December 30, 2011 - 2:56 pm
…& “I’m Not Going to Take it Anymore!”
Check out my latest PJ Media piece, “Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul?”
And to see more of my cartoons, please visit My Blog.
…& “I’m Not Going to Take it Anymore!”
Check out my latest PJ Media piece, “Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul?”
And to see more of my cartoons, please visit My Blog.
I’m delighted to see you published here, Bosch! Nice artwork (as always). I hope the paulbots don’t swarm too badly on you for this one, they are as bad as islamic supremacists in terms of going nuts whenever someone does anything that is not in favor of their cause!
Thanks, Zilla, it’s definitely great to be here. And I’m with you: If you don’t support Paul, his supporters accuse you of wanting Big Government and to wage “Enndlesss Waaaars”, among other things. Paul speaks a good game of the proper role of government, but clearly is unfit to actually Do what government is in its essence is truly and almost exclusively meant to do – and that’s to Protect us.
The grownups in the room won’t be voting for Ron Paul.
I’ll take Doug Bandow over you anyday, kemosabe.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13972&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html
And I’ll take the commandant of the Marine Corps in the NYT over Newty boy’s opinion that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil without charge is just ducky.
Mr. X, did you know that CATO stands for ‘Communism, a Total Onanism’.
You are on your own for onanism. I ran it through Babel fish and got nothing. Hurrah for the New Soviet Man.
Say, I have an Idea! Why not trade? Ron Paul can run for President of Russia, since you Russians like him so much. Pootie can run for POTUS. While Pootie ( means a wet fart in Texan-ex, which is almost like English) wouldn’t be much of a POTUS, he would be better then Mitt, teh won or Newt.
Besides, President wet fart has a certain air about it.
“I would say no, I wouldn’t do that, mainly because right now there are no signs they are seeking to build a bomb. And if Iran did build a nuclear bomb, he said, “What are the odds of them using it? Probably zero. They just are not going to commit suicide.” ….. Ron Paul
Memo to Ron Paul
On September 11 2001 Four Airline Pilots surrendered their aricraft in flight to Nineteen armed men because they thought the very same thing.
We put al Qaeda in charge of Libya, the Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, we’re negotiating with the Taliban to give them control of large portions of Afghanistan, we have Iran moving into Iraq, we’re selling shitloads of weapons to the Saudis and we have this WH proclaiming that because Iran is ramping up their actions and looking for war it must mean the sanctions are working….This is how we prevent the next 9/11? This is the mark of sanity?
Listening to these people gush romantically about Team America World Cop is a lot like listening to communist talk about communism. The reality just doesn’t match up. And when you ask them why…All they can say is “We’re just not doing it right.”
And have you noticed the party of the guy in the White House these days?
Using Obama’s foreign policy to trash Republican foreign policy preferences is like using Pepsi’s formula to trash Coca-Cola.
You really are clueless, aren’t you?
He’s a Paulistinain, what do you expect?
Paulistinain = person who accepts that we’re broke and can’t afford our empire.
Where’s the money and resources going to come from to continue this empire? If you can’t answer this question then you have to admit that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is our future. You can’t make a turnip bleed.
And the last time we tried Fortress America we got World War II.
Of course Paul want’s to create Fortress America WITHOUT borders, how’s that gonna work out?
RPIR, defense spending is not the issue. Entitlements are the big problem.
But you don’t care about the facts, The Ron Has Spoken, So It Must Be True!
Note: there was no reply button so I will just reply below you.
“RPIR, defense spending(1.5 trillion a year) is not the issue. Entitlements are the big problem”
It’s a big issue when you’re cutting billions from SS while giving trillions in looted taxpayer cash to nation-building, foreign aid and war. Don’t you think for a second that Americans wont see it. And don’t think Democrats wont capitalize on it.
Republicans will lose, and lose badly, if they choose Americans over Foreigners when it comes time to cut. We can either adopt Ron Paul’s foreign policy or become a minority party until we do.
Reagan won with Republican foreign policy. Twice.
Both Bushes won with aggressive foreign policy… the latter one twice.
Your statements don’t match up with reality, RPIR.
“Reagan won with Republican foreign policy. Twice.”
He won the Cold War by bankrupting the USSR…And now we’re the USSR.
“Both Bushes won with aggressive foreign policy… the latter one twice.”
We won debt and dead Americans. The Bushies war’s didn’t benefit America in the least.
“Your statements don’t match up with reality, RPIR.”
China and Russia have said they will jump in if we attack Iran….So rest assured that Iran is going to do whatever it wants. If it wants nukes then it will get them.
The republican candidates will continue to talk tough, but it’s just talk, and the moment one of them steps in the WH all that bs will go out the door. Just like GB did with North Korea. We’re broke and WW3 isn’t worth it…Ron Paul’s foreign policy will be our foreign policy.
You’d rather have Saddam Hussein terrorizing the Gulf, as well as providing support to Al-Qaeda?
Once again, you’re supporting Barack Obama’s foreign policy… he opposed the war in Iraq too.
Ya know, I mentioned earlier how much of The Ron’s support was coming from the left, and I think you’re a perfect example of it. I wouldn’t doubt you voted for Obama last time and will vote for him again this time, you’re just “supporting” Paul now so that Obama won’t have to face someone like Perry or Gingrich or Romney.
“You’d rather have Saddam Hussein terrorizing the Gulf’
As opposed to Iran?
“as well as providing support to Al-Qaeda?”
The removal of Saddam increased the support for al Qaeda in Iraq(and the region).
“Once again, you’re supporting Barack Obama’s foreign policy… ”
Obama continued the war all the way up to the point where they tossed us out on our asses. So not really.
What did we get for for playing the game of swap the crazies in Iraq? Nothing. We had our rights and freedoms violated for nothing. We lost economic freedom for nothing.
What’s the unseen effect of the American soldiers who died and the money lost? How much oil could we have purchased with the money? How many of these soldiers would have been the next Bill Gates and how much of that money would have been used to fund worthwhile things? Hell, for all we know, one of those soldiers could have invented the perfect alternative fuel and gotten us off oil forever and the money lost could have gotten us a cure for autism. Now we’ll never know.
Instead all we got was kicked out of a crappy country with crappy anti-American leaders who are no better than the ones we replaced….Oh yeah, and trillions of debt and thousands of dead Americans. It was a total waste. A total waste.
Using Obama’s foreign policy to trash Republican foreign policy preferences is like using Pepsi’s formula to trash Coca-Cola.
You really are clueless, aren’t you?
Given that Obama’s foreign policy is virtually identical to that of his Republican predecessor and all of the GOP contenders other than Ron Paul, I’d say you are the clueless one.
Obama’s foreign policy only has a superficial resemblance to Bush’s, and then only on matters where there is very little choice.
When I follow the rules and get deleted anyway, it has to be the message. If this corner of PJM has a policy of deleting opinions that differ, then say so. Those of us that are not interested in echo boxes can avoid posting here.
Really?
Obama wanted troops out of Iraq.
Bush wanted troops in Iraq.
Paul agreed with Obama, wanted troops out of Iraq.
Who’s foreign policy closely matches whose?
—
stoicheion, there’s been a long-standing issue with the spam filter inappropriately marking messages as spam. I, myself, have experienced it many times. The management is working on “training” the spam filter better. If a comment looks like it’s being filtered inappropriately, a quick email to the “Contact Us” link at the bottom of the page usually fixes it within a reasonable time frame.
“And have you noticed the party of the guy in the White House these days?”
Yeah, we know, Bush and his failed policies put Obama in the WH.
“Using Obama’s foreign policy”
Yes, eventually in your failed games of Team America World Cop, the Democrats are going to get a turn. They are going to use those new unconstitutional powers to wreck even more havok.
And BTW, Bush’s foreign policy was just as bad.
Afghnistan: See his pedophile parties, see his boy karzi he put in power, see how Bush bankrolled the insurgency that was killing our troops with his nationbuilding bs, see how Osama wasn’t even in the country, etc.
Iraq: never had to happen and hasn’t benefited us in the least. See Abu Ghraib, see not enough troops, see Christian genocide, see everybody telling Bush what was going to happen if he invaded Iraq(he knew Iran was going to gain from the war), etc.
How many people dead so far? How many dead Americans? How much money wasted? (This is why it’s better not to play god)
The good news is, we no longer have the money to do it…Ron Paul’s foreign policy is now America’s defunct foreign policy. We blew our load on Iraq and now we either give it up or become the next Greece.
Ahh, another point of similarity.
Now it’s not only the presence of troops in Iraq that Obama and Paul agree on, now Paul (or the Ronulans, at least) is starting to sing from the Obama “Blame BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!” songbook!
Are you sure you wanna call yourselves conservatives? Perhaps Obama lefties would be more appropriate.
What do you mean we? History will record Carter as having lost Iran, Berry as having lost everything else.
Like most Paulbots, you don’t read history. You can tell who knows history by how they view the current phase of the thousand plus year old war Islam has been waging on the west.
As an example please allow me to use 1389AD. With apologies;
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322736/Battle-of-Kosovo
In 1389 the Ottomans (Islamic) destroyed the army trying to prevent Moslimes (As they were called then)from penetrating the Balkans (Turkish for Mountains). That was 623 years ago and was far from the first battle between Islam and the West.
Muslims have a master plan called the Koran.
They will either assimilate the West or the west will defeat them. Europe pretty much shut down the Islamic threat back in the 19th century by turning the Umma into a colony. Except for the Ottomans. The Ottomans were finished off in 1919, split up and assigned an overlord. America (FDR) forced the You-Rows to give up their colonies post WW2 as part of the price of America’s rescue of Europe from the Hitler.
Our reward for that bit of ignorance was 9-11 and the 4,000 attacks that preceded it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
So the idea that Muslims are attacking America because we have done them wrong is preposterous. America didn’t exist in 1389. America was discovered a century later by some hustler trying to find a way to get to China that didn’t involve fighting your way through Muslim lands (Umma, Arabic for community).
America’s choices are surrender or fight. We WILL fight. It is better to fight there (Iraq) and to fight to win (Iraq). If you want to surrender, go ahead. Take Ron Paul with you. PLEASE…….
And your guy sees nothing wrong with any of it, really,
Oh, the Constitution… that is so 19th century.
Article 1, section 8.
Read it. Especially the part about providing for the common “defence” (that’s how they spelled it back then).
Then ask yourself, why are you and your chosen candidate ignoring that provision of the Constitution that you claim so loudly to support?
Nice try… Art 1, sec 8 is for Congress. Here it the entire paragraph:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
Paul has stated: “Absent an imminent threat, a President should not undertake unilateral military action. As President, if I believed there was a threat to the US justifying military action, I would go before Congress and the people to present the case for war.”
Thanks for making my point, BTW.
And what would happen if we, say, removed troops from the border between North and South Korea?
Do you think the nutjob dictators of the North would just sit there quietly?
You might also consider the history of the Founding Fathers you tend to revere:
Folks, OWS’ers have switched strategy. Instead of boycotting, or standing around polling places, they’re throwing their weight fully behind the Republican candidate most likely to be beaten by Obama in a debate format.
Be careful of this new ploy. Could skew caucus results unfavorably. Just an observation. God Bless America. Massive fraud is definitely all around us…MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Priorities (Soros), and Tides, SEIU, AFL-CIo et al.
Stand tall, stand firm. A constitutional conservative is our Vote.
Precisely.
That’s why most polls show at least half, if not more, of Ron Paul’s support coming from Democrats and left-leaning “independents.”
Remember, the Iowa Caucuses are open… any Obamabot can walk in and vote for the GOP candidate he/she/it wishes… and it won’t be the one most likely to beat Obama.