Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ron Paul: If the job only entailed domestic issues
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, November 08, 2007

Perhaps this guy would be OK. But it is obvious that he's not beyond spin and is, frankly, clueless when it comes to foreign affairs, or, in this case, the truth:


How do you say what he said with a straight face?

I guess you do it by parroting Nancy Peolsi or Harry Reid.

(HT: Jay at Stop The ACLU)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well, this IS the worst year for US casualties so far. Let me forestall flaming by saying I’m fairly neutral on the war and I would continue the current timetable if I were mistakenly elected President. We are making positive progress, but we haven’t accomplished anything that would change anyone’s mind if they were anti-war for reasons like noninterventionism, fiscal conservatism, pacifism, BDS etc.

Anyway, Paul’s domestic positions IMHO make up for his foreign policy position, which isn’t that bad. The earliest we could pull out, if he were elected in some sort of bizarro world, would be mid 2009. Is Iraq going to be perfect in 2009? No. But if Iraq isn’t capable of scraping by without us 2 years from now, then maybe we should start putting our domestic concerns ahead of theirs.

I don’t know how effective Paul would be as president, but he doesn’t strike me as a totally useless Libertarian type. He has the guts to vote consistently with his platform. He hasn’t organised any notable legislation, but then, he opposes legislation. If we’re scared to vote for someone who actually agrees with us because we’re fatalistic about the chances of our agenda actually succeeding, then we’re doomed to failure regardless.
 
Written By: Effeminem
URL: http://
Well, this IS the worst year for US casualties so far...
And no one is saying it wasn’t ... that isn’t where he’s telling a tall one.
I don’t know how effective Paul would be as president, but he doesn’t strike me as a totally useless Libertarian type. He has the guts to vote consistently with his platform.
Which is why I said if we only concerned ourselves with domestic issues, he’d probably be fine. Its also one of the reasons we call ourselves neolibertarians.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’ve been pondering that Paul’s been pandering with the primary purpose of padding his pockets.

He’s pandering to leftie support with anti-war rhetoric and flirting with groups no one else would be caught dead associated with (except maybe a few of them would appeal to Kucinich).

He’s acting in a way that will grow his campaign war chest, at the expense of his future electability. I suspect he wants to retire or wind down politically with an inflated campaign fund.

And although there are rules against just taking the money yourself, I highly doubt they haven’t been circumvented in multiple ways.

Admittedly this is just postulation. It would be a shame if he took the money and run.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Sigh. I can respect an anti-Iraq war stance, if it’s argued coherently. While it would be unreasonable to expect the candidates to articulate detailed and well thought positions on every issue at the drop of a hat, I do expect passable coherency on a half dozen of the biggest ones. Paul could have made a monumental impact in the GOP but I think he’s blowing it. I doubt anything is going to change as a result of his candidacy.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
And no one is saying it wasn’t ... that isn’t where he’s telling a tall one.
I get what you’re saying, Bruce, but the fact is he’s making it all when they are, too. He’s suggesting that because this is the worst year, etc. etc., the situation not getting any better, which you and I both know is incorrect. He’s quoting statistics. Statistics say that the average human has one breast and one testicle.

in any event, In my judgment on anybody who comes up with the nonsense he does as regards international affairs... Both in general, and in particular with regards to his Iraq stance... he has some seriously questionable perception ability... serious enough that it disqualifies him from the position he’s in, much less the one he seeks.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’m becoming more convinced that Paul supporters fall into three camps.
1) disgrunteled leftists who so desperately want a defeatist candidate on the national ticket (if anyone other than Hillary was leading the pack, then you’d see a shift);
2) people living in an alternate universe, perpetually lamenting ’what if’ scenerios (primarily the paleo-Libertarian, but including a number of cross-over idealists);
3) those who know that the illuminati, the builderbergers, the skull-n-crossbone, or the jooos set in motion events that have lead US to where we are today (and those one-worlders must be exposed and stopped... at all costs).

Bring it on Paul-pods, tell us how Representitive Ron can win, and how he can be anything other than another hopelessly counter-productive Carteresque President.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I did not support restarting the war against Saddam, but now we are committed, it would be best to "win".

The surge has not yet succeeded, but it has not yet failed. A reduction in violence is good, Sunnis turning against AQ is good, but it is not success without an Iraqi political solution. When one considers the history of successful counter-insurgency, it is clear that the Bush administration made another political mistake in identifying the new counter-insurgency strategy with what is only its opening phase ("the surge").

I think Paul is overstating the case, but Bush has allowed "the surge" to stand for the whole change in strategy, nor is there any political solution in sight. It is not outside the realm of normal politics to claim the surge is a failure, when it has not yet succeeded. Especially, from those that do not think it possible to succeed. I would wish Paul were better than this, but he is a politician.

 
Written By: newshutz
URL: http://
I can respect an anti-Iraq war stance, if it’s argued coherently.
Same here. Sadly most of what I hear is variations on the themes "Bush lied, people died" and "The Halliburton War".
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Ron Paul reaches the level of his incompetence with this issue.

It’s like with Pat Buchanan, who believes that history began in 1948 with the founding of Israel, or maybe at the end of WWI with the Balfour declaration.

Or Mearsheimer and Walt, who believe that the canary in the mine shaft is the cause of Islamist convulsions and American woes because of them.

Going into Iraq to remove the Hussein regime always had good pros and good cons, but when the thing got done, the option of running out on it came off the table for rational minds. Again, hold the bloody thing in historical perspective and it is an exceedinly minor undertaking with an exceedingly high potential pay-back. We are not "interferring" with a part of the world without cause; Iraq in particular and the Middle East in general represent an open running sore with which we showed long patience as it took on its post-Cold War dynamics.

Ron Paul’s narrative regarding it is sickly and girlish and above all ignorant.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I think Martin hits a home run with this:
Going into Iraq to remove the Hussein regime always had good pros and good cons, but when the thing got done, the option of running out on it came off the table for rational minds. Again, hold the bloody thing in historical perspective and it is an exceedinly minor undertaking with an exceedingly high potential pay-back. We are not "interferring" with a part of the world without cause; Iraq in particular and the Middle East in general represent an open running sore with which we showed long patience as it took on its post-Cold War dynamics.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Paul could have made a monumental impact in the GOP but I think he’s blowing it.
I seriously doubt this is true. No one can align themselves with extremists and conspiracy theorists and make any sort of demonstrable dent when it comes down to the vote. A lot of noise, yes, but that’s just a result of journalist hype. Think Howard Dean.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
I seriously doubt this is true. No one can align themselves with extremists and conspiracy theorists and make any sort of demonstrable dent when it comes down to the vote.
Ron Paul is aligning himself with extremists and conspiracy theorists!?!

This is news to me. Please enlighten me.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
This is news to me. Please enlighten me.
Seriously? Google "Ron Paul" extremists truthers... do your own homework
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
OK, if you want to get technical, THEY’VE aligned with him... but he’ll take their money, thank you very much.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
OK, if you want to get technical, THEY’VE aligned with him... but he’ll take their money, thank you very much.
Yeah, I prefer to be technical about sh*t like that. It’s one thing to say that he has cooks on his coat tails, it’s quite another to say he is "aligning himself with extremists and conspiracy theorists".

And, "but he’ll take their money, thank you very much."

Seriously?
What politician these days doesn’t take all the money they can get and then sort it out later? I’m sure all of the other candidates have cooks giving them money as well.

Google "Ron Paul" extremists truthers... do your own homework
No thanks. I don’t care to google bullsh*t, thank you very much.

You made the accusation...

You back it up.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
wow. touchy.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/05/15/ron-paul-the-republican-kucinich/

http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2007/10/27/ron-paul-candidate-of-the-insane/

http://bushtheidiot.com/new1/?p=1213

http://www.thepiratescove.us/?p=4682

Just a smattering.
Yeah, I prefer to be technical about sh*t like that.
That’s nice, but if you attract flies, you’re probably sh*t. Parse it however you feel.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
What politician these days doesn’t take all the money they can get and then sort it out later? I’m sure all of the other candidates have cooks giving them money as well.
So, Paul is a hypocritical piece of dung like the rest of the candidates he so vehemently tries to distance himself from. Probably even worse since he is cowtowing to the likes of the conspiracy nuts and the 9-11 truther just for money. I thought he was suppose to be above that, you know it is that glass house thing and those nasty rocks that fly at them.
 
Written By: Keith
URL: http://
out of the blue...

Pogue, who do you like in the candidate stable?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Just a smattering.
From an imbecile.
You fool, none of those sights prove that Paul is aligning himself with extremists and conspiracy theorists.

And curse you for causing me to foul my computer with that bamapachyderm.com or whateverthef*ck that idiot calls his blog.

Next time when you’re wrong, and I can imagine that it will happen soon, the best thing to do is to just admit it and apologize.

Okay Junior?
That’s nice, but if you attract flies, you’re probably sh*t. Parse it however you feel.
If you want to talk about attracting sh*t… extremists and conspiracy theorists… I can point you to the Republican front runner and how he happily accepted an endorsement from this guy,
The pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America," Falwell continued, "I point the finger in their face and say ’you helped this happen.’"
"Well, I totally concur," responded Robertson.
Now that’s a conspiracy theory for you. And you can have quibbles with Ron Paul and blowback (not what you idiots claim he thinks we are to blame for 9/11), but at least his views are terrestrial. Jeez.



And bains, I’m a libertarian. So your assumptions on whom I like for president are probably correct.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Ron Paul is aligning himself with extremists and conspiracy theorists!?!
Please enlighten me
I wonder if that’s possible. That said...

Ron Paul was a PLO cheerleader and beat Jack Murtha at his own game... , as well as having a completely leftist-whacked-out position on defense.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I’ve been pondering that Paul’s been pandering with the primary purpose of padding his pockets.
Yea, that would make a lot more sense than simply taking advantage of his position as a U.S. Representative over the space of 10 terms as everyone else does to have a rich and comfortable retirement; instead of not participating in the Congressional pension program, not using all of his Congressional office budget each year (returning a portion of it), not (never) going on Congressional junkets, not associating with corporate lobyists, and so on.

Instead of doing all the legal stuff that everyone else does, let’s fleece campaign supporters and figure out a legal loophole to keep the cash.

Some of you guys are just too much. I get you don’t like Paul, but why lie?
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com

It’s amazing how far you’ll go to protect your boy, Nikoley.
Tell me something;

What’s your thought on his overt support in his own newsletter, of the PLO?

Or would you rather we not know about that?

What’s your thought about his calling our troops ’murderers’ long before Murtha ever thought of it?


Or would you rather we not know about that?

How is it you support someone like that?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Or would you rather we not know about that?
Listen, Florac: that was my line with regard to you in the other thread. I’m happy to address anyone else’s questions in whatever matter regards Paul, but you’re disqualified. I won’t waste my time. You don’t deserve any more than that from me.

And to clarify, I won’t be voting for Paul, or anyone else. I’m an anarchist. I give him money. My money is mine to do with what I want. But I have no right to vote your time and money to any cause. As such, I have a far different stake in the race than others and have the luxury of being completely honest and forthright about what I’m seeing.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
...I’ll just add one tidbit. If indeed Ron Paul generalized American troops as murderers (which I doubt), I’d say that such a charge applies only to a few (rape, too).

Then I’d look to see how Ron is doing with respect to monetary donations from the military. That’s far easier than doing a lot of digging, and if such donations imply they’re not too upset about how he’s characterized them, then I see no reason for me to get worked up about it. It’s been a number of years since I concluded my own officer corps service of eight years.

Of course...unless I was scared of Paul and was looking for BS to smear him with.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
You don’t deserve any more than that from me.
IN other words, you have no answers for my questions. You don’t know, and yet you put money in this guy’s pocket.
...I’ll just add one tidbit. If indeed Ron Paul generalized American troops as murderers (which I doubt), I’d say that such a charge applies only to a few (rape, too).
So, confirmed, then... you DON’T know.
Well, bucko, may I suggest you look up a few posts and follow the links?
My money is mine to do with what I want. But I have no right to vote your time and money to any cause.
Yet, you don’t seem to have any problem with burdening us with this idiot by helping his campaign along. That line you’re attempting to draw, is non-existent. You’ve added to the process you claim to be withdrawing yourself from.

You’re dismissed.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
You’re dismissed.
You already were.

If there’s anything other than more of your paranoid lies to this, I and others will find out soon enough. As it is, in hundreds of blog posts, dozens and dozens of articles and media appearances, and thousands of comments to articles and blogs, I’ve yet to see a whiff of any of this.

I’m guessing that you’re still the liar I thought you were.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Wow, poguee, the only thing you left out is my being a KarlRove plant... otherwise, you get an A- for "sputtering wheeziness". Keep it up and you’ll move to the Truther Head O’ The Class.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Now that’s a conspiracy theory for you.
OK. A conspiracy involving... Pat Robertson? Gasp.

And I like the dismissal of my links countered with your fruitbat site. Touche’.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Would someone like to explain to me how you win a "war on terror?"

Hint: you can’t kill an idea.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider