Do We Have Conclusive Proof That Ron Paul's Supporters are Mostly Anti-War Lefty Hippies?
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (122) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The [Ames ballot counting] mishap was especially embarrassing as it followed a federal lawsuit Friday by supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), who argued that the Diebold Election Systems machines were prone to problems. A federal judge denied the request for an injunction blocking the voting, and an appeals court upheld that ruling Saturday.
That's the standard left line.
Ron Paul has only about 3,000 real supporters nationwide. He's got another 5000 or so who are just damn dirty liberal hippies in need of real jobs.
It's only a matter of time before Cindy Sheehan endorses him.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Open Thread: Iowa Straw Poll results — Comments (40) »
Do We Have Conclusive Proof That Ron Paul's Supporters are Mostly Anti-War Lefty Hippies? 122 Comments (0 topical, 122 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I am a Ron Paul supporter and let me throw out another theory. Some Ron Paul supporters are actually concerned that the Constitution no longer gets the attention that it deserves and that it is time for a return to the principles of the Founders. Government was instituted to secure God-given rights, not to redistribute wealth, not to serve as a nanny state, not to get elected officials reelected via pork projects, and certainly not to put matters of national policy in the hands of a few unelected judges. A few of us might even have some nuanced positions that do not exactly match our candidate's views but that we think are closer to his principles than those of the other candidates, e.g. that military action in Iraq was the right course of action but that we should've declared war rather than playing games that later allow politicians to say, "I voted to authorize force, not to actually use it," and the like. I can understand why other Republicans would support other candidates for a variety of reasons. I can't understand how they think it so strange that a few of us might want to elect someone who actually takes the Constitution seriously.
Some Ron Paul supporters are actually concerned that the Constitution no longer gets the attention that it deserves
Great. And lots of people who regard Ron Paul as a wholly unacceptable choice share that concern.
and that it is time for a return to the principles of the Founders.
This one is a bit more dubious, as both Paul and some of his supporters use statements made by the Founders about specific policies in the 1790s as though they were relevant to the specific policies of today.
Ron Paul himself even went so far as to ask the patently absurd question if we are prepared to abandon Washington's advice about entangling alliances which other policies of the Founders should also be junked? Freedom of speech?
Well, there is a clue, Ron. Some of their ideas they put in the Constitution as being relevant for all time and some of them they put in speeches as being relevant for the time being.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
First, yes, a lot of other people share that concern. Unfortunately, none of them are running for President. Now it's true that a few of the candidates have paid a little lip service to limited government, but none of the other candidates actually has a record of opposing all unconstitutional legislation.
Second, yes, the principles of the Founders have been left by the wayside. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. Being someone who doesn't find judicial review in the Constitution, it wasn't the Supreme Court's job to say so, but it was the responsibility of the Congress not to pass it. As to entangling alliances, we should heed the advice of the Founders. That doesn't mean avoiding things like mutual defense pacts that are in our national security interests, but it does have something to do with maintaining soverignty, which organizations like the UN and WTO compromise. I'm surprised that you, as a supporter of the war, don't think that our participation in the UN did not create more problems than it solved.
As to entangling alliances, we should heed the advice of the Founders.
Why? What did they know about today's security issues. The Constitution deliberately allows policy on issues such as national security to change with changing times. It is principles like freedom of speech which they wanted preserved eternally. (And, yes, you are right, they have been let down on that).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I could go around calling American troops a bunch of war criminals and saying that I hope that the terrorists kill all of them. I'd be stupid to do so, but that is constitutionally protected. My point is that the fact that the Constitution allows policies to change does not mean in itself that they necessarily should. What I think the Founders saw was that it was essential that America never surrender the ability to act explicitly in its own interests. While we certaily have not yet surrendered our soverignty to the extent that many Europeans have, we have compromised too much. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that that this administration told the UN to take a flying leap when push came to shove, but the fact that so many people, including Presidential candidates, have said that we had an obligation to get permission before acting in our own best interests is problematic. In short, I'd say that the default position should be abiding by the advice of the Founders and that those who seek to do otherwise have a very big burden of proof that a change is necessary.
What I think the Founders saw was that it was essential that America never surrender the ability to act explicitly in its own interests.
So Ron Paul is wasting his time arguing against something that no-one has ever suggested. Aren't there more important issues for him to address? There's that debt you mentioned. As well as opposing the US military being taken away from the President and handed to the SG of the UN, is he also against the White House being taken over by aliens? Such a pledge would be very reassuring.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
First, yes, a lot of other people share that concern. Unfortunately, none of them are running for President. Now it's true that a few of the candidates have paid a little lip service to limited government, but none of the other candidates actually has a record of opposing all unconstitutional legislation.
Two words: Wild Shrimp. And you were talking about lip service?
As to entangling alliances, we should heed the advice of the Founders.
Iraq has nothing to do with entangling alliances. We didn't go there because we were obligated to go on behalf of someone else, or to protect someone else's interests. We went over there to protect our own interests. There are no "entangling alliances" at work here. The founders were not afraid to use force wherever it suited our own interests. Just ask the Barbary Pirates about that one.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm not about to defend earmarks for promoting wild shrimp any more than I will any other project. The projects that Paul requested were not in addition to the previous budget, but were taken from a pool of money that exits for pork projects. It's kind of like a gift certificate not redeemable for cash. Given the opportunity, Paul would drain the pool. He's the only candidate I could actually see vetoing every spending bill until the pork was taken out of it.
As to the situation in Iraq, you're right that it had nothing to do with entangling alliances. Paul is right to point out though, that if we were going to go, we should have declared war, a constitutionally permitted action. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to authorize a "use of force". That was the subsequent War Powers Act. I make no bones about supporting a candidate who thinks that if we're going to employ the use of military force, we need to do so 100% with no bones about it. Having to actually have an argument about whether candidates who voted to authorize the use of force were actually voting to allow it or to give the President leverage for his visit to the UN is ludicrous. The Founders surely never had that in mind when writing Article I, Section 8.
You really should avoid commenting on history. It's like a red flag.
Ciao.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
But the reliability of voting equipment by Diebold is a concern. No conspiracy implied its just flawed by design. ( NB I don't know if its been rectified with the equipment in Iowa)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Erick,
If you were to cruise the gun boards like I do, you'd see a HUGE Ron Paul contingent there. These are NOT gun toting hippies. Many of them are somewhat eccentric, but are not liberal by any means. They just want the government to leave them and their guns alone. Our party has wrongly abandoned the libertarian wing IMO, and they are going to RP.
I do think there is an contingent of lib nuts spiking RP's numbers because he's the only GOP guy against the war, but they are not representative of the regular RP supporter.
If it wasn't for his (incorrect) Iraq war stance, I'd be an RP supporter too.
.....I don't think that questioning the veracity of Diebold's voting machines is that out there.
What's out there is trying to use the federal courts to block a non-binding, unofficial straw poll from happening. Using the courts to try to influence a non-governmental activity? Isn't that a little un-libertarian?
"Ron Paul has only about 3,000 real supporters nationwide. He's got another 5000 or so who are just damn dirty liberal hippies in need of real jobs."
Where are you getting those figures from? Certainly not the article you linked to. Most of Ron Paul's supporters are concerned about out-of-control government spending, Democrats and Republicans who think the answer to every problem is more government intervention, and think that Republicans need to occasionally read the US Constitution (especially Art. 1, Sec. 8).
Finally I take offense at being called a "damn dirty liberal hippy in need of a real job", as I too am opposed to closed-source electronic voting machines with no mechanism for independent review of the results (ie I want either open-code or voter-verifiable-paper-trails).
I know RedState is owned by the same company that publishes Ann Coulter, but I expected better from you Erick.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
when your living in a VAN down by the RIVER!
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Let's see, Chris has been here under an hour. He's telling us that he does not like Ann, but what about her legs dude?
I give him....under 24 hours to defecate on the carpet and be gone.
In the mean time, Chris can surf over to Moveon.org and start working on the Draft Ron Paul as an independent campaign, Nut Roots and all that.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
www.chrisfarris.com - scroll down to politics. Just because I've been on RS for an hour doesn't mean I'm a Kosian Nutroot.
But you have made me feel so welcome. How many other conservatives have you welcomed like this and convinced to stay home or vote 3rd party next year?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
We get a large number of trolls and mobys passing thru on a routing basis. Until you've got some posting history, you're suspect. Just the way it is.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
And Dude, you fit the profile!
Last another 24 hours and you might begin to get street cred.
Chris,
Your off handed snark against Ann, and ownership of whoever publishes her being the same as who owns Red State might get you a bit of heat and light. At least say something nice about her, like compliment her legs.....grrrrr when you are giving her a shot. Although I'm not sure how blond jokes would go over so I'd go careful.
By the way, the take on Ann is a bit mixed here on RS. Many think she's the perfect tonic to Liberal bias, some think she needs to take a tonic to release some of that bile she seems to spew from time to time getting all over the carpet.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Ann used to be funny. Then she got popular, let that get to her head and where she used to have quality snark, she's now just nasty and defaults to taking cheap shots for shock value.
She's also a smoker, which overrides any other positive physical aspects she might have.
disregard my previous post concerning crackers!
See, on this we are in 100% total agreement.
there is no connection with who publishes what, that was a pretty stupid comment I agree. However, there is nothing wrong with taking a shot at Ann Coulter. Since she can dish it out, then let her take it.
I think people who call themselves conservatives, some even call themselves Christians, who purchase books by that vile little hate monger are not thinking straight.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
in my bedroom anytime!
(Ooopps! Did I say that out loud?)
since the woman resembles a skeleton
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
just for grins...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
for her. I generally subscribe to the "a woman can't be too thin or too rich" notion. I've noticed the last couple of times I've seen her on TV that she might have gotten a little "enhancement," though. She sure looked good at Ames the other night on Fox.
In Vino Veritas
...that one needs to be paid in order to mock Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Trust me, there are way too many people giving it away to con somebody into paying cash money for it.
Tanjit.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
kinda hard to charge money when there is all that free love going around...
I know Chris. Chris is a friend of mine. We have a difference of opinion on the issue of Ron Paul -- and Chris is not one of the anti-war hippie supporters of Dr. Paul -- but Chris is solidly, 100% on our side.
Yeah true. Of course it's looking like we're going to have to go to war together to kill the Speaker's tax plan. I'm torn. Not to threadjack my own post, but I think we need a good tax reform, but I really don't trust putting that much power in the legislature's hands.
Perpetuating your own thread-jack...
Some background for those not in GA
Yeah. I've got a few issues with the plan. I don't like giving the House that much control over local issues. Assuming power assuming the "good guys" will always wield it is bad policy. That will be proven when President Hillary gets to use the Patriot Act.
I also think income taxes are a greater evil than property taxes.
That will be proven when President Hillary gets to use the Patriot Act.
Actually Hillary and the Patriot Act don't concern me. If you remember, in 1993 President Clinton used the NSA to spy on a trade conference in Seattle with several of America's top trading partners, then passed the information gathered onto several large DNC donors.
So, you see, the lawful use of the Patriot Act is of no concern, since the Clinton's have never considered the legality of their actions before.
Exxon/Mobil secretly pays you to mock Ron Paul. I want the real truth about 9/11, not just the Single Nut-Job Theory.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
payroll and I'll tell you all about it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You ARE being watched.....
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
In addition to my personal tinfoil hat, the roof of our house is tinfoil lined. My subscriptions to Weekly World, etc are sent to a PO Box and I have listening devices (improvements on the ones left behind in Roswell) that pick up black helicopters. And I'm armed to the teeth.
And, of course, Franz Prince of Dogness allows me to live with him, under his protection. So, have a nice day. I'm untouchable.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Democracy depends on fair and accurate elections. That shouldn't be just a "standard left line."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g
I'd say computer geeks that have the knowledge to do something like that are far more likely to be liberal than conservative.
Not that it matters who voting fraud is more likely to benefit, there shouldn't be any chance for any of it to happen and it should concern us all.
Hippie lefties only seem to want accurate voting when it suits them.
EG: three counts that all put Bush ahead in Florida were obviously insufficient, whereas one count that put the Dem ahead in Washington was fine.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
were simply besides themselves with horror when that democrat woman stole the governors race in Oregon a few years ago right?
Or was that Washington? I get those rainy lefty places confused.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
stole the senate race in the same state?
After, I think...
"Finding" a "lost" box of ballots after you have already lost works too. Then there was that Democrat operative in FLA that was found driving around with a voting machine and a bunch of ballots in the back of his station wagon.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Exactly (that they only care about accurate voting when it suits them), but we shouldn't be that way.
Diebold machines have demonstrated issues. That doesn't mean every vote using them is fraudulent of course, or even if it's possible to make it happen in real-life situations, but just because Paul's supporters might question it doesn't make them "one of them."
Diebold machines have demonstrated issues
Soo do butterfly ballots! So do punch cards! So do any form of ballot ever used in a union election!
The whole Diebold controversy is manufactured! I seem to remember that Venezuela used some form of Diebold machine in it's last election, but former President Carter said THAT election was fair. (OK, bad example)
If we insist on holding open and fair elections we have to find some way to exclude dead and illegal voters. We can blame it on the machines, or we can put the blame where it belongs, the criminals who work overtime to make our elections fraudulent!
The whole process has to correct. FL just revoked certification to those machines. If nothing else they shouldn't be used because there is no meaningful way to issue a recount.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It may sometimes be the case that the end justifies the means, but when the end is democracy, the means better hold water.
Meantime, it seems like a certain Nebraska senator is awfully confident about the outcome of his elections...
At least butterfly ballots and punch cards reveal some sort of physical evidence of there being a problem. Electronic balloting can hide fraud and be undetectable -- in theory and also done in a controlled "test tube" type environment.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And what does some middle of nowhere Iowa fundraiser have to do with elections?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
unless of course it is for his constituents, right? He is no liberatarian and he is no small government politician he is like all the rest greasing his palms at the American taxpayers tit....and badmouthing the Iraq war like DKos, oh yeah that is going to get Republicans and Conservatives...but go ahead Pual supporters and write him in on the ballots across America and then know you have done what is right in the beauty that is the American way...voting. I personally will be voting for the Republican who the base, myself included decides is running in the general.
Pork is 1% of the budget, in Rep. Paul's defense. He's tough on the other 99%.
Saying he doesn't do smack.
Social security and Medicare are things people have paid for. It may have been a complete scam job but they paid for it. I can easily understand why people get upset when they are threatened.
Pork is payback, its really ugly and the only way its paid for is by greasing an elected official.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Joliphant, you might want to check out the Club for Growth 2007 RePORK Card. Link: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/the_2007_club_for_growth_repor.php .
Tom Tancredo easily defeated Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in the ratings. Tancredo achieved a score of 84%. Ron Paul achieved a score of 29%. Duncan Hunter achieved a score of 26%.
These rating are good evidence that Tancredo is committed to eliminating pork from the federal budget. He has also achieved an "A" from the National Taxpayers Union for every year that he has served in Congress.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
just like the Homosexuals stole the word gay, the politicians have ruined the word Pork, which is in reality a wonderful and versatile animal food product.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Oops! that's been stolen as well.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
No, they aren't, because constitutionally they never could be. They are transfer payments, just like welfare. The Constitution requires that all revenue issues originate in the House, and that no previous Congress can bind any subsequent Congress. All the rest is three card monte with our tax dollars. You may have paid for it in a game of three card monte too, but you're still not getting your money back.
Bush wasn't right on Social Security reform because it would increase the ownership society (even though it would), he was right because it is the only way you actually have paid for it in a way you have a chance at getting your money back.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
I don't care for the extremism that Paul has on a few issues, but it would be very difficult to find a more libertarian elected official.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
You really are embarrassing yourself on this topic -
Have you been diagnosed with Ron Paul Derangement
Syndrome? I mean really - your posts about him have
become childish. We all know you don't like him or
what he stands for, let it go.
Rant Street! www.rant.st
there are lots of us here at Redstate that look very favorably on much of the Libertarian platform. RonPaul™ on the other hand, is a raving lunatic. The guy is an absolute phony who's been in Congress for 20+ years and accomplished exactly nothing. He's worse than a joke.
Find yourself a Libertarian who can articulate an actual plan to accomplish something and he'll find tons of support. Stand with RonPaul™ and you will continue to stand with an idiot.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
When I was leaning furthest libertarian, I used to say things like "National Defense and the Post Office are about the only things that the Feds should be doing." But Ron Paul is weak on national defense, so for a Libertarian-leaning Republican he has little to offer.
in 20 years? That should get him the Libertarian Medal of Honor.
the big gummit folks to get the gummit bigger.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
""Do We Have Conclusive Proof That Ron Paul's Supporters are Mostly Anti-War Lefty Hippies?""
WOW, Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am a Paul supporter, I'm and ultra conservative my whole life, I have attended 15 rallies for Paul, several meet-ups and am organizing a Ron Paul campaign center in my town.
In my AO alone there are no less then 700 Paul supporters in a town with a population of 3600, and we have just started.
With the many thousands of Paul supporters that I have personally met or campaigned with or supported with at rallies, I don't believe I have seen one that was not in the Patriot Movement in the USA, many are Vets, others are still in the military, most are members of some Patriot org and I could easily state that none are the remotest bit fond of Liberals let alone any type of Democrat, and the most important point, all know that the USA is "not" a democracy, but a "Constitutional Republic"!
My belief is that Ron Paul and his supporters have the "Powers that Be" scared to death, and while it is probably true Paul will not win, it is true that his contribution will begin a new America, one that more resembles the America of Old when truth really mattered.
My respects to the author though, always a very interesting and thought provoking way of writing.
There's lots of good stuff in the Libertarian platform. Lot's of it would find support here - specifically from me.
And then there's RonPaul™. The guy is a total phony and a rip off artist. He's been in Congress 20+ years and accomplished exactly nothing. He's not even been able to persuade a single Congressman in those 20 years that his positions on ANYTHING are correct. He's not offered a plan - a workable step by step plan - to accomplish anything.
All the jerk has done is blather about theories while offering no practical alternative and no way to move toward his idea of what government should look like.
You want to see support at Redstate, and more importantly, in the country, dump the idiot and get somebody who knows how to accomplish something.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No cook here at all, brought up democrat, born and raised in Greenwich, CT,. grew up down the street from the Bush family, upper middle class, switched to the Repubs early on in life, loved Ron Reagan with a passion even though I believe he was hogged tied by the PTB, hated the Vietnam War which was all about the drug trade and our Governments profiteering of it, not unlike Afghanistan.
Yeah sure, I have some liberal views like, we have to start taking better care of our elderly, give them cheaper or even free drugs, comfortable housing, a quality of life in their later years, not this misery and stress that a growing majority of elderly have to deal with until they pass on.
And my conservative views, STOP giving Tax Dollars away to foreign interests, stop sending jobs overseas, start buying "made in the USA", and start arresting and inprisoning gang members for mandatory ten years, stop allowing illegals in, start a system of accounting for where our tax dollars go, stop giving illegals free medical care, start putting drug dealers in prison for 10 years no probation, and start realizing that the IRS is not a legal org and that Income Taxes are not a part of our Constitution.
Hey, I know, no one agrees on everything, but if there is a Conservative in the presidential run, it is Dr. Paul, and while I accept that some or all of my views may seem cooooookie, remember, so did the idea of revolting against our Government and abolishing it more then 200 years ago.
People need to stop being affraid and start standing up.
The Government is not GOD, nor any GOD, it was supposed to be an entity by and for the people, and we need to start by tearing that Government system down, otherwise, forget VID Cams on our streets, they'll soon be in our Kitchens and bathrooms.
And how was Ron Paul, Ghandi, or the ghost of Ronald Reagan supposed to accomplish any substantive reductions in government spending when he has been outnumbered 434 to 1 in the House of Representatives by big spenders?
We've had seven years of a President who played nice with Congress, and the national debt will be ten trillion dollars when he leaves office. Gee, thanks, Mr. Compassionate Conservative.
As President, Ron Paul wouldn't have to play nice with Congress -- he could veto every attempt to increase spending or continue shredding the Constitution. He could go on TV and explain to the American people what freedom means, and start building the constituency for smaller government.
If you think a) RonPaul™ could get elected; and b) he could accomplish anything more than he already has; I've got an interest in a bridge that used to be in London you'd just love.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
would be a President who was frequently overridden by Congress (whether we agreed with him or not). Such precedent would be bad for the country.
Don't get me wrong, the WaPo quote from Ron Paul was red meat to me. But he's wrong on Iraq, and he's wrong on being Dr. No.
The statements tgvas uses to support his conservative bona fides sure sound like a Kossack caricature of the way Republicans talk. With no other posts from him to assess, we can't be sure he's a moby instead of an honest kook, but those two categories cover most of the Ron Paul supporters.
If he is so irrelevant, why do you keep posting about him Erick? I am not a left wing hippie and I support the guy 100%. Read some of my diaries from the past few months. I'm tired of the lip service on smaller government we have been getting from our Leadership. Dr. Paul actually says and does things the 1994 revolution was supposed to accomplish.
Allan Bartlett
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
For those of you who ridicule Ron Paul and his supporters, what will the other candidates -- Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee -- do about the $9 trillion of national debt and the $70 trillion of entitlements?
For those of you think the USA can continue to police the world, where will we get the money to do that if/when China and other countries dump their dollars?
I don't have street credibility. I haven't posted here before. But what about my questions?
What exactly is the problem with the debt? Does it smell? If so, my suggestion is to move the files someplace where the wind is more favorable.
conservatives should not be comfortable with the level of debt we have in this country. It is a fiscal fifth column.
Our policy options are drastically limited because we don't want to offend our creditors.
Neil, I'm no economist, but it seems to me that excessive debt threatens U.S. sovereignty. It gives creditors like China and Saudi Arabia veto power over U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Isn't that the humiliating lesson that Great Britain learned early in the last century?
For those who don't like Ron Paul, are you going to to press the other candidates -- Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee -- on what they are going do about the $9 trillion of national debt and the $70 trillion of entitlements?
And for those who think the USA should continue to police the world, how are we going to do that if/when our creditors cut us off?
Sorry, I don't buy it. If anything, China owning a wad of our debt ties THEIR hands, because their reserves and their currency are pegged to the value of the dollar. They can't harm us without getting hit worse (because we have a big domestic economy, while they depend heavily on exports).
The conversation would be pretty short:
Evil dictator: We now own every bit of US debt in the world and you are at our mercy. You must do exactly as we say or we will call in the debt. Bwahahhaha
US President: Or, we could just not pay.
Evil dictator: Curses. Foiled again!
Defaulting on debt is, of course, a serious matter. It makes it harder and more expensive to borrow money in the future. But if one sovereign power was using debt to try to undermine the institutions of another, most people would fully understand if the debt was simply repudiated. It is actually far easier to do this to another government than to the private sector, where there would be substantial knock-on effects. It is much easier, especially in a democracy, than defaulting on debt to your own citizens. As Neil says, the Chinese have a bigger problem with this than America does.
Haven't you heard the old saying? If you owe your bank $100,000; you have a problem. If you owe your bank $1 billion, your bank has a problem.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http:
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter but one should not be so dismissive of so-called "anti-war" folks in the GOP. My personal perception is that there is a sizeable minority in the GOP who are tired of the Iraq War and think President Bush has squandered early opportunities in this War against the Jihadists to strike fatal blows against the Jihadists. Personally, I think that President Bush is the most incompetent commander-in-chief since President Madison in the War of 1812, which was fought to a stalemate thanks only to General Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans (weeks after a treaty with Great Britain was signed).
Ceterum censeo, Iran delenda est!