« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

why ron paul has ZERO chance to win the republican presidential primary

1. His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country. And the big winners in last November’s elections were the ones who espoused ”american exceptionalism”, not the ones who espoused ”anti-american apologism”. Now I will admit Ron Paul’s foreign policy message would go over well with the Code Pink/Dennis Kucinich voters, but those type of people tend to be Democrats, not Republicans. One of my facebook friends put it best when he said ”if Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now”.

2. He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

3. There are plenty of people who are ”one issue voters” in politics. And in the Republican party there are plenty of people that ”opposition to islam” is the one issue they feel strongly about. You can go to any anti islam or conservative jewish site and see that the two politicians that are diliked the most are Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said ”I don’t believe for one minute the religion of islam is our enemy”. And Paul also attacked the Sunshine Patriots for their oppostion to the ground zero mosque. Now i am not going to debate the muslim issue here, but the fact that a decent sized voting group in your own party considers you one of their main foes is certainly not good news for your campaign. Now to be fair, you will get the people who think Israel is oppressing Palestine and the pro muslim agenda voters will be on Paul’s side. The only problem with that is almost all of that crowd are Democrats who support Obama.

4. Let’s look at Ron Paul’s position on crack cocaine and heroin. Now I am totally fine with legalizing pot and prostitution in any state if the voters want it. If somebody wants to get laid or smoke a joint it sure isn’t any of my business. But we are talking about legalizing hard drugs because Ron Paul says that the government is unconstitutionally sticking its nose in peoples business by not allowing it. I say once it becomes legal, who is going to cover the costs of the people that get addicted to it to go to rehab or treatment centers. And please don’t say the addict. Probably the government will have to. Great, now here comes a great big expansion of government to fight the drug war that was ”caused by the tea party candidate”. Which by the way, I as a taxpayer will have to cover. Increased police and court costs etc, etc. But the issue isn’t what I think or Ron Paul thinks, the issue is what does the Republican primary voter think of this policy. The ”religious right” will certainly oppose it full force. And I would think that anyone that has had a family member suffer through the addiction process will be opposed to it. That’s two groups opposed. Of course, Paul will pick up the ”left wing hippie” vote and the anarchists vote. Except the left wing hippies are already card carrying members of the Democratic party. And all the anarchists who want to overthrow big bad America are already his supporters.

5. If he were alive today, Ronald Reagan would strongly oppose him. Reagan believed in spending generously on our national defense and certainly had an interventionist foreign policy. And according to the Ron Paul playbook, that would make the greatest president of my era ”a neocon”. Their policies and beliefs are totally and completely different. Naturally Ron Paul’s followers will attempt to hide that fact by showing you an old video of Ronald Reagan praising Ron Paul as a candidate and using that as proof that Ronald Reagan would support Ron Paul in 2012. Now watch me dismantle that silly argument!!! Does anyone remember Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania? Arlen was the senator that everyone on tea party and conservative sites called a liberal RINO. He was challenged by a tea party backed conservative in the primary named Pat Toomey and when Specter saw how opposed conservatives were to his candidacy he changed parties to Democrat. He voted for TARP, Obama’s socialized health care plan, and was pro affirmative action and amnesty. Yet, Reagan praised him as a true conservative back in the 1980′s and even cut a campaign ad for him. But go ask a Pennsylvania tea partier what they think of Specter today. LOL. If you were a House or Senate member, and of course running as a Republican, Ronald Reagan would praise you as a candidate for office. That’s part of what a sitting president does for members of his party.

But rather than look at a 30 year old video let’s look at Ron Paul has to say about Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Ron Paul wrote a letter to Frank Fahrenkopf, chairman of the Republican National Committee, starting that he wanted to totally publically disassociate himself with the policies of Ronald Reagan(funny but he yet to publically disassociate with the 9-11 truther movement or Code Pink). He later told the Dallas Morning News that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was a ”dramatic failure”. OK, let’s take a look at the political success of both politicians and decide if that is true. In 2008 Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for president. He got 5% of the vote. In other words, 19 OUT OF 20 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was reelected as the president of the United States in a landslide, winning 49 out of 50 states, and his 525 electoral votes were the the most of any candidate in American history. Hmmm, I think we have to score this one for the Gipper.

6. Illegal Immigration. According to the highly respected anti immigation group NUMBERS USA, Ron Paul has the lowest grade of any Republican presidential candidate out there, coming in with an F. Naturally, his paulbots try to put a spin on this by saying ”welfare and benefit programs should be unconsititutional so illegal immigrants wont come here”. If Ron Paul threw puppies off a tall building his hynoptized followers would be applauding and yelling it was ”constitutional”. That argument wont cut it with the voters. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans are in favor of closing our borders and against all forms of amnesty. And that really holds true with Republican voters. April has posted articles by former Ron Paul allies like Tom Tancrdeo that blast Paul on the immigration issue. Yet again, Ron Paul thinks like a liberal Democrat, and in fact even has the same ”F” grade that NUMBERS USA gave Obama.

7. Paul’s pork problem. One thing career politicians learn to do is talk conservative while picking the taxpayers pocket for money. And ”Porkulus Paul” has this shady routine down pat. First of all, let’s go back to last November’s elections to get the proper perspective on this issue. The Republicans destroyed the Democrats on November 3 due to the energy and votes of the tea party!!!!! Now the tea party came in and deservedly wanted to flex it muscles. And decided to take a principled stand against the unethical practice of pork(earmarks). The fight against earmarks was led by the Tea Party Patriots(TPP) and other tea party and conservative groups against the pork loving Democrats. In fact, TPP leader Mark Meckler considered this such an important issue that he promised to run a tea party challenger against any Republican that accepted them.

“We’ll do what we always do,” said Meckler. “Our members will put immense pressure on every senator to vote against earmarks. This is a fundamental issue — it’s both substantive and symbolic. Will they vote against the politics of the past or are they still stuck in it? This is a vote that will never go away, like TARP. Tea Partiers have long memories. Politicians have always taken advantage of the fact that voters have short memories, but we’ll know, we’ll remember, and in 2012 when they have aggressive, well-funded primary challengers, they’ll know why.”

Then it came out that a Republican asked for 150 MILLION DOLLARS IN PORK FOR HIS DISTRICT!!! Surely this was a RINO. Maybe Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown? No, it was actually Ron Paul.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.

Ron Paul is to the far left of the tea party on just about every major issue. Actually he looks just like a liberal Democrat to me.

SAY NO TO THE FAR LEFT TURN, STAY RIGHT. NO PAUL IN 2012.

COMMENTS

  • congressworksforus

    The only country that has legalized hard drugs (Portugal) saw a reduction in addiction rates as a result. While I believe his stance is based on freedom of choice, I don’t think he’d be touting it for a minute if the stats weren’t backing him up….

    • mikeymike143

      Michele Bachmann’s surge in the polls proves that 1. The Tea Party is alive and well 2. Ron Paul does not represent the real tea party. 3. The era of Reagan is not over 4. The era of Romney is yesterday

      • mikeymike143

        LOL

  • expanding_man

    Sets out the candidates negatives in a rational way. Good to see some well thought out points that may have a chance to convince rather than alienate.

    Saw the Dick Morris poll on Fox with Paul in 2nd place after Romney amongst likely primary voters. Posts like this may shift some of these primary voters to another candidate. Do you have a candidate that you support?

    • mikeymike143

      the candidate that i prefer probably is not going to run. that would be jim demint. if demint enters he will be my first choice regardless of who else is in the race!! and i am a member of tea party fort lauderdale so of course i would love to see an allen west candidacy. how back to reality. LOL. i dont actually have a solid preference yet among the candidates that are currently running. but i don’t want to seem like i am ducking the question so i will say that if the florida republican presidential primary election was held today michele bachmann would be my first choice and herman cain would be my second.

      • expanding_man

        You and I are on the same page on Demint. For better or worse, I think he has chosen a different role in the party. Generally, it’s one of opposition to the establishment Republicans in the Senate. I would love to see him as the next Senate majority leader. Not sure that he’s well liked by other more moderate Republican senators. I will say that I think Paul follows Demint (or has similar views) on issues like abortion, reducing government, spending, following the constitution, etc. I would guess that if Paul was a senator, they would vote the same on 90% of bills.

        • mikeymike143

          is great news. now if jim demint would only get in the race my day would be complete.

      • niles316

        I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said that” the very heart of Conservatism is Libertarianism”. The GOP used to be anti war, and took the isolationist approach, to where we didn’t get involved in foreign affairs. We are going bankrupt, and don’t have the money to fund the wars that we are already involved in. We are going to have to start making decisions soon, or we will be in real trouble.

        Part of that problem is that we have”neoconservatives”insist we must have wars with Syria and Iran, and feel we have to “spread America’s greatness”. We need to return to the Constitution as our way of life in this country, and not get into arguments whether we should defunding NPR, or if Obama is an American citizen or not.I pray the GOP will start looking for real solutions, or else we will loose in 2012.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Oh, did I mention RonPaulRonPaulRonPaulRonPaulRonPaulRonPaul.

          RonPaul and his “philosophies” will have nothing to do solving our current problems. He’s been in the congress for 20 plus years and has done exactly nothing to this point, he’s the poster hypocrite for fiscal restraint.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            It’s like the 11 o thing. :)

          • devereaux

            Ron Paul has zero chance to get the nomination. But as far back as 2001, he was the only member of congress that was warning we are creating a huge bubble in housing and it will take down the economy. The FANNIE and FREDDIE hearings where he was all but ignored.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ&feature=player_embedded#at=60

            Ron Paul’s fanatical supporters do him more harm than good by driving away people that might be willing to listen to what he has to say. They are extremely rude. At CPAC earlier this year Ron Paul asked his supporters to be polite and respectful to the other speakers and what do they do??? Ignore him and Boo Vice President Cheney.

            It is what it is.

          • BigRedConservative

            never learn to say them politely. Sadly, there is a terminal surfeit of “civility” in this land.

          • acat

            The point being, when ones’ words can be expected to have immediate and painful if not fatal reprecussions, one tends to choose them very carefully.

            Explaining that one reason the 1950s were relativelly more polite was that something like 15% of the adult male population had just received Uncle Sam’s firearms training (and likely their very own firearm to go with it) and the previous generation had the same experience can cause liberal heads to explode,

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            as in zero, nada, zip, bupkis, credibility with his peers. And for good reason. He’s been in congress for 20+ years and has done nothing but practice hypocricy.

            Frankly, it’s a shame that he hasn’t been tossed out of the Republican caucus because he’s NOT a Republican. He’s not even a decent Libertarian.

          • aesthete

            as far as I can tell, most politicians spend 20+ years practicing hypocrisy. At least RP’s hypocrisy costs me pennies instead of bennies…

          • devereaux

            If he’s being ignored then why do I keep reading headlines like this?

            The Gold Standard: A Litmus Test For GOP Candidates

            http://blogs.forbes.com/ralphbenko/2011/07/05/gold-standard-litmus-test-gop-candidates/

            Ron Paul’s Really Great Idea

            http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/ron-pauls-really-great-idea

            Ron Paul has won

            http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/167777-ron-paul-has-won

          • Bill S

            “ignored by intelligent people”

            Of those 3 citations, the first two demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of finances, and the third one is obviously written by a Ron-fan (you can be pretty certain that anyone who refers to him as “Dr. Paul” is already bought into his voodoo hook, line and sinker). After hearing from a close friend/economist on those first two “really great ideas”, I’m convinced that Paul would have this country’s finances in worse shape than Obama if those “ideas” were implemented.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And just to clarify my earlier post, Ron Paul is “ignored” – thank you for clarifying – because he is an idiot, and a widely recognized one at that.

            And your comments about the links are exactly right on the money.

          • aesthete

            Nt

          • devereaux

            Misunderstanding of finances?? How so??

          • Bill S

            our resident economics person, Francis Cianfrocca, on RonPaul’s “really great idea” (from an email exchange, and I asked his permission to quote him):

            If the Fed were to extinguish $1.6 trillion in claims on the Treasury WITHOUT selling them, that is precisely identical to printing $1.6 trillion dollars. There is no immediate impact, but the impact would be felt as a massive inflationary pulse as the securities mature.

            and

            if you cut the Fed’s balance sheet by two-thirds, that is a direct and mechanical deflation. Ben Bernanke must be shaking in his shoes at the thought. Paul may be thinking he’s finally found a way to get rid of the Fed. If your goal is to eliminate economic growth, you couldn’t do better than go to a gold-based monetary system. But shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet is just about as good.

            (I’m hoping Francis will diary his thoughts on this “great idea” at some point in the not-too-distant future.)

          • devereaux

            Confusion on how the Federal Reserve Operates

            http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/denninger-displays-total-confusion-on.html

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            NT

          • devereaux

            http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/07/does-karl-denninger-understand-how-central-banks-inflate-nowadays.html

          • mikeymike143

            after 2012 no more paul in office. it feels like my birthday and christmas all rolled into one.

  • billinsuwanee

    Red State is regurgitating the soundbites from the NEOCON radio talk show host Mark Levin. Levin said on his show last Friday that the reason people call him a NEOCON is because they really want to call him a Jew.

    Red State has no idea who is going to nominated, they are just being talking heads to garner favor with Mark Levin to help Erick’s radio show in Atlanta.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
      • sailingaway

        Reagan?

        Spending and the deficit went up. IN THAT REGARD the administration had failed at one of its primary goals. Mind you, it had to deal with a majority Democrat congress at that point. However, Ron’s policies have never changed. It is one thing to say someone might think differently of someone if they have changed, but Ron is the same guy he was when he led the Texas convention in the 1976 Convention fighting for Ronald Reagan’s candidacy while the Rockefeller Republicans backed Bush. Those same Rockefeller Republicans now pretend to be Reagan Republicans. Rand has an amusing write up in his book of this.

        There already have been responses to all the material above, and if you are open minded you will want to look further than an obvious hit piece or a supporter’s response, so I’ll let you look into it yourself. I will say that I never heard of Ron Paul before the last presidential election and was just looking for someone to vote for besides McCain whom I despise, and Romney whose sincerity I don’t trust. I heard of the newsletters and thought there must be SOMETHING there, so I looked into them when I was first thinking of voting for Ron Paul. The issue pops like a soap bubble and is the biggest issue that exists. The man has the integrity and record to inspire people, and I encourage everyone to look into it for themselves. Youtube search for Ron Paul by view is a good way to start, but google is obviously needed for his voting record.

        • sailingaway

          I meant to say when the Rockefeller Republicans backed Ford, not Bush. They did, eventually, back Bush, but not then.

          • Scope

            if you name any accomplishment that Ron Paul has achieved with his more than 20 year history in the House. The ball is in your court now, please don’t disappointment your candidate and his supporters.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            These are basically glorified yea/nay voters on mostly easy choices and I consider it a plus if they have never sponsored a bill! But as to RP, who I loathe, I suspect that his voting record is 90+ good.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Champagne and Ripple and his proverbs-like wisdom on mixing courses: They are all going to the same place and

            Elizabeth, I’m coming to join ya!

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            In 20 years … WHAT BILLS DID HE GET PASSED?

            What bills did he get voted on?
            What bills did he get co-sponsored?
            etc.

            Recall that he is in the House. Their job is to pass legislation.

            The #1 failure of the conservative movement has been the failure of conservative leaders to actually, you know, PASS CONSERVATIVE BILLS!

            Ron Paul is one of many examples of these ‘leaders’ who have actually done very little to advance freedom and limited Government. It’s sad, but he is far from alone in this behavior. Some, like Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions, actually fight on the floor for things. Others, like Paul Ryan, actually put proposals together. But 90% of our ‘best’ conservative ‘leaders’ are clueless about Getting Things Done.

            Paul is one of the NON-doers. Talks a good talk, but zero impact.

            As we say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            passing a bill.

          • sailingaway

            as actually limiting what Congress does might have had something to do with him? He has a 20 year record of doing the right thing regardless of how the winds blew at that moment. No one else does. Accomplishing destruction of the Republic by stacking up debt is a pretty negative accomplishment others can claim..

            He stayed true to his oath of office. I’d admire if our next president did.

          • gekster

            But that is a fact you choose to ignore.

    • gekster

      It’s in northern Michigan, and it’s five miles long.
      Plenty of room for you and your pals to live under. ;)

    • Goldwater_Conservative

      bottom indicates is what has infested the tea party movement and is exactly why I will not associate myself with the movement. Do I agree with the overall goal of the tea party? Yes….but I will not be found within 500 yards of a large portion of the most active element of the movement as shown here. A circus will always be a circus even if you change the name.

    • Toby Calvert-Lee

      Marks a great guy

      Second of all, shut up about neocons

      Third of all, Paul and Jones and the rest of you “the south was right” libertarians make us Conservatives look bad

      But I like Paul the younger though

    • Bill S

      Have you not figured out the difference between member diaries and Front Page diaries yet? This writer is not a front-page contributor to Redstate, thus does not speak on behalf of the web site.

      Get off your high horse about “prognostication”.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      The way you keep saying Neocon shows you to be profoundly ignorant. Shoo. Adults are talking.

      • Toby Calvert-Lee

        Love it! Paulbots make me angry

    • mikeymike143

      .in real life, paulbots are anti social and afraid of authority. so they tend to be

      • izoneguy

        So I know the type well…..

        Very thick skulls and no social skills.

        • wennejunk

          Sadly, the Ron Paul dispute has caused a lot of damage.

          • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

            You’re one issue proposition is correct for more than just Paul. There are far more Pro-Life one issue voters than War on Terror one issue voters. This means Romney, Giuliani, Johnson, and Christi are all out as well.

            The next issue is the drug issue. Paul is right on this. First the constitution gives no power to the federal government on this issue. Second, the so called drug war has made the problem much worse. In the 1930′s the federal government estimated drug use at between 300,000 and 1,000,000, including marijuana. That was between 1/4 of 1% and 4/5ths of1% of the population. Today estimates range from 15 to 50 million or 4% and 15% respectively. so a minimum 1600% increase in per-capita drug use.
            The costs people speak of in terms of hospital care are already being paid. In addition we are also paying for an enormous Army of Drug warriors not just counting law enforcement but the judiciary and the penal system.. In personal liberty the drug war is the reason I can’t have an anonymous bank account. Which of course feeds the IRS as well. The drug war brought no knock drug raids, purchase limits on cold medication, in a round about way increased costs associated with firearms and threats to our rights to possess guns since druggie turf wars are a primary reason for attacking gun rights.
            Alcohol prohibition was dropped when it became evident the cure was far worse than the problem. The drug war needs to die the same ignoble death.

            Foreign policy is the area I agree with Paul the least on. I think both Iraq and Afghanistan were well justified but we should have been gone from both long ago. Nation building is dumb. When we do leave they will go right back to the 6th century because that is who they are.
            But I do have a question, in 10 or 15 years, when some Libyan terrorist blows himself up in Times Square in revenge for our bombing his mom or dad last week will you be prepared to admit that we might have some culpability?
            This ain’t video games. There really are real people dying over there and we have no legitimate reason for killing them.. When that guy does kill a hundred Americans I will be the first to say we should punish his backers. But better we should stay out of places unless we have a good reason to be there.

            As I said, I agree with your premise that Paul can’t win the nomination. Given that, why write a blog designed to deliberately alienate a significant group of people who normally vote for the eventual Republican nominee?

            I am not talking about ignoring obnoxious Paul supporters who are in any event well taken care of by Neil and other admins.

            I am talking about people who will vote for Paul in the primary and then support the Republican nominee in the general unless you convince them they aren’t welcome even when well behaved.

            Then they stay home.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      he’s no neo-con, but a straight-up constitution-supporting unhyphenated conservative.

      80% of the people the Paulinistas call ‘neo-con’ are anything but neo-cons, it’s their all-purpose and rather pointless derogation … and by falsely calling him a ‘neocon’ , you have unwittingly proven him right.

      You are a Putz. Look it up, its Yiddish.

    • williamjameson

      I’m right aren’t I, your a Media Matters fan slithering in to rant insults about things you know nothing about. Anyone can label someone but in your case you have no credibility about Levin nor RS members.

      • williamjameson

        your not a MM fan, just pointing out how easily someone who gets flustered over a dairy will overreact and slam those who oppose RP. Vote for whomever you want but there’s no need to stereotype everyone and no Levin is not a Neocon.

        • mikeymike143

          that is a man who has a really good grasp of what it is to be a conservative

  • devereaux

    Ron Paul will not be President. He’s too old. But the idea his foreign policy is liberal is absurd.

    “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught be the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics”——Howard(Warren’s Father) Buffett regarded as the most conservative member of congress in the late 40s early 50s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Buffett#Political_philosophy

    Buffet managed the campaign for Mr Republican Robert Taft in 1952 for the GOP nomination. The conservative wing of the GOP was behind Taft. The Dewey wing of moderate and liberal Republicans recruited Ike Eisenhower to stop Taft.

    Ike turned out to be a very good President. One of our best!

    For a more recent example look no to Ronald Reagan Mr Republican.

    “The dirty little secret of Reagan

    • rightwingmom52

      and Meghan McCain as like, two of their bestest writers, isn’t likely to score too many points here.

  • devereaux

    Well how about Reagan’s own words.

    ” Perhaps we didn

    • rightwingmom52
    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
    • kinghenry

      any clue what type of Foreign Policy “Interventionism” Reagan campaigned on?

      This is who Ron Paul is, and what they believe of Reagan’s Foreign Policy:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard54.html

      “Ronald Reagan, Warmonger”

      Wrote in 1983 by Ron Paul’s hero, Murray Rothbard, anarchist.

      • izoneguy

        Not if the Mexican Drug Cartels are in control of the product.
        The US government has been holding talks with the Taliban.
        Maybe they are also talking to the drug cartels?

        Ron Paul, Barney Frank – the new Cheech & Chong.

        • Scope

          that would provide more farm jobs for the illegals, that the Americans won’t do.

        • gpclaw

          the Mexican drug cartels would most likely become Mexican drug companies. When a product is made legal, it’s a lot easier to operate with in the law, than outside of it.

  • kinghenry

    He is a Rothbardian Anarchist, the man comes from a group you can read over at Lew Rockwell’s website(Paul’s closest ally), and they beleive the “Constitution is a Statist Document”

    He is an Utopian ideologue of epic proportions and would do more harm to the United States than any President in our history.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      our foreign adventurism and our many expensive troop investments around the globe have enhanced our security, instead of the reality, that it has lessened our security.

      • kinghenry

        because its empirically true and a descriptive fact, that the United States as world leader(post ww2) as well as before, has made the world a better place by bringing Justice to Tyrants, defending Liberty and growing a Global Economic System based on Trade thanks to it.

        RuPaul is to the far-left of George McGovern even, out in the la-la land of Purple Unicorns farting pixy dust.

        • aesthete

          Correlation =/= causation.

          Correlation =/= causation.

          Correlation =/= causation.

          Correlation =/= causation.

          (Once more for effect!)

          Correlation =/= causation.

          You really believe that every foreign policy action undertaken in the post-WWII period has furthered any of those objectives? And that far-left idealists like McGovern and Carter were net positives in terms of foreign policy? Heh.

          • kinghenry

            Korea Satellite

            and remember this next time you drive a Kia or Hyndai, or use electronics by Samsung or LG. Or work for a company that sells goods or services to the South Koreans we liberated.

          • kinghenry

            that photo would be all darkness, the world would be a poorer place with less liberty, life and wealth.

          • aesthete

            use my own brain, and determine for myself when aggressive action makes sense.

            I know, truly a revolutionary idea.

          • kinghenry

            the exact, 180 opposite of Ron Paul and what he stands for on this subject. the subject of this thread and his myopic and immoral foreign policy views.

            Obedience to God is rebellion against Tyrants.

          • aesthete
          • MNConservative

            You know how hard it is to get to sleep in Seoul at night? Look at all that light! :)

          • californiagold

            President Reagan pulled US servicemen out after the attacks in Lebanon, which drew significant criticism from neoconservatives. Reagan also negotiated with commies like Gorbachev over the reduction in nuclear weapons. Did those policies make Reagan a pacifist ?

            And it was conservative guru William Buckley who argued in support of the decriminalization of marijuana.

            The point is, in politics, nothing is black and white, there are always shades of grey.

  • kinghenry

    This is who Ron Paul is in daily contact with, whose functions he speaks at all the time and have decades long ties together. This clown wrote the fwd to Paul’s dishonest American foreign policy book and other’s he’s wrote.

    They are ANARCHIST and think the CONSTITUTION IS A STATIST DOCUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.redcounty.com/content/lover-constitution-how-well-do-you-know-ron-pauls-muse

    Ron Paul tells students point blank he wants to get past the Constitution to a “Volunteerist” Anarchist Utopia often.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      hearing the conservative talk radio shows today. I am only confirmed in my previous belief that ending the war on drugs is the one area where a majority of conservatives argue like liberals.

      They argue for big government, for centralized government, they use ad-hominem against their opponents, and they argue from emotionalism and a distinct lack of knowledge and facts.

      I am sorry if that upsets anyone, but it is the truth.

      I am NOT saying that an informed opinion on this subject cannot differ from mine, I am only saying that I rarely encounter such.

      • aesthete
      • JSobieski

        Observation #1: Virtually all conservatives oppose nanny-state rules in the context of healthy nutrition

        Observation #2: The vast majority of conservatives oppose “protecting people from themselves” in the context of motorcyle helmet requirements and cigarette smoking. One does get a certain amount of “if the tax payer is responsible for their healthcare, then the tax payer can have a say on the underlying behavior.” One also gets a certain percentage of setting standards of conduct/moral standards/etc.

        The drop off between #1 and #2 is not terrible significant, but we do lose people when the context goes from transfats to smoking.

        Observation #3: Even people who are totally sympathetic to pushing laws/regs down to the state/local level will almost immediately respond negatively to Paul/Frank proposal. Only when it is explained as allowing states to do what they want, does the proposition get even a fighting chance, and even then the drop off from #2 to #3 is significant. Without the federalism rationale, the vast majority of people who oppose smoking bans or motorcycle helmet requirements nonetheless want to keep federal laws criminalizing marijuana use/possession.

        Conclusions:
        (1) Without couching the issue explicitly and repeatedly in a “let the states decide” framework, there is absolutely no chance for any change.
        (2) People consider drugs to be different than smoking because drugs inherently alter how someone perceives the world, and thus drugs interfere in some way with the free will/don’t protect people from themselves rationale. We all understand that at some point, drugs remove the ability of a person to be responsible for themselves. Nobody sane wants to legalize crack or crystal meth. On the other end of the continuoum, nobody center-right would discuss banning cafeine.

        The “impacts our ability to be responsible” rationale is not implicated by motorcycle helmets. Similarly, smoking, while addictive, does not make one unsuitable for driving in the way that alcohol does.

        Bottom Line: Alcohol is analogous to marijuana in many respects . . . at least from my perspective. However, everyone is already very familiar with the impact of alcohol (virtually all adults either drink or know people who do). Moreover, even people who are intellectually sympathetic to the legalize marijuana position resist it. I think much of this resistance comes from a “we are under seige” mentality (which I think is largely true), and that a totally understandable result of that mentality is that we reflexively support something (marijuana criminalization) that is not entirely consistent with our political and legal framework.

        There is moral component to the anti-legalization movement, but I am not sure that I agree with it. I do not see why smoking a joint and having a glass of wine are different categories of moral behavior. Both can be misused by some, while both are capable of being used responsibly.

        Is the moral distinction a boot-strap argument based solely on the current illegality of marijuana? Or does the fact that Jesus turned water into wine somehow sanctify the morality of alcohol use?

        I don’t think the argument for treating marijuana differently than alcohol survives logical scrutiny. I would of course be interested in hearing the contrary point of view.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          I don’t think that most drug warriors think it through at all. They have been brainwashed into drugs = bad. and that is about the total level of thought that goes into it.

          One example is the person who always brings up some personal anecdote. like “my brother in law died because of drugs!” And then they offer that as an emotional way to end all debate.

          But of course, no one thinks that drug use is a good thing, What we are arguing about is the best way in which to mitigate the bad effects of dangerous and addictive substances.

          On the one hand we have a lot of research that shows that freedom, liberty and decentralization tend to work. On the other hand we have an eighty year old failed experiment with extreme prohibition. A total, colossal, and contemptible failure in every way.

          • JSobieski

            an obviously intellectual approach is the only viable alternative.

            Get the person talking about analogous situations, hypotheticals, etc. anything that can potentially bypass the emotion of the issue.

            Any other approach is destined to fail. it isn’t easy, but a blatantly intellectual response is the only alternative to just accepting someone else’s emotionally invested position.

  • izoneguy

    Members of Congress to Introduce Historic Legislation Ending Marijuana Prohibition

    http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2011/06/today-members-congress-introduce-historic-legislation-ending-marijuana-prohibition

    Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce bi-partisan legislation tomorrow, June 23, ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference. Other co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.

    • MNConservative

      So THAT’s what Dick Armey meant…

      • Scope

        by that’s what Dick Armey meant, but, Dick Armey is a big time open borders, amnesty advocate.

    • Scope

      Reading the comments section in another article, a big time Paul supporter, who swears that he will never vote for another RINO again, said that Paul, working with Barney Frank on this legislation, knows how to “collaborate” and “reach across the aisle” to get things done. And, that it is OK to “tax” and “regulate” pot.

    • devereaux

      http://old.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp

      Ask someone who has been through Chemo

      http://www.everydayhealth.com/breast-cancer/can-medical-marijuana-ease-chemotherapy-side-effects.aspx

    • aesthete

      and opposition are about equal to one another, and the issue isn’t a particularly fundamental one outside of a specific subset of conservatives that likely wouldn’t support RP to begin with. Ron Paul’s campaign was dead in the water before it began, but it would have been a shame if it had been on account of one of the few issues where he has been consistently correct and other Republicans resoundingly wrong.

    • glaucon

      Wonder what these Democrats will say when they figure out that this may result in some budget cuts? They can’t have that! Less taxpayer money spent on enforcement, prosecution and jail.

      Full disclosure: I do not smoke pot, so my main concern is the waste of taxpayer money chasing pot-heads around.

  • rightwardmarch

    I don’t get it. Who cares about Ron Paul?

    I don’t mean to be crude, but judging by the rec list, Red State cares about Ron Paul a great deal. !?!? Is there something to Ron Paul, or does the Rec List algorithm leave a lot to be desired?

    • gekster

      I can sum it up whith just the title.

      why ron paul has ZERO chance to win the republican presidential primary

      What does that mean to you.

    • gekster

      I can sum it up whith just the title.

      why ron paul has ZERO chance to win the republican presidential primary

      What does that mean to you.

  • http://UnitedConservativesofVirginia Cargosquid

    Say a miracle happens.

    Ron Paul gets the nod.

    So….Ron Paul or Obama? Or sit it out?

    • mikeymike143

      when ron paul ran in the republican presidential primary in 2008 he only won 5% of the vote. so the reality is 19 out of 20 republican primary voters had the good sense not to vote for paul. and i fully expect voters in the 2012 presidential primaries to once again reject the nutty agenda of paul of his delusional paulbots.

    • acat

      I will then vote straight GOP down the rest of the ticket.

      I’m in Illinois, so my POTUS vote will get swamped by Chicago anyway… and I refuse to vote for Ron Paul(spit!)

      Mew

      • BigRedConservative

        .

        • acat

          Just like my stance on abortion, on who gets to decide what the word marriage means, and on just which powers the Federal government actually has.

          Ron Paul is a loon. He’d be a worse president than Obama, in part because he claims to be a Republican and a Libertarian, discrediting both groups in the process. (and not doing the pro-lifers any favors along the way…)

          I refuse, under any circumstances, to vote for him. I also refuse to vote for Obama, so .. I will waste my vote in a protest that, hopefully, persuades the greens to waste more of their money in Illinois.

          Mew

          • BigRedConservative

            It’s pretty damn hard to be a worse President than Obama, but Paul seems to be able to do it. I have never encountered a person so hypocritical and cruel that he can add earmarks for “Texas shrimp promotion” but refuses to spend a penny on military assistance in Darfur. I refrain from using the term “jerk”, but with great difficulty.

            Whoops, I think I just used it.

          • acat

            I am under the impression that the “Be respectful or else” language does not apply.

            Alas, the “No Profanity” langauge still does, so I would have to imply that his parents may have been both unmarried and more closely related than is genetically desirable instead of calling him an inbred {illegitemate}.

            Mew