The Future of the GOP Is Ron Paul?
It’s a good time for a reemergence of conservatism. Liberalism has discredited itself by trying to govern and passing hugely unpopular legislation, and the opportunity for the right to strike back is coming this November.
Thus conservatives are looking for someone who can lead us to victory and small government, and one candidate in particular has emerged, winning the CPAC straw poll in November and falling just one vote short of winning the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll last month.
Of course, I’m talking about Ron Paul.
Yeah. Him again. Just when we thought it was safe to once again have an inconsequential poll, here come the Ronulans to try and snatch up a pointless victory. Yeah, okay guys — all the online polls and text polls Paul won back in 2008 didn’t convince me Ron Paul had any actual support, but now I think it’s for real. That was sarcasm, by the way (I don’t think a lot of Ron Paul’s supporters understand sarcasm), but sarcasm aside, I argue that if we’re smart, we’ll invest the future of the GOP in Ron Paul.
So who is Ron Paul? I don’t really know. I think he’s like a representative from Texas or something who thinks gold is shiny and wants to follow the principles of George Jefferson. The point isn’t who he is, though; it’s that he’s catnip for crazies.
I remember I first heard about him when PJ Media took a poll on who the Republican presidential nominee for 2008 should be. Ron Paul won handily. I had never heard of him, so I deduced that his followers must be a bunch of crazy people. If you’re wondering why I’d jump to such a conclusion, it’s because if an unknown makes a big showing in an online poll, he must have a lot of over-enthusiastic supporters. And I’m from a generation that equates genuine enthusiasm with stupidity and insanity.
Now, that’s sort of a problem — it’s nice to unironically enjoy something every once in a while — but my instinct was pretty on the nose here. Pretty soon after the poll, Paul’s followers were like Beetlejuice; you just said “RON PAUL!” three times anywhere on the internet, and out of nowhere people would appear to tell you how Ron Paul was the only one who could save America.
And these were the thickest people you’ve ever encountered; it was just impossible to make them understand how off-putting their over-the-top love for an odd little man from Texas was. They’d just come at you with the supposed Gandhi quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Which is a stupid quote; I make fun of chimpanzees at the zoo, but that doesn’t mean that next I’ll be fighting them, and then Planet of the Apes will happen for real. Still, there was no reason to get too angry at dense, silly people, but then I started to realize how many of them are white supremacists, anti-Semites, and truthers — basically everyone the MSM likes to pretend the tea partiers are — and my patience started to run very thin.
Now why does Ron Paul attract these people? Well, he takes a position outside the mainstream and stands on principle, not convenience. This attracts the support of people who feel let down by the system and ignored by the two major parties. And crazy people. Mainly crazy people who, much like Ron Paul, don’t know how to work within the actual system to get things done, because they just don’t understand how gosh darn insane they look to everyone else. I believe it’s possible to support a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas and not be crazy — the blame-America-first attitude on foreign policy is despicable, though — but it’s not possible to hang out with other Ron Paul supporters for very long and not be crazy yourself. These people have worked long and hard to make sure their sales pitch for Ron Paul and his ideas will cause a sane man to slowly back away while keeping a hand near his gun.
But didn’t I say Ron Paul was the future of the GOP? Then why did I just spend so much time bashing his supporters as toxic, crazy people? Well, I just wanted you all to understand the reality of the situation. Yes, these people are crazy, but they are also crazy enthusiastic, which can be useful at times. I mean, one-on-one arguing for a candidate, they scare people, but they’re still feet on the ground. And they can raise money, too. Sure, all that money and enthusiasm is kinda useless when it’s just them and Ron Paul, but what if we got the party machine behind it? You see, we make Ron Paul the leader of the GOP, and then all his supporters will become our hardworking lackeys to dispense as we see fit.
I know what you’re thinking. “Ron Paul will never play along with that. He knows we’re all corporate shills who have no regard for the Constitution and start wars for the benefit of our Jew-masters.” And that’s a valid point. But that’s why the Jews who secretly run the country built those mind-controlling satellites. The problem is that it takes time to fully brainwash someone via satellite, and Ron Paul is quite wily. He sleeps every night inside a Faraday cage just to make sure our mind control rays can never get to him.
So here’s the plan: We have someone outside his house say something like, “It was stupid to ever base our dollar on gold. It’s just a dumb shiny thing; we might as well base our economy on tinsel.” Ron Paul will then run outside to give the person a good talking to, and that’s when we’ll blow up his house with a missile while making it look like terrorists crashed a plane into it (we’ve done that before; it’s pretty easy). Ron Paul will then flee to the shelter he has prepared for when the country finally collapses, but we’ll have turned all the shielding around it into a signal amplifier. Then we’ll hit him with the mind control rays. If they don’t microwave him (we’ll have to check the proper impedance), by the next morning he’ll be telling his supporters, “Know what’s the most constitutional thing ever? The Federal Reserve!”
And there we have the future of the GOP: A Ron Paul puppet leading his eager supporters to help us stomp all over the Constitution and start wars of aggression, with no one left to stop us!
Except maybe Dennis Kucinich.
This was weird …. very weird … so the conclusion is that Ron Paul is the demise of the GOP ?
Looks like demeaning and deriding him is the only thing people can actually do … short of arguments they insult him just like this piece, thanks for the author to remembering us that like most people, He can’t discuss the issues with Ron Paul.
The problem is that the Ronulans have proven that their minds are impervious to facts or reason. So ridiculing them is the only option left.
Have they? Because I don’t see any factual arguments in this article or any of the Ron hating comments. Right now you guys are sounding a lot like “The Nation” or huffpo.
How about you or someone else here actually lays out a thorough series of rebuttals to all of Ron Paul’s points they find objectionable, and see if we Paultards can’t come back with something substantive? That would be the way to do it, wouldn’t it?
Been there, done that, still trying to get the stench off.
I think a point was missed somewhere along the way…maybe the humor bit. Possibly you missed the humor bit, or didn’t find it humorous. But…really. Frank J does humor.
All those smart fiscal and social conservatives who worked with the Republicans from 2001-2005 sure showed those crazy Ron Paul fans. Look at all they accomplished. A balanced budget, a sound economy, steady deregulation of the economy, a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, lower entitlement spending…
I’m an Independent, but it looks like Ron Paul has already peaked. His followers are noisy and aggressive, but his loony side trumps his positives, his support for abiding by the Constitution and his campaign against the Fed.
Sure. Anything’s better than the coalition of toadies on the Repub’s Country Club Membership and Lawn Tennis Committee: McCain, McConnel, Boehner, Hatch, etc.
The future of the Republican Party cannot be Ron Paul. However attractive Ron Paul may be with respect to some domestic issues, Ron Paul’s unrealistic national security policy and isolationist foreign policy are indistinguishable from the Democrat Left. During the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate debates, whenever national security and foreign policy was debated, Ron Paul was shown to be unwise and unrealistic. If Ron Paul is the future of the GOP, then pro-military national security conservatives will not have a party. Do I need to remind all that one prong of the Republoican Party as conceived of by Ronald Reagan were the pro-military national security conservatives?
The future of the Republican Party cannot be Ron Paul. However attractive Ron Paul may be with respect to some domestic issues, Ron Paul’s unrealistic national security policy and isolationist foreign policy are indistinguishable from the Democrat Left. During the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate debates, whenever national security and foreign policy was debated, Ron Paul was shown to be unwise and unrealistic. If Ron Paul is the future of the GOP, then pro-military national security conservatives will not have a party. Do I need to remind all that one prong of the Republoican Party as conceived of by Ronald Reagan were the pro-military national security conservatives?
unrealistic? Are you one of the ones who honestly believe the terrorists hate us because we have McDonalds and Walmart? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 for just a fraction of shit that we have been doing over there. Americans were never at fault for 9/11 like everyone wants to label Paul with. Our foriegn policy was. We spend more on defense than almost every other nation on this planet combined. I think it’s safe to safe we would be just as safe here at home than what 130+ other countries around the globe?
And then isolationism versus non-intervention… There is a huge difference there big guy… huge.
Wow grammatical errors from posting too fast. You get the idea though
Steve, you are the one who is very mistaken if you think that you can blame America’s foreign policy for decades of attacks on America by radical Islamists; and you are very mistaken to believe that if America spent less on defense, the world would be just fine — the American military has preserved and advanced the cause of freedom.
Just as America was once confronted with the aggressions of Hitler’s German national socialism and Tojo’s Japanese military imperialism and then with the aggressive designs of communist regimes, we are now confronted with a transnational radical Islamic movemment that is at war with America. Radical Iranian Shiites took over the American Embassy in Teheran in November 1979. Bin Laden formally declared war on America in the 1990′s. We tried to ignore it in the 1990′s; then 9/11 happened. As the 9/11 Commission stated, we weren’t at war with us, but they were at war with us. A failure to recognize the conflict is very dangerous. Radical Islamism is an ideology that glorifies death and that is fundamentally hostile to Western democratic society and government.
Now, as for your statement “isolationism versus non-intervention,” you needed to complete whatever your thought was. There has been no possibility of isolationism since the advent of the 20th century. As for intervention, what did you have in mind? Afghanistan? That is where with the Taliban in power, bin Laden plotted 9/11 with KSM. Iraq? The congressional authorization of force to remove a brutal, murderous dictator in Saddam had 23 stated supporting reasons, including Saddam’s violation of 17 U.N. arms resolutions, Saddam’s use of torture, Saddam’s use of WMDs in the form of nerve gas against Kurdish Iraqis, Saddam’s intention to acquire WMDs. By acting in the way we did, Iraq now has a democratic government operating under a democratically adopted written Constitution, and a democratic Iraq provides a subversive model to the Iranian people under the repressive rule of the Iranian theocratic government. Meanwhile, with the radical Islamists engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq, America was free of attack. If you want to argue that we erred by removing the Taliban and Saddam, then you have to deal with what the world would look like if the Taliban and Saddam were still in power. It’s not pretty.
As Lincoln put it, America is the last best hope of Earth. That is because we have stood for freedom. Ron Paul and Ron Paul types don’t get it.
In Iraq they passed a new law that you can’t smoke inside restuarants and buildings. Is that the FREEDOM that our military is advancing?? We are not free here, everything is against the law. Everything! 1 in 100 is in prison, that is unheard of in the world. No other nation on earth even has half of the people we have in prison in their prison’s. Keep singing your freedom songs and keep drinking your koolaid. You think your smart but One thing is for sure no matter who you vote for, you keep getting the same guy, now you tell me who is retarded?
Humor is alright but The man is more right on more issues than any other politician out there. And as for foreign policy; Big Government Pinheadism is always an error and especially so in foreign affairs.
Nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t work for the Republicans for the same reason that “nation building” in West Virginia didn’t/doesn’t work for Senator Byrd. The only real difference between those two is that if you oppose the former, you’re soft on terrorism, while if you oppose the latter you hate poor people. Either way, it’s big government trying to take a flat-on-its-ass region and make it something better than the people can make and sustain on their own.
We used to call that social engineering.
Obviously it didn’t work in Japan, Germany, S. Korea, either.
As to West Virginia, yes, socialism never works.
Japan, Germany and South Korea were actually half decent, semi-developed societies with at least some traditions (although Japan to a far lesser extent) of freedom and honour.
Compare that to the Islamist psychos in Iraq and Afghanistan. It just won’t work. Trying to nation build in places where Islam is taken at all seriously is a losing battle. Unless the military starts a large scale conversion campaign, the nation building operations in the middle east will fail.
But of course, if it works in one part of the world, it will work in the other, and who needs historical context or people who are actually receptive to things like “democracy”, right?
Your lack of knowledge regarding Iraq is duly noted. It was probably more civilized and westernized than Japan was prior to WWII.
I won’t give me the option to reply to you Mark so I’ll reply to myself.
It’s really hilarious that you call King Faisel democratic. Unless you mean the British Mandate, in which case let me say that the attitudes of the colonial rulers don’t necessarily rub off on the locals.
Anyway, no one invaded Iraq prior to WW2. Iraq was invaded in 2003, after decades of Saddamite ba’athist repression. Subsequent generations of Iraqis have absolutely no idea what freedom is. Their two options were secular baathist tyranny or Islamic theological tyranny. Now that the choice is between “democracy” (as a lifestyle rather than a means) and Jihad, they are overwhelmingly swinging toward Jihad and sectarianism.
But yeah, I really demonstrated my “lack of knowledge”.
Now you wish to demonstrate your lack of reading ability?
I said nothing about being democratic. I said civilized.
I said nothing about Iraq prior to WWII.
No wonder you are a ronulan, your ability to engage in logical debate is non-existant.
Obviously, you are ignoring the extreme sociological differences between united nation states like Germany, South Korea and Japan, and Iraq…
And like clockwork, the Ronulans comment making one wonder if the humor of the article was actually humor or in fact, an autobiographical sketch…
Ron Paul’s choice for the Republican US Senate nomination in Indiana, John Hostettler (former Congressman), finished third in yesterday’s primary election. Two other conservatives, Dan Coats (former Senator) and Marlin Stutzman (farmer associated with the Tea Party movement), came in ahead of Hostettler.
Your ideas are intriguing.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the sensitive issue of adult-themed fundraising, and has Mike Steele been consulted?
What about a VP candidate with a bastard child while his wife battles cancer. Get off your moral high horse.
I left out that Stutzman is a State Senator.
I lost all respect for Ron Paul when, in a GOP Presidential debate, he implied that 9-11 was an inside job — while standing right next to Giuliani, who properly tore him to shreds.
The ironic thing — an ideal Republican Presidential candidate (to me, at any rate) — would have had Ron Paul’s views on government spending, and Giuliani’s views on morality and foreign affairs/defense.
You have invoked the ire of the Paultards, this is gonna be fun to watch. I routinely roust the nuts on this subject and they can be as nasty and vile is Islamists.
Funny piece… hope you have your flame suit handy. As far as I can tell the Paultards have no sense of humor.
Yep, Us “Ronulans” (I’ve also been called a “Paultard”, don’t know which I prefer, they are both good) regularly engage in the same vile tactics as the “Islamists” (by using “Islamists” you demonstrate that your lack of knowledge about Islam is at least equal to that of Ron Paul). Us “Ronulans” regularly poison girl schools, threaten cartoonists with death, and behead our wives. Yep, Ronulans are planting car bombs all over the U.S! We Paultards are just a bunch of terrorists!
Frank Fleming and the other comments here only prove the Gandhi quote so mockingly included in the above article. The Pseudo-Right wingers are so afraid of an actual fiscal conservative that they are running for cover and looking for anything to snipe with. They know that people are waking up to their socialism masked in “conservatism” (cuz opposing gay marriage makes ya right wing, dontcha know!)
Interesting theory there. Anytime I make fun of someone, it actually means I’m afraid of them.
Calling yourself a “modern day Thomas Jefferson” speaks volumes. No one is listening.
http://witgunandstein.blogspot.com/2009/09/still-crazy-after-all-these-years.html
Article fail.
Really, PJM can do a lot better than hosting a long rambling ad-hominem attack disguised as an article.
I’ll be voting Palin 2012 long distance at the first available opportunity. I am not a Ron Paul supporter and I do not want him as President or VP. However, I agree with most of his domestic agenda especially his Federal Reserve opinions.
The article was tragically unfunny and offbase for this website. Like the hispanic liberal writers, there is a time and place for this sort of rubbish- and the time is some other, the place- the rest of the media on any given day.
Ron Paul… I’m glad he’s there. Some people need ideological purity. I don’t, but…. if the Bush/Delay years had been more Ron Paul and Less Bush/Delay we would currently not be saddled with Prince Barry.
I like Paul Ryan. He understands our budget mess, does not sound radical or old, and can tear Obama in half in a debate.
I want you people to think about that: Can our guy destroy Obama in a debate? Palin, no. Romney, maybe. Ryan, absolutely.
“Palin, no. Romney, maybe. Ryan, absolutely.”
Close:
Palin absolutely. Romney, no. Ryan, maybe.
You should try googling the YouTubes of her debates in Alaska. She has taken apart better men than Obama.
you sir are an idiot
Regarding Ron Paul the man:
I don’t know much about him, as in the previous election I didn’t have a chance to watch really any of the republican primary debates. I’ve read about SOME of the issues he advocates, and I would say that ‘believe gold is shiney’ is not quite an accurate statement of his position on money policy. I would actually be very interested in articles which discuss and critique what his position is on the Fed and currency issues. If anyone knows of some good ones, please post. I’ll look for a few myself as well.
Mike, email me at my user name “at” gmail.com and I’ll send you a copy of his bestselling “End The Fed” book.
Be advised that contrary to what the establishment GOP says, he is not a truther, he did not “blame America” for 9/11, and he actually predicted that something like 9/11 would happen waaay back before it actually did.
Ditto with the economic problems we’re facing.
It’s really sad to see how they disparage him. Look back at his writings over the past 20 years, and tell me what he was wrong about.
It really shouldn’t be so easy to say that what he wants to do would be wrong when he has been absolutely right about everything so far.
Thanks! Email sent.
RON PAUL is a PROPHET who understands the CONSTITUTION because it is his MOTHER after all.
His father is Mojo Jojo, by the way. Anyway, RON PAUL will SAVE America from the Jews and NEOCON aliens who use mind rays to make people dislike GOLD STANDARD and to start wars to the benefit of AIPAC. Oh, and “they” will never make me take my MEDS again.
and thankly, Hitler Heiling goofs such as yourselves are minority “Ronulans. I’ve also seen you stupid nazis project your own insane ideas on the already batshit insane ideas of David Icke (he believes in shapeshifting reptilians, the Nazis project their hatred onto him and think he really means Jews when that isn’t the case)
Nazis aren’t a viable political force, they have no leaders closer to the mainstream than Mars, so they are forced to project their sick views not only onto people like Ron Paul, therefore giving the very “Jewish media” they hate fodder to harm him, but onto crazies like David Icke as well. The fact that Nazis have to get next to people like Icke only shows how laughably bankrupt their racist, socialist garbage is.
If the answer is Ron Paul, then it must be one heck of a strange question.
MarkTheGreat:
“If the answer is Ron Paul, then it must be one heck of a strange question.”
Right on target Mark. If The answer is “Draft Doctor Victor Davis Hanson for President in 2012″, now that would be a question worthy of consideration.
If there is anyone left on planet earth who believes in the unique greatness of the United States of America, and wants to see it preserved, the work needs to start today and the problem solvers do not reside in the beltway’s class of political masters. Who outshines the brilliant Doctor Hanson? Why not him? Why not now?
If a doped up hipster walking the streets of Honolulu in sandals could pull it off by joining up with malcontent commies, why not a real American such as Doctor Hanson to reverse some of the damage in 2012?
Good satire is much like a rifle firing marshmallows. We think it’s funny; you think it’s intended to be lethal. We think that’s funny too, for the record.
Quote of the day, Charon. Spot-on.
I am not sure what an ideal balance of foreign power would be. I do know I am sick of babysitting Europe and the rest of our allies. They have dismantled their military and built a ferocious welfare state with the savings. That one dynamic that we accidentally enabled and encouraged destroyed Euro- culture as much as the welfare state destroyed black culture here.
The whole western world, ourselves included, and its culture will be stronger if we stop babysitting our allies and force them to strengthen themselves.
Once again Frank J has proven his genius; dangling fresh bait out for the Ronulans to swallow whole and thrash about wildly.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Unfortunately, most “mainstream” conservatives treat Ron Paul the same way the MSM treats the Tea Partiers. They don’t really know all he stands for, but they want to marginalize him before he can “get dangerous” to them. I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s views but we agree on economics and money policy. We’ve got to stop printing increasingly worthless money and tie it to something tangible.
I wanted to post this where people can see it outside of Illinois. At a press conference for Senate Candidate Mark Kirk, a CBS channel 2 political reporter told kirk, if you do not stop mentioning the failed family bank of your political opponent, we will stop covering your senate campaign. The reporter said that Alexi ( he actually used the oppontents first name ) had already been pilloried about the bank and that it was no longer an issue. The exchange was captured on tape and I heard it on the Don Wade and Roma morning show on 890 am wls radio show. The reporter said all of this on tape. The bank failed in part because of 20 million dollars in loans made to convicted felon members of the chicago Mob. Who are these reporters and networks to dictate to candidates?
Hilarious. Its Ron Paul who actually embodies all of the principles that people on this site claim to champion–small government, state’s rights, strict readings of the constitution, less [and even, no, taxes]. But you idiots aren’t actually interested in any of that. That’s only the way you wrap your war-mongering stupidity for public consumption.
You hit the nail on the head…I guess if they can’t complain about Obama they’ll complain about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a politician that stands for everything that most Republican’s claim to stand for. Maybe the Republican party should rid themselves of the warmongers or better yet the warmongers should read history. They would then realize that the majority of our current foreign policy flaws were created by our government.
Be careful, you guys. Talking about “warmongering” makes you a leftist!! V_V
Paul has some good ideas on fiscal policy.
Unfortunately, on everything else, he’s a confirmed inhabitant of land cuckoo.
There are conservatives such as yourself, who are for fiscal freedom and social tyranny, and there are leftists who are for fiscal tyranny and social freedom. The thing is, Paul is for actual liberty, rather than just talking out one side of his mouth. Paul is even sane in that he is for social freedom while maintaining a stance against abortion, something that is extremely rare amongst the civil libeties crowd.
But I’m sure Jefferson and Madison and Adams would have stood staunchly behind the war on drugs.
More jumping at conclusions.
Actually, I’m classical libertarian. Check out my posts here and hotair, going back years.
Ron is still batshit crazy.
Excuse me, but none of the principles embodied on this site include Trutherism, anti-Semitism or blame-America-first isolationism as foreign policy.
Ron Paul’s unilaterally disarming, blame-America-first views on national security and foreign affairs would spell the end of America as a world power, which is why anti-American leftists like “Oscar Le Grouche” are rooting for him for all they’re worth. And also which is why the Republican Party must reject him like an invading virus.
Ron Paul has some good ideas. Unfortunately, he has an equal number of crazy ones.
I think much of the behavior of his followers can be explained by the fact that most of them are political neophytes; I think they actually believe that the way people get elected is that you just go around saying their name constantly. When voters go to the polls they just look at the list of names and pull the lever next to the one they’ve heard the most times. Easy!
Except that’s not how it works, or Charles Manson would have been elected by now.
Why not? That’s how Obama got elected.
Problem with Ron Paul is not substance but image. He is not dynamic, looks old and tired, voice is weak and a bit twangy, not what Americans “look” for in a candidate. Too bad, he really is the best of a sorry bunch.
No, the problem with Ron Paul is substance — specifically, his positions on foreign policy and national security. His isolationism and flirtation with 9/11 trutherism just cannot be what the Republican Party stands for. With respect to foreign policy, military matters and national security, the Republican Party must be the adult party alternative to Obama Democrats.
Karmic balance requires that there be just as many Right-Wing-Nuts as Left-Wing-Nuts.
Both are dangerous allies, because, as the Germans found out, while you are using
them to do your dirty work, they are preparing to make you do theirs; The descent
of the French Revolution into the Terror is another example of the unintended
consequences of using a group of ‘enthusiasts’ (madmen) to achieve an end.
I think it is all a ploy. Instead of Beetlejuice, I think Ron Paul’s true name is Rumplestiltskin. Think about it; the name is derived from a type of little goblin (German Rumplestilzchen or “little rumbling stilt”) and he is magically able to spin straw into….*wait for it*….gold. Shiny, shiny, gold.
Now, just say his name really fast three times. Ron-Paul, Ron-Paul, Ron-Paul, then add a southern drawl. Rum-Pawl, Rum-Pawl, Rum-Pawl. Then just add the final “stiltskin onto his name. “RumPawlstiltskin.” That’s right. It’s Ron-Paul-Stiltskin, come to spin the Fed’s straw back into gold. And, uh, break the tentacles of the Jewish lobby after collecting your firstborn.
We’re onto you Mr. Stiltskin.
Remember the Lyndon LaRouche acolytes who were at every airport in the late 1970s and early 80s promoting fusion power? They were well dressed, polite and if you made the mistake of expressing an interest in some aspect of their program that sounded half way sane you’d be bombarded with increasingly crazy material until you have to literally slam the door in their face to be rid of them.
Too many of Ron Paul’s supporters share that intensity and follow a variation of those tactics.
Ron Paul is right on every issue but the causes of Islamic terrorism (it’s the Qur’an/Sunnah, not U.S or anyone elses foreign policy). That said, it doesn’t mean we should be sending troops to other nations. The occaisional air strike is more than enough. The borders need to get locked down.
The occassional air strike was the policy followed prior to 9/11. It’s a complete and utter failure.
It’s also completely impossible to lock down the borders.
Yep, so instead we should fly around the world sending troops in wherever there might be terrorism. So let’s see, next on the list we have Iraq
Airstrikes would work if you made an actual effort rather than Clinton’s politicized goofery. But of course, you have already shown yourself to be completely disinterested in context.
Sorry, should say next on the list “AFTER” iraq can include Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Albania, Kosovo, the Caucasus, etc, etc. Jihad is everywhere
Since you are so utterly convinced that airstrikes alone can solve the problem.
How do you figure out what to hit?
The reason airstrikes have been so successful is because we have so many troops on the ground.
More inability to engage in logical debate.
Support for the war in Iraq means one wants to send troops anywhere there might be terrorism?
If you are an example of RP supporters, nowonder he has such a poor reputation.
Ron Paul is viewed as crazy merely because he is a strict constitutionalist, and the U.S. abandoned that particular document almost a century ago (150 if you count the post-Civil War encroachments).
Free markets, stable currency backed by precious metals, a federal government strictly limited to its constitutional duties, and the avoidance of entangling alliances with other sovereign nations, that’s all Congressman Paul is really after. Two hundred years ago this was the norm, today’s America is one of unstable fiat currency, debt-based economies, hyper-regulated markets, a bloated and overreaching central government, and U.S. troops permanently stationed in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
Chew on this, folks. Ron Paul is only saying the same things Thomas Jefferson would if he were to find himself transplanted into the 21st century. Would we be calling Jefferson a moonbat today?
Funny, I never thought that Jefferson had such a disdain for Jews. Ron Paul’s antisemitism is his the reason that no one should listen to a word he says.
So I suppose that because Jefferson was a slave owner, we should also not consider a word the man said?
How, exactly, does a policy of strict non-interventionism equate with Anti-Semitism? Would you also say he’s Anti-Germanic for wanting us to stop stationing our troops there? Granted, I disagree with his stance on Israel (I have faith-based reasons to believe that the United States will abandon Israel at its own peril, but that’s another argument) but I seriously doubt the man is an anti-Semite.
And if he was…does that make his opinions of the Federal Reserve and Washington’s unconstitutional power grabs any less valid? If so perhaps we should look to eject Sen. Robert “Sheets” Byrd from Capitol Hill before we worry about a guy who doesn’t want us entangled in the Israel/Palestine mess (again, I don’t agree with him there but it doesn’t make him an anti-Semite).
That being said, part of Ron Paul’s problem is that he does attract a fringe element (The “Jews control the media and the banks” crowd) along with more levelheaded people who agree with him on monetary policy and strict constitutionalism (the “Federal government is too big and is destroying our economy” crowd). Don’t make the mistake of assigning ridiculous opinions held by a few rabid fans to the man himself.
Jefferson lived before slavery was abolished. Ron Paul is living after the Holocaust. Can you see the difference, dimwit!
Ah, name calling. The preferred weapon of grade schoolers and people who have no ability to make an argument.
Amazing how Ron Paul and Sarah Palin generate the same unhinged rage in different political types.
If Ron Paul is hewn from presidential timber than Ronald Wilson Reagan was God incarnate. Anybody that will get on the phone while on the air with Alex Jones shouldn’t even be allowed to serve as a county sanitation worker.
Kudos to the author of this article. Irony is hard enough but to go all the way to verfremdungseffekt and actually get away with it is awesome.
Why do you goy keep worrying about all those mind-controlling satellites?
Sheesh. They’re just tests before we launch the weight-controlling satellites and make a fortune off of you fat Americans!
Muwahahahahaha!
-ls/cm
Is it too late to eerily say, “THEY’RE HEEERE…”
Yeah, I thought so.
Can we get a ruling on Herr Doktor from Stormfront?
Frank J. Fleming is puzzling. First, Mr. Flemming claims to have not known of Ron Paul until well after he had run for President on the libertarian ticket. I find this a little hard to believe from even a moderately informed man. Second, he claims that the people following Ron Paul are crazies. He expects to be believed in this without identifying evidence. Third, he views with alarm Rep. Paul’s position in the Republican Party,
I myself have never mastered the view with alarm but he does it well. The rest of the article is as near to complete rubbish as I have ever seen on the Pajamas Media site.
I am less than threatened by Dr. Paul because of his age; he is already older than Reagan was when he took office.
Rep. Paul’s economics are the economics that started a dollar at $19 dollars to ounce of gold in 1789 and gave us $21 per gold ounce over one hundred and twenty years later at the beginning of the Federal Reserve era. If you do not cook the books, the living standards do not measure up to what they were then either.
The general insanity of modern Republican politics makes grading on a scale necessary. Look at the crazies backing Mitt Romney the totally failed former Governor of Massachusetts. If you do not think he failed, either you live much more than the forty miles I live from Massachusetts or you are insane. How did the other failed politicians Bob Dole and John McCain get the presidential nomination?
I have my doubts about Ron Pauls foriegn policy and Jeffersons ideas but it takes something of an extremist to propose something, which will actually work. Attacking a man who shows some guts does it is not endearing.
LOL @ satellites. That’s why I always wear my tin-foil hat. :-p
No real support, just online polls? Why did he never take CPAC before if it was so easy with dedicated followers? His followers weren’t dedicated before?
And what about this Rasmussen poll putting him one point from Obama in a head to head match up? Do go into the details of his support amongst the third of US voters who call themselves ‘independent’. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
Name calling is not persuasive.
I think a point was missed somewhere along the way…maybe the humor bit. Possibly you missed the humor bit, or didn’t find it humorous. But…really. Frank J does humor.
This was way funnier than anything Fleming has ever written.
Marktheg__
I’d be surprised if you could name anything you’ve done over the years to support libertarian ideas. If the Republicans don’t disgust you as much as the Democrats do, you’re quite obviously not a libertarian, and you wouldn’t be cheerleading all of the ridiculous crap that gets posted here. There hasn’t been a small government Republican since Eisenhower, and even he increased the military budget. You can’t be a libertarian and a supporter of interventions in foreign countries–if you are, you’re quite obviously not a libertarian. Obvious to anyone, except you. Fail.
If oscar disagrees with me, then I must be right.
Dearest “Mark the great”,
Big news for you: YOU aren’t great at all, save in your own mind.
Now, there’s a WHITE HOUSE closet with your name on it, and BARKY is expecting you to be there at the appointed time.
DO be sure to BE ON YOUR KNEES, and wear your bib.
Got that, sweet cheeks?
Oscar says I can’t be a libertarian because I love Republicans.
Highlander accuses me of wanting to give Obama a blow job.
Neither one is willing to check my voluminous record for what I actually believe.
Is it any wonder why ronulans are ignored by most of the world.
So…Mr. Fleming…It’s ok to use ad hominems in describing your opponents, or in referring to those people with whom you disagree, but it’s evil when someone does the same to you???
…and we need a little more civility in political discourse, eh? (Yeah, he stole a march on the right with that one, and from what he’s said since, we all know he didn’t mean it…but then…you folks turn right around and prove his point for him.)
Non Ron Paul wing of the republican party = freedom hating big spending social conservatives who helped double, DOUBLE the size of the federal government these last 10 years.
Everyone who isn’t with you is the enemy?
Man, these conspiracists quickly descend into full blown paranoia.
MarkTheGreat: “Neither one is willing to check my voluminous record for what I actually believe.”
What a pity! After all, the “TheGreat” is not just some self-bestowed title eh?
OTOH, I do agree that Ron Paul is not the answer — the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense and permanently disqualifies him.
I notice that you used the entire piece to attack Ron Paul and his supporters without once dealing with his ideas. I’m left not knowing anything more about him or what he advocates, but it tells me something about you.
Can we get a ruling on Ron Paul from Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth?
I didn’t vote for Paul or donate money to his campaign.
But this piece is unfunny, and far beneath the level of writing I expect from this site.
Mark. It would be impossible to disagree with you. You don’t have an opinion.
I didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. I voted for W. Bush and was sorely disappointed as he passed NCLB and free drugs for seniors and grew the federal government 2-3 times inflation every year he was there, including those years where the republicans controlled Congress. In the meanwhile, Ron Paul and my point of view was scorned or not addressed.
1. I’m not a Ronulan. I’m The Base. Hawk on National Security, Hate Bailouts and Corp. Welfare, and Despise Abortion.
2. I like Frank, but this was not one of his funnier pieces. Charon made the comment thread win, but for the fact that it doesn’t really describe Frank’s piece which was kinda weak.
3. I’m strongly in favor of supporting Israel.
And yet, I still want to see if some sort of deal can be worked out with Ron Paul, and/or his supporters. He’s got a lot of good points.
Consider this, Rudy Giuliani is a pro-abortion guy, but he was willing to promise to send in strict constitutionalists which would mean, if he’s honest, an end to abortion at the federal level. That’s good enough for me to wish he were president now, and I’m a socon.
So maybe we can cut some sort of deal with Ron Paul. Promise to support Israel. Promise to finish off Iraq and Afghanistan, and we will support you. Or better yet, we’ll give you part of the pie. It’d be an interesting ticket for sure…. Palin/Paul 2012.
What you want, tennwriter, is to have your cake and eat it too.
This, unfortunately, is impossible. Btw, liberals want the same thing, only in a different way.
What do “hawk” mean? I’m a hawk too: I want my country to be secure and properly defended. I just don’t see how one can accomplish that by staying for decades in Iraq and Afganistan.
Promise support to Israel? Why not to everybody?
How about letting them to solve their own problems, like we should solve ours? Last time I checked, they looked quite grownups to me.
The deal you’re proposing is a “package deal”, i.e. if one want the goodies, one has to also get the bad things.
Well, package deals brought us where we are now. Deal now and you will be dealt out tomorrow. Compromise now and you’ll be compromised away tomorrow. It is long overdue the time we should not accept package deals anymore.
Not impossible. A Sixty Percent Victory is out there, but it requires letting the Base lead the Republican Party with a happy warrior candidate, and a fair chunk of people would rather lose to the Democrats than let the Base win.
Now how am I like a liberal?
A hawk is willing to use military force, and believes in a strong military. Now, Jerry Pournelle, who I like wants to 1)Build a wall and wait behind it. 2)Use the gov’t to build lots of nukes. The problem with #2 is obvious for any conservative…its a big gov’t solution. Other than that, I like the idea of lots of nuke plants. But the first is a bit more complicated but it can be summarized in two words as follows: Maginot Line.
I like a good border fence. Its the least popular about of socon positions having only 70% support. But this is not enough. The villains will gather in the dark, and plot how to get WMD’s into our sweet land. The instersection of rogue states, terrorists, and ever-increasing WMD ease of constuction requires us to intervene for our own safety.
Israel. Israel is a liberal democracy surrounded by death cultists and tyrannical regimes. Obviously, we should not treat Syria and Israel alike. We should shun the first and be friends to the second. However, you may reply that their are other worthy nations, and why specially Israel? Israel is the vessel of a promise from the Creator. Be nice to Israel, and I will bless you. Mess with Israel, and I’ll mess with you. Its a national security issue to stay on the good side of the Lord of Hosts.
I’m surprised Dr. Paul does not see this.
I don’t know about this package deal stuff. What I see is a bunch of RINOs who hate the Base, and a bunch of other groups who dislike the Base, but all of them need the Base far more than the Base needs them. They’ve succeeded for many years in getting the Base to be mild; its past time for the Base to roar. And if the Base and the Ronulans can work together to take over the R Party, that would be a lot better. The Base may not need the Ronulans but their tech skills, and their numbers would make things a lot easier.
So when you threaten me with a future of being dealt out, I have to say thats the past. That’s how the Base gets treated all the time.
I’ve been thinking lately that if you look at the negative press Dr. Paul received in ’08, it smacks of the Alinsky treatment. I believe that he was worked over by the left and his followers made out to be crazy because the left feared him. Paul’s positions are clasic Pre-WWII Republican. That was my problem with him in fact. He was and presumably is an isolationist, that was something I couldn’t get past, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t right on a lot of things.
If the Republicans win this November, they could do worse than take some cues from Dr. Paul on economic responsibility.
It confuses the heck out of me that Frank satirically represents himself as a Paulnut in the article, and then one of the most aggressive commenter is a REAL nut also named “Frank”. For the first several comments I thought it was the author carrying on the joke. Anybody else as confused as I?
Are the RuPauls at it again?
Ron Paul will NEVER be elected President.
That is just silliness.
Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were all called madmen by the royalists. Ron Paul threatens the GOP elites. The liberal propaganda machine saves a lot of effort not smearing Ron Paul like they do Palin – there are plenty of elitist GOP hacks doing the job for them. I think the US should be neutral on Israel, not hostile, like Obama, but more neutral. Esp. since American Jews note for Democrats. Let the Democrats carry Israel’s water for a while. I also think that saying 9-11 was an inside job is whacko. But on balance, Ron Paul is a lot closer to what I want than anything the GOP elites have to offer. Conservatives need to stop attacking him. Make the liberals do their own dirty work, for Pete’s sake.
Quote: “I also think that saying 9-11 was an inside job is whacko”
Rick, he didn’t say that! He just didn’t!
It’s his detractors who say he said that.
Very good points you raised about Israel.
@ Ric LaBonte: you write: “I also think that saying 9-11 was an inside job is whacko. But on balance, Ron Paul is a lot closer to what I want than anything the GOP elites have to offer. Conservatives need to stop attacking him. Make the liberals do their own dirty work, for Pete’s sake.”
Part of me wants to agree with you about accepting Ron Paul but no, believing that 9/11 was the work of the US government is far beyond the pale. Approx. 3,000 were killed — but for the grace of God it probably SHOULD have been a much higher dead toll — recall early fears were 50-60,000 dead. The someone in your government would hatch a plan to do that?
That indicates an unstable thought process or a horribly flawed perception of reality that is not just wacko — its not acceptable — for a “conservative” anyway. (Yes I know that kind of thinking IS common for a ding bat liberal.)
However, I am with you on laying off Paul and his supporters. I believe there was NOTHING useful or funny in this REALLY pointless article. On the balance we do not need to attack Ron Paul or his followers we have nothing to fear from them — they are good folks. We have a LOT to fear from Obama et al.
I’m new to reading PJmedia but I thought one sucked — save the “humor” for progressives and other human scum please.
Quote: “but no, believing that 9/11 was the work of the US government is far beyond the pale.”
Fargo44, he didn’t say that! He just didn’t!
It’s his detractors who say he said that.
Quote: “believing that 9/11 was the work of the US government is far beyond the pale”
Fargo44, he didn’t say that! He just didn’t!
It’s his detractors who say he said that.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Obama administration now says it supports a proposal to audit the Federal Reserve’s lending practices that has won broad bipartisan backing in the Senate.
Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said last-minute changes to an amendment before the Senate would ensure that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy authority would not be compromised by an audit.
The audit has been pushed by a bipartisan coalition led by independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont. The audit by Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, would examine bank lending by the Fed before and after the 2008 financial crisis.
Earlier in the day, Wolin said the administration feared an audit would intrude on the Fed’s independence.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—A top Treasury official says the Obama administration opposes a proposal to audit the Federal Reserve, a plan that has bipartisan Senate support.
Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said an amendment to a pending financial regulation bill could encroach on the independence of the central bank. The amendment’s sponsor, independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont, has criticized the Fed for secrecy in its assistance of banks.
The Fed sets interest rates that have broad economic consequences. The House financial regulations bill also requires an audit by the Government Accountability Office.
Wolin predicted that a Republican proposal to dilute the power of a proposed consumer protection entity would be defeated.
***
Why crosspost this here? Because this is what Ron Paul has spent twenty years campaigning for. Auditing the Fed. Wow, what a crackpot. Article fail.
Can someone please show me some proof that Ron Paul is a truther? Everything I’ve seen and read on him shows exactly the opposite. I’ve heard him take the stance that 9/11 was the result of our foriegn policy, but never that it was an inside job. Just because truthers support Paul doesnt make Paul a truther, no more than militia members supporting the tea party make tea partiers militia members.
I guess you folks are the dreaded NEOCONS, I’ve heard so much about. Seem to not like us Believers, very much…Always shoving our religion at you. The Wiz gave you all Mensa Brains, and that’s all you need.
I sit here for over an hour, put up 4 comments and you nuke each one of them. WHY?
Don’t feel bad. I’ve yet to meet a minister or priest who doesn’t think I should turn my other cheek to Satanic Communists and Jihadists.
Actually, I’m a Freemason, just like most of our Founding Fathers, who had no trouble killing the evil English.
If an evil little scrote, like the Obamessiah could even be elected as president, shows that we’re DEAD ALREADY…You forgive Rev Wright’s message betten’n mine.
See if you can find yourselves in this first chapter from Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans…
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
What a stupid waste of time.
> The point isn’t who he is, it’s that he’s catnip for crazies.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. The crazies are the ones running the asylum. Paul is just trying to call attention to that fact. He’s the only sane one in there.
Libertarianism isn’t for everyone. Freedom and total personal responsibility are frightening things. Ron Paul’s ideas have power, that explains the name-calling. They called Galileo a heretic, Copernicus a heretic, Tesla was a lunatic, etc. If you can’t argue against the idea, attack the messenger. Conservatives don’t really want small government, they need powerful government to make them feel like things are under control. Libertarianism frightens them. They fear anarchy. Bigotry is always rooted in ignorance and fear. It’s pathetic to see conservatives using the same ad hominem tactics that liberal fascists use.