer a financial collpse which will result in a global depression, and unless we return to our principles everything that we hold dear will disappear.
Ron Paul is the only option for the GOP. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nod, then he wins the National Election, if the GOP fails to nominate Ron Paul then Hillary wins. Pretty simple in the end isn’t it.
Here’s my two cents.
I have known that all of this was coming for a long time. I met Ron Paul during his 1988 campaign and he warned me then about all that is happening now. From terrorism to the unwarranted searches to the debasement of our money, he predicted it all. If you won’t take my word, read the book he published in 1987 called “Freedom under Siege.” It’s all spelled out in that book.
There are two, and only two possible outcomes here. One, Ron Paul is the GOP nominee and beats Hillary to a pulp in the general election. Hillary simply doesn’t stand a chance against the fact based arguments Ron Paul will slap her with in the debates. Then, although it will be a difficult journey, at least we will be on the road to getting our country back.
Two, the GOP goes completely insane and nominates anybody other than Ron Paul. Hillary wins hands down, no contest. Once Hillary gets in the White House it’s back to business as usual. The SPP goes forward (if you don’t know what that is, look it up on the White House website) and US sovereignty continues to weaken. The dollar goes to hell in a handbasket and the US economy crashes. A new Depression gets under way that makes the 1930 look like a birthday party. US troops are withdrawn from around the world because we simply cannot afford to maintain our empire. The convulsions and turmoil caused by these events cause Hillary to declare martial law (as permitted under existing Executive Orders) and cancels all future elections. The returning troops are deployed to keep the American people under control. Thus, we have Madam Dictator for life.
That’s the choice folks. Freedom with Ron Paul, or socialist dictatorship with Hillary.
And no, I will not accept any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul. If Ron Paul is not the GOP nominee, I will vote third party or not vote at all. There simply is NO difference between Hillary and the other GOP candidates. They are all, literally, members of the same club and committed to the same agenda. None of them is acceptable. Period.
I agree completely with Johnnyb and Michael Wagner.
Ron Paul has the best record on the Constitution of anyone in Congress, and he has more honor and integrity than the rest of Congress combined.
I seriously doubt that he hates Israel. Giving billions in foreign aid to other countries isn’t authorized by the constitution.
I’ll vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and like most Ron Paul supporters I’m ecstatic to finally have a candidate who isn’t just another sock puppet for the oligarchy.
“If Ron Paul does not get nominated then Hillary has already won, what do you not understand about that?”
What I understand about that is that you have said you will not vote for any GOP candidate other than Ron Paul and thus, like many of your fellow Ronulan Paulbots you’ll strengthen Hillary.
And tapping my campaign experience which runs from the Court House to the White House (in comparison to what experience you have acquired while living in your mother’s basement) the loss of 1-2% in certain key states could very well swing the election to Hillary.
Though that outcome is not likely, one thing is certain: Ron Paul can NOT win the GOP nomination. All your efforts are nothing more than a distracting sideshow which benefits one person: HILLARY CLINTON.
Let me just repeat this again: RON PAUL CAN NOT WIN THE GOP NOMINATION. And I’ll go further: RON PAUL COULD NOT WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EVEN IF HE WERE THE GOP NOMINEE OR IF HE RAN AS AN INDEPENDENT OR AS A DEMOCRAT!
At what point will reality dawn on you????
P.S. If you folks care so much about the Constitution, why are Paulbot gangs behaving like Nazi Brownshirts harassing other candidates?
Ron Paul will have more difficulty winning the GOP nod than winning the general election, thats true. The GOP is stacking the deck against Dr. Paul by rapidly passing laws to close the Primaries in certain key states such as New Hampshire.
The whole business is dirty.
Supporting Ron Paul in the Primaries is not like supporting Hillary in the General Election at all. perhaps if Ron Paul were running as a third party candidate then it would be like supporting Hillary, but the same thing could be said about people supporting the Republican candidate if Paul is not nominated. Either way the vote will be split.
Very much unlike the NAZIs, Ron Paul supporters are trying to prevent this country going the same way that Germany went in the 1930s. Remember, the Prelude to the Nazis coming into power was the collapse of the Deutsche Mark and the Great Depression. Foriegn banks are no longer as motivated to keep as many dollars in Reserve as the dollar crashes, and first they will stop buying US dollars, then they will start selling US dollars for other currency, this will define a trend and the US dollar will rapidly collapse, we will have to sell our debt at deep discount, which regardless of what the federal reserve does will cause steep inflation and high interest rates.
Hillary will proclaim a crisis, propose all sorts of socialist legislation which will pass through congress quickly, because they Democrat majority will increase as people will continue to vote the GOP out of office.
All of this will combine to cause great civil unrest, and as Hillary taught us in Waco, she’s not above using gestapo tactics, and she will stage another Waco, which she will use as an excuse to grab our guns, then things will get really bad.
For the sake of the War in Iraq, the GOP would sellout America and let her go the way of the Soviets. Please try and see the big picture.
The GOP Plot to Defeat Ron Paul
Wednesday, October 03, 2007 – FreeMarketNews.com
NEWS ANALYSIS AND OPINION
It is not enough that seemingly every state that can is desperately moving up primary contest dates to as close to January 1, 2008 as possible in the hopes of derailing the momentum that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-Tex) will derive from a good New Hampshire finish. Now the GOP in many states has apparently taken to shutting down the possibility that Independents or Democrats can vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
Such contests, inviting a broad electoral spectrum, have taken place in the past without controversy or interference.
Why now? What is the hurry? Is it all coincidence?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49739&fb=1
Well Richard, it seems that the fascists in power have realized that freedom is popular, Ron Paul has $5.3 million bucks in the bank, and if they do not get in his way he will win!
“Fascists???”
The only fascists I see are the Paulian Zealots harassing the leading GOP candidate.
Let me know when you raise $100 million.
Until then, you’re nothing but a distraction and you serve only the interests of Hillary Clinton and a socialist takeover of America under the direction of the UN and one world government.
So much for the Constitution.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of fascism.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=america+from+freedom+to+fascism&total=916&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
If you have a couple of hours, please check out this documentary.
I’ve been to Munich and traced the steps of the fascists Brownshirts Johnnyb.
On that same trip I visited Dachau, the first Nazi Concentration Camp built in 1933.
I’ve seen the evil of fascism first hand. Ask your mom to send you on a trip to Europe tracing the history of that disease before you vainly try and lecture me on the subject.
Yet, you folks with your “America First” roots were at the heart of efforts to stop the U.S. from defending itself against the NAZI menace until it was too late.
And now you would do the same regarding Islamo-fascism.
Ask your mom for $6 and go see the movie “The Kingdom.” Then answer the question: whose side are you on?
You should watch the video. I think that you might beable to learn more about America based on a documentary about America, than taking a vaction to Germany.
Keep your brainwashed propaganda to yourself.
I don’t need some kid to teach me about America. I’ve lived it.
Maybe after you move out of your Mom’s basement you will understand.
Welp, I tried. Only made it 48 seconds into it before the loony conspiracy theory of how the US was taken over in 1913 got to me.
Nice try.
Problem is, it might as well be the screenplay for an Austin Powers movie. No joke, this was so stupid it’s not even funny. They have medication for people who buy into this crap. Suggest you see a doctor. Schizophrenia is a disease that can be treated.
I wonder if they pass out a tin foil hat with the DVD for that video?
Johnnyb’s claiming in a separate email to be a well traveled man of the world type (I guess he can afford to travel since he lives in his mom’s basement).
But when he starts using that “true conservative” codeword you know he’s pegged himself as a loon.
Should I repeat the short list of all the REAL conservatives I’ve worked for met or stood next to during speeches: Ronald Reagan, Phil Crane, Phyllis Schlafly, John Ashbrook, Ed Meese, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley Jr.
I’ll stack all of them and my own experience learned directly from them anyday over the tin foil “true conservative” crowd.
Nice try Johnny B. Tell your mom I said hi!
Mike’s America, I don’t care who’s stooge you claim to be, it does not make you any less of a stooge. I do not remember Ronald Reagan getting us into an unwinnable war, in fact I remember Reagan pulling the troops out of Lebanon, and when we had to have a confrontation with the Libyans or Iranians he bombed them, but was not so foolish as to try and build a western democracy in the middle east.
Goldwater ran on a platform of getting us out of Vietnam, and Goldwater’s son has endorsed Ron Paul as the flag bearer for the Goldwater legacy.
“The administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn’t work.”-William F. Buckley Jr.
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
Your boy Phil Crane is one of the idiots who screwed up the republican party, no wonder he was voted out in 2006.
I’m left to question, why is it that your support of Republicans is mostly centered around the Republican policies that limit freedom and rally support for a lost war that can never be won with results that would justify the sacrifice of our Armed Service men and women, or the sacrifice of every American in terms of their liberty and financial well being? YOu Mike’s America, are a tool for the machine politics that have screwed this nation up and subverted the conservative movement. Its this subversion of traditional conservatism that has lead to the disillusionment of the vast majority 60% of Americans who do not even bother to vote, because like me, they can no longer see a difference between the Republican Party and the Democrats.
Run down the only descent man running for President if you want, most likely he won’t get the nomination anyhow, but the cost for shutting Ron Paul out is going to be Hillary Clinton as commander in chief, and so be it! Perhaps she will run this country into the ground even faster than a Republican would, but if we do not change course in this country and the Republican party the trajectory remains the same, and sooner or later we are going to crash and burn, and its all because of the failure of both parties to abide by the constitutional limitations on Government.
You really are impressed with yourself aren’t you johnnyb?
I’m nobodies stooge pal. But I do have experience in government from the court house to the White House and have been privileged to be part of the REAL conservative movement, not this fantasy that you and your fellow Paulbots dreamed up in your respective mother’s basements.
The bottom line remains that Ron Paul doesn’t have a prayer of getting the GOP nomination. And unlike you selfish, self centered spineless wonders I’ve pledged to suppor the nominee of the party and defeat Hillary.
It’s clear to me that you haven’t got the maturity to see sense and would rather impose Hillary Clinton on the world rather than support any other candidate than your boy wonder.
That’s a prescription for losing more than an election. It’s a forecast for rollback on every issue you claim to care about.
How stupid is that?
But you don’t really care. As I said, a very immature, childlike, self-centered, foolish, STUPID outlook.
That, and you’re a time waster.
I think we are through with your comments on this thread. If you want to comment on newer posts, feel free and you can continue your ranting diatribe.
Furhter comments by you on this thread will be deleted.
No. Neither has George W. Bush. Islamic extremists got us into this war. It happened before Bush’s watch; and it will more than likely end generations from now, just as the Cold War was brought to an end by Reagan, fifty or so years after it started.
Yes. And it’s one of those things that Osama points to as an example for why America is safe to attack, for why America has not what it takes for achieving victory.
Even a lame victory, such as the one Osama had at the Lion’s Den, is enough to feed the “jihad” movement, and provide recruitment propaganda for more hirabists with a death wish.
For the Soviets, it was nothing. But for the future al-Qaeda, they propagandize and mythologize that as a huge victory, and claim their “heroics” drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
The soft bigotry of low expectations, huh?
Just because the groundwork for democracy involves commitment and hardwork, doesn’t mean that it will fail or that it is impossible. For how many more centuries do you wish the Middle East to subjugate its people in the backward 7th century?
Hey…Ron Reagan Jr. is a big lefty. If he endorses Ron Paul, does that mean ArPee also gets to wave the banner of the Reagan legacy?
As much as RPers like to cloak themselves in Reagan’s mantle, remember that in 1988, RP ran against Bush #41 as a Libertarian because he DISAGREED with Reagan policy. He feared that George Herbert Walker Bush would continue with an aggressive foreign policy toward the Soviets that would piss them off. ArPee is an appeaser…or ArPeeser. If he were in power then, we’d still be in a Cold War, and probably worse.
What failure?!?! Victory is a process. Patience, commitment, fortitude, are the virtues. Or do you and Buckley just go in for quickies?
Because Harry Reid says it’s lost, don’t make it so. Do you not understand that we are in a war, and wishing it away by “bringing the troops home” does not end the war? Iraq is one battlefield. We are fighting all over the world, but Iraq is important, because it is the theater that the media most focuses upon. And where the media is, is where propaganda can pay out its biggest dividends.
And it is you and the Ronulans who wish to limit freedom. I agree with President Bush that freedom is a “God-given right” of everyone. And I’m not even religious. There is no peace in the absence of justice and freedom.
Bring the troops home prematurely, and yes, a lot of those deaths will have been sacrificed in vain, to a degree and maybe two.
I find the following of great relevance for you, JohnnyB:
Despite his own background as a journalist, Kaplan is no friend of the elite media. He warns that today’s media is hypercritical, hypocritical (demanding zero defects in others but refusing to acknowledge any of their own), and unaccountable. They tyrannize government and the military with their shrill demands for perfection and this leads inevitably to risk-averse leaders. (The troops are no fans of the press either. They particularly resent the media’s efforts to make them victims of a failed policy. They don’t agree that the policy has failed, and they are nobody’s victims. “[T]he overall effect of the media,” Kaplan concludes was to foster impatience on the home front.”)
Kaplan also questions the media stories of low troop morale. Among the troops he visits from the mean streets of Fallujah to the tropical backwaters of Mindanao, he finds almost universally high morale. (If the media was interested in the truth, they’d take a look at reenlistment statistics. While recruiting is lagging, reenlistments are exceeding targets — often by wide margins — and are highest among deployed troops.) Everywhere, troops tell him that they willingly — even eagerly — chose what they’re doing. After traveling days over rough roads, sleeping in icy frontier outposts, and subsisting on local cuisine, Army Col. Thomas Wilhelm, a Foreign Area Officer in Mongolia, announces simply, “I love my job.”
The troops are also quick to admit that they are getting as much out of the service as they are giving. Again and again, they talk about the sense of direction, the self-discipline, and the maturity that the military has helped them develop. Generically working-class and disproportionately southern, they often feel a disconnect with civilians. In Iraq in 2004, Marine Cpl. Michael Pinckney explained his disillusionment with his countrymen who had “‘lost the meaning of sacrifice. They expect things to be perfect and easy. They don’t know that when things go wrong you persevere; you don’t second-guess.’“
Dr. Paul is giving you the wrong prescription glasses, my friend. You need a new optometrist who will not blind you with thorn-rimmed glasses.
I still want to know, why don’t you guys care that the US Dollar is being devalued rapidly?