Why I'd Never Vote For Ron Paul

This guy, who is attempting to flash his nuts over the InterTubes, says Ron Paul is his favorite politician:

Disgusting.

Sorry, but I can't roll with the nut-flashers. Oh, and Paul thinks 9/11 was our fault. Talk about nuts.

UPDATE:Overlooked: Ron Paul links 9-11 attacks to Iraq:

"Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there...We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us."

Rep. Paul is implying, of course, that we should have just let Saddam invade Kuwait. That wouldn't have presented any subsequent problems in the region. Not at all.

 

Comments

[buddyw]

You know, I cringed when I heard him say that, but the truth is, he is absolutely right. As bad as it sounds, our intervention in the middle east is what caused them to hate us in the first place.

Also, I thought his analogy - "what if China setup bases in the US" was excellent.

[John from WuzzaDem]

You know, that's an excellent point.

Oh no, that's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is, pull your head out of your ass, you moron.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Oh, and by the way 'buddyw' (if that's even your real name), please spare us the fake tales of cringing as Ron Paul dares to tell it like it is.

You're either a liberal who already subscribes to the Ward Churchill "chicken-roosting-blowback" school of thought, or you're one of Paul's wacked out libertarian followers.

Nice try.

[buddyw]

No, don't try to start reasonable debate or discussion on the topic...resort to personal attacks. That's just great. That will convince everyone.

Why don't you express some counterpoints, so that I, a fellow Republican, (and other readers) can see your point of view?

[Fluffy]

Whacked out libertarian followers, eh?

Well, if you subtract the elements of the modern Republican party's ideology contributed by libertarians [essentially all of the econ stuff, all of the free speech stuff and all of the gun rights stuff] you're basically left with white trash evangelicalism and wars to kill brown people.

Have fun losing the 2008 election with that.

[John from WuzzaDem]

white trash evangelicalism and wars to kill brown people.

Have fun losing the 2008 election with that.

Posted by: Fluffy | May 15, 2007 9:46:14 PM

Well, at least you're not resorting to hackneyed stereotypes. Thanks for stopping by!

[buddyw]

Mrs. R

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the oil situation made it tricky, but that does not detract from the fact that they hate us for intervening on their affairs, and that fueled the fire for 9/11.

Whether that was an avoidable situation or not is a whole other debate.

I don't totally agree with Mr. Paul, but I do think he was correct in that statement and should not be immediately dismissed.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Yeah. Those libertarians are gonna win big on Internet kiddie porn.

Posted by: Mrs. R. | May 15, 2007 9:48:05 PM

Come on, honey, I don't think it's fair to stereotype Libertarians as nothing more than a bunch of porn-dogs - don't forget, they want meth legalized, too.

I keed, I keed!

[John from WuzzaDem]

buddyw,

Sorry, we had an influx of really obnoxious libs who had searched for "Ron Paul" on Technorati - guess they needed links for their LiveJournal pages - and I thought you were a drive-by, hence my terse response.

That said, I don't think Paul was correct, and do think he should be immediately dismissed.

[Fluffy]

Since we have a President who signed McCain-Feingold into law, who signed a Medicare prescription drug benefit into law, who signed No Child Left Behind into law, and who monstrously increased federal spending in virtually every area - and since we have a posse of Republican candidates who don't make "Bush sucks" into the "Carthago Delenda Est" of all of their speeches - there are no longer any grounds for considering the Republican party the party of small government. Since that same President wasn't satisfied with spitting on the 1st Amendment but regularly spits on the 4th as well, and even has problems with rights that date back to the Magna Carta, there are no grounds for considering the Republican party the party of our enumerated and unenumerated Constitutional liberties.

I'm sorry if it's a hackneyed stereotype but when you take those things away I don't see what's left of the party except cornpone speaking in tongues about Jesus and a quite un-strategic-minded, un-realpolitik view of war that isn't much more sophisticated than "these colors don't run" or somesuch. It certainly didn't come out of the mouths of 9 of the candidates tonight.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Trying to dress up your original "white trash evangelicalism and wars to kill brown people" comment, eh?

Must have calmed down a little. Too late, everyone can read your first comment, so we know where you're coming from. Nice try, though.

[JihadGene]

Are you sure that isn't a recent photo of Newt Gingrich trying to sell one of his books?

[hnav]

hehehehe...

and plenty of Democrats have just fallen in love with the nutty Ron Paul.

madness loves insanity and ignorance loves denial

[David Zent]

Oh, crap, another website run by an immature kid with a punk attitude that he thinks is persuasive and relevant. I had hoped for something better.
Ron Paul kicked those ex-candidates tails by the mere fact that he spoke up for the constitution. You, by comparison, sound like some pitiful shill for Fox news. We are SO over the bullshit beat-the-drums-of-war rhetoric. Paul is the real deal, hack. Educate yourself. At least, read the constitution. I know it doesn't have action pictures or flashy graphics like they do on Hannity and Colmes, but who knows - you might still be able to get through it. And besides, it's important to the lives of the rest of us Americans.

[Moonchild]

To answer buddyw's initial praise of Ron Paul's analogy of "China setting up bases in the United States" and how we would react, the analogy is flawed to the point that I do question Ron Paul's motivation in trying to use it to support his position.

Building a military presence someplace does not lead to the hatred of the U.S. If that were true, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and every other NATO country would hate us as well. Those countries, especiallly during the Cold War and despite small minorities of their citizens, welcomed the U.S. presence because it insured their safety from Soviet attack.

What's happening in the Middle East now is similar with the difference being that instead of Communists, these countries are being assaulted by homicidal theocrats. Furthermore, these homicidal theocrats are so bloodthirsty that when left to themselves, they will simply turn on difference sects within their religion (ie the Shiite vs. Sunni violence we're seeing in Iraq now). The reason they hate the United States is that, for now, the United States is the largest obstacle between them and their goals, and the United States is an obstacle on multiple levels ranging from the U.S. military opposition to the root of the matter which is that the United States is the living refutation of everything their belief system tells them.

For the second part of the analogy, as to the U.S. reaction to Chinese bases in the U.S, the first question is 'Why would China build bases here?'. For the analogy to work, it implies that the U.S. is arbitrarily building basis in the mideast. I will give an abbreviated list of U.S. reasons and ask you for the equivalent reasons China might have for foreign bases near the U.S.: invasion of U.S. Embassy in Tehran, suicide bombing of Marines in Beirut, bombing of the disco in Germany, hostage taking of private U.S. citizens for no reason other than them being U.S. citizens, bombing of U.S embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Khobar towers, USS Cole, destruction of the World Trade Center Towers in New York.

That this would need to be explained is baffling, and I will even add something which I believe is not talked about enough.

The oil trade is the root of many of the problems, and given that these Arab states initially granted oil and mineral rights to American and British companies to exploit those oil and gas reserves then nationalized those oil and gas reserves in an act of open theft of private property, why do no libertarians, supposedly the defenders of freedom and private property, not whisper a peep about the theft which put the oil in the hands of these theocrats in the first place?

[River Rat]

Hey Mr. zent in the constitution it says we shouldn't protect and defend? I disagree, we were attacked by these shitheads because they still are living in the 12Th century and they want us dead because we don't practice there religion end of story. John immature kid ? I think not porn star maybe.

[AnonymousDrivel]

Ron Paul is a Truther... or a Truther Lite, right? He is courting and has the endorsement of radio host and cornerstone member of the laughable Truther Movement, Alex Jones, along with Truthers in general. Paul also is receptive to the idea that we invited 9/11 onto ourselves. Actually, in last night's South Carolina debate, he went a bit further than being merely receptive to such a position.

That right there disqualifies him from the presidency whatever else he believes. In the hypothetical I can agree with strict Constructionism and much of what that entails. Our Federal government has failed us here - both Democrat and Republican - with the Democrats being the worst offenders. However, anyone who advances the Truther myth is either irreparably dishonest or foolish. Representative Paul falls in the fool camp. He sincerely believes in this particular stupidity and it is unforgivable.

Now, do we see a rise in his "popularity"? Sure. Because ~33% of the Democrat Party worship Trutherism plus another ~26% think it possible. Who would cast "votes" or support to this 4th tier candidate for the GOP? All of the Democrats not because they agree with him but because they want to push the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense onto the President and the Republicans since Democrats themselves have no platform and have accomplished nothing since getting the Congressional majorities. Oh sure, some "Libertarians" might glom onto the meme, but they remain perpetually fringe and out of the political fold.

Last night's debate pretty much boxed Paul in to being the crazy uncle of the GOP and will soon be put into a home if he keeps up his rhetoric. It's actually a shame because he has some serious issues to discuss, something the top-tier candidates generally dance around for fear of actually saying something risky. Sadly, he is utterly discredited for his Trutherism, whatever the degree, and his proclamation that we invited Bin Laden's 9/11.

That still leaves the GOP with an entire stable of capable leaders with various strengths and weaknesses and ideas. Culling the herd will have to happen. Paul will just go sooner.

[Frank]

I think Rupaul would be a great candidate if a meteor were to strike the earth, killing all the viable, sane candidates.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Oh, crap, another website run by an immature kid with a punk attitude that he thinks is persuasive and relevant.

I think I'm persuasive and relevant? You must be new here.

I had hoped for something better.

Oh yeah, you're new here.

Ron Paul kicked those ex-candidates tails by the mere fact that he spoke up for the constitution.

Riiiight. So, let's just ignore the fact that he a lunatic. You know, for the sake of the country.

You, by comparison, sound like some pitiful shill for Fox news.

Exactly. The only people who haven't accepted the fact that we brought the 9/11 attacks on ourselves are right-wing hacks who use Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as their sole sources of news.

We are SO over the bullshit beat-the-drums-of-war rhetoric.

Sounds like somebody's been watching a little too much MSNBC.

Paul is the real deal, hack.

Is "Real Deal" the Secret Service code name for schizophrenics or deranged conspiracy theorists?

Educate yourself. At least, read the constitution.

I tried, but I couldn't get through it because it doesn't have action pictures or flashy graphics like they do on Hannity and Colmes.

I know it doesn't have action pictures or flashy graphics like they do on Hannity and Colmes, but who knows - you might still be able to get through it.

That was creepy.

And besides, it's important to the lives of the rest of us Americans.

I have to admit, I admire your courage. Whenever I wake up from that dream where I'm naked in public, I'm relieved. You, on the other hand, are living the dream. Good luck with that.

[AnonymousDrivel]

RE: David Zent (May 16, 2007 1:21:04 AM)
We are SO over the bullshit beat-the-drums-of-war rhetoric...

What, you got a mouse in your pocket?

Sorry. I always wanted to write that.

[Amador]

To those who get their information from TV news; (I don't watch TV, so my brain is fully operational)
Listen up ! Why believe a talking head who many of us refute point by point ? If we find them misleading, and driven by an agenda, then why not listen to what we, the general public, have to say ? Listen to talk radio, the kind that accepts calls from all points of view, and read various blogs by people who have no agenda forcing them to lie like your TV talking heads. There are great articles from a variety of viewpoints, read them. Try to cut through the agenda bullshit and base your beliefs on fact.
Anyone who says Bush this and Cheney that isn't dealing with the factual issues. During the Civil War, many contrarian types went around hating Lincoln. What fools. The issue never was Lincoln, but he became a hero because he stuck to his morals and outlasted the enemies of the Union. The issue was one country living under one rule of law. Lincoln was right as were all those who gave to the cause with him.
It is said that small minds think about people, medium minds think about events, and great minds think new thoughts.
Bush and Cheney bombing the WTC building 7 is not an issue, it's science fiction without science. Flush out your headgear.

[Swamp Rabbit]

Wow,, now that all that's out of the way, can we talk about something serious here. I mean just look at that nut guys photo,,, socks w/sandals,, really.

[Tom]

Sandals? I think he's wearing those horrid plastic gardening shoes. Man his feet must stink.

[AnonymousDrivel]

Hog headed bastard?

Need input, Swamp Rabbit.

[showme]

Dear Buddy AssWipe, see my nuts? Now lick 'em!

[buddyw]

moonchild: Thanks for taking the time to respond. Well said.

[Ali]

Very much information on the whole barbary pirates thing. Including what the muslim ambassador said to Jefferson that’s eye opening.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/london200512160955.asp

Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

[Swamp Rabbit]

Hog Nutted Bastard!

[Ellie in T.O.]

Paul's right! The US bombing Iraq back in the early '90's is obviously the reason they attacked on 9/11. I mean, the terrorists were all Iraqis, right? They what? Saudis? Oh. Umm, never mind then...

[sarcasmo]

And recruiting Saudis was SO much harder for Osama because of Clinton's bombing strikes in Iraq, launched from Saudi Arabia, our "friend," whose leaders Bushleague embraces (and kisses, and holds-hands-with -- and we've got pictures!). Sure...Keep dreamin'!
JMR