Election 2012

Ron Paul Would Ruin America

It appears as though Andrew Sullivan is developing a pitch for Ron Paul.

Matt Stoller is, too.

I've received quite a few emails and tweets from progressive Ron Paul supporters. And everything is leading me to this question: is everyone losing their fricking minds?

Yes, he would try to end overseas interventions and he might try to end indefinite detention.

If you're a single-issue voter who only cares about non-interventionism, then Ron Paul STILL isn't your guy. Why? Because Ron Paul isn't a singe-issue candidate. As I wrote yesterday, he wants to do a lot of terrible things to you. He's been trying to do terrible things for many years in Congress as an appetizer.

Given the platform and constitutional power of the chief executive, Ron Paul would ruin America.

So snap the hell out of your idealistic, tunnel-vision stupor and wise up.

  • JMAshby

    Sorry guys. I like to give the Paul Disciples a little bit of time to embarrass themselves before pulling out the fly-swatter.

    • missliberties

      I notice that they seem to continually move the goal posts.

  • missliberties

    In PaulWorld nothing is constitutional.

    • nathkatun7

      You are right! Unfortunately, the Constitution they believe in is not the same as the Constitution the founders wrote.

      My question to the “PaulWorld” is: If the founders disliked the central (federal) government, how come they abandoned non-centralized government based on the Articles of Confederation, and wrote a Constitution that created a federal government? Has Ron Paul and his followers ever read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which contains “the supremacy clause” that says that in case of conflict between state laws and national(federal)laws, national laws supersede state laws? This is clause is in the original Constitution. It’s not an Amendment because I know the Paulites detest both the 14th and 16th Amendments.

      • missliberties

        Thank you for that historical reply. I am such a Geek and lover of history, as it relates to today’s situation.

        What is fascinating is that today’s Tea Party is the second coming of the John C Calhoun’s Know Nothing Party. Some say that Williard Fillmore was the first Tea Party President.

        • ranger11

          And Willard Romney would be the second.

        • nathkatun7

          You are very welcome, missliberties! I am just so sick and tired of revisionist history! If the founders wanted the kind of government that Ron Paul, and frankly almost all of the GOP candidates, advocate, they would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation. Under that scenario, we would never have had the Executive, or the Judicial branches of the federal government, or the the two Houses of Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation States would have definitely remained autonomous and supreme in almost all issues of governance.

          It is true that under the U.S. Constitution, States retained quite a bit of power. But what is equally true is that the Founders opted for a more a powerful centralized national government over the week de-centralized congressional government that operated under the Articles of Confederation. Why did they make this preference? All you need to do to understand why they had to create a strong national government is to study the history of 1781-1787. The British had been defeated in 1781! In 1783, under the treaty of Paris, Britain finally recognized the independence of its 13 American colonies. Yet, these 13 colonies lacked a central government that was capable of putting down domestic insurrections (including slave insurrections, by the way) settling disputes and preventing wars between the colonies. So, wise men like George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton recognized the necessity of creating a powerful central government that would take care of these problems and form a unified nation. Hence the name: The United States of America.

          This notion that the U.S. government was supposed to be a weak government that ceded all powers to the states is pure fantasy! It’s a notion that contradicts the whole purpose of forming the government of the United States under a Federal Constitution that replaced the loose and weak government under the 1774 Articles of Confederation.

          By the way, just as an aside, I don’t think John C. Calhoun had anything to do with the Know Nothing Party. It’s true that John C. Calhoun was a very fierce defender of the Constitutional right of slave owners to own slave property. But, unless I am mistaken, I don’t recall reading any of his writings where he championed or endorsed the Know Nothing Party. On the other hand, I think you are right in seeing similarities between the Know Nothing Party and the Teabag Party.

  • Ned F

    I’ll say one thing about Ron Paul. Between today’s and yesterday’s posts, I’ve never seen so much reaction and replies on this blog.

    • He is the Tim Tebow of politics…or is Tim Tebow the Ron Paul of sports??? A skillless player (by comparison) but yet fairly intelligent people think they’re good, which gets a lot of interests! And I am guilty as charged with the propogation of it all!

  • Ron Paul 2012!!!!

    Partying like it’s 1699 2013!!!!!!!!

  • jjasonham

    No one can point to more than one successful bill sponsored by him. All of his supporters are so busy defending him, that they have yet to present a logical argument as to why anyone should vote for him.

    Ron Paul’s views, to me, are completely immoral. When does inaction become a crime? Who should be held responsible when a 15 year old girl in California is raped and beaten while witnesses do nothing? Or when Kitty Genovese is being murdered outside of her apartment while the entire building listened? Having a responsibility for our fellow citizens, to a certain extent, is a choice that America made a long time ago, and there will always be a natural progression toward that goal.

    State’s rights give power to local government….but it’s still a government. If someone could point out a country or even municipal that is operating with ways similar to Ron Paul’s beliefs, we could truly start a discussion as to how it could work in America. Until then, we may as well be arguing about what life would be like if grass was purple.

    • Agree in regards to the immorality of his positions….that’s why it boggles the mind that so many people buy into his BS, particularly those claiming to be Christian.

    • nathkatun7

      “If someone could point out a country or even municipal that is operating with ways similar to Ron Paul’s beliefs, we could truly start a discussion as to how it could work in America.”

      I propose Somalia! No viable central government or viable municipal governments, and every one is free to carry a gun. Those with guns rule over those without guns. And, pirates are free to raid ships that belong to other nations. After all, isn’t this the freedom that is based on the survival of the fittest?

  • Brutlyhonest

    Bob, how did you get on the list to be trolled by faux-intellectual ron paul supporters? Is today’s the same as yesterday’s with a different handle?

  • Not Sayin

    Luckily, he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, so let’s pretend he doesn’t exist. I like that idea a bunch. Fucker’s circling the drain anyway.

    • I think we ignore him at our own peril. The more he is ignored the better the chance the by default he may actually make the ballot…and “anything can happen in this stupid country” especially when it comes to a vote…But I am with you…I may have Paulophobia: the irrational fear the Ron Paul may actually be president!!

  • What have I learned this year? Ron Paul supporters appear to be people who can retain a lot of information…unfortunately it is from one source or brand of source with not analysis of alternatives. They memorize and know it well. They appear “smart” but would be much more intelligent if they put some of that effort into broadening their knowledge rather that reading from the Gospel of Paul!

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Ron Paul’s ideas, in the aggregate, have the virtue of never having actually been tried, anywhere in the world at any point in history, let alone in a nation with the size, population, complexity, sophistication, economic and military power of the 21st-Century U.S.A. He said so himself when Randi Rhodes interviewed him this past year.

    Part of the virtue of espousing ideas, theories, philosophies, etc. about government that have never actually been tried is that their unintended negative effects, consequences, externalities, costs, and so forth are purely theoretical, so it’s easy to pretend that there simply wouldn’t be any. It’s also easy to say, “Well, what we have now doesn’t work, so we might as well try something completely different that’s never been tried before, because hey, it can’t be any worse”, which is of course lazy and naïve. Maybe the best part of espousing untried and untested ideas is that they can never fail. And, as long as they’re never tried, one can continue to espouse them indefinitely.

    Ron Paul’s ideas are popular among those who harbor that lazy, categorical belief that our “system” “doesn’t work” as it is, who confuse liberty with autonomy, freedom with lawlessness, civilization with tyranny. They resonate with the selfish and the cruel because they validate selfishness and cruelty as the fundamental driving forces of human behavior, and by extension human society; i.e., they make people feel good about, instead of ashamed and wary of, being selfish and cruel; they make selfishness and cruelty attributes to pursue instead of temper.

    Read Lord of the Flies again. Ron Paul is Jack.

    • Guest

      Thanks. I needed that.

    • Graf, our minds think A LOT alike. I have a category on my blog entitled “Lord of the Flies” and use it for just such asshats. LOL

    • MrDHalen

      Awesome!!!

      We did live in Ron Paul’s ideal world a long time ago when we were climbing trees in the African plains.

      • nathkatun7

        How dare you insult Ron Paul and his true believers by comparing his world with that of the uncivilized Africans? If you must compare his world why not, at least, compare it to European caves or the caucus mountains? Don’t you know that many of the followers of Paul are absolutely convinced that the Blacks are a separate inferior race that is not at all related to the superior white race?

    • nathkatun7

      Great Comment! I also think Ron Paul’s ideas show a lack of understanding of why the founders wrote the Constitution that created the United States. In the four years, after the 13 Colonies became independent from Britain, there was no strong central government. There were rebellions within the colonies and some colonies were on the verge of fighting one another. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called in order to write a New Constitution that provided for a strong federal government that would prevent anarchy lawlessness and injustices.

  • JMAshby

    Embracing Ron Paul is a convenient way to embrace the right wing disdain of the poor and minorities without officially doing so.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      See my comment below…

      Ron Paul’s ideas … resonate with the selfish and the cruel because they validate selfishness and cruelty as the fundamental driving forces of human behavior, and by extension human society; i.e., they make people feel good about, instead of ashamed and wary of, being selfish and cruel; they make selfishness and cruelty attributes to pursue instead of temper.

      • Graf, I made this point to a Ronulan the other day, a Christian Ronulan, who insisted that he could be Christ-like AND support Ron Paul. I would add another type of individual–the person who thinks the principle of liberty comes before all else and that he or she is not responsible for the outcomes of forcing our society to allow liberty at all costs. I wrote a diatribe about this the other day skewering Sullivan and Paul – http://wp.me/pYORZ-l9

  • JasDal2

    “… is everyone losing their fricking minds?”
    – Yes. Everyone is losing the corporate-agenda mind of mindless acceptance of corporate agendas.

    Yes. yes everyone is losing their fricking minds. They don’t want fricking minds anymore. They want the truth.

    • Cowardly, completely anonymous trolls are generally just as ignorant as you are showing yourself to be.

      Go ahead. Dance, troll.

      Entertain us.

      • JasDal2

        Avoid logic. Not your strong point. Opinion and insult? A+. Who needs facts?

      • JackDaniel07

        Dont feed the trolls

        • wayyyyyy too late. 🙂

    • THE TRUTH?
      YOU WANT THE TRUTH?

      • JasDal2

        No, no, no! Not on this board. Just more strong opinion based on un-researched facts. More of that please!

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim—frequently a victim of his own lifestyle—but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,”

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity, why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs,”

        • Ron Paul Quote:

          “The prevailing attitude of the American people is that everyone has a right to medical care. This is an intellectual error that will lead us down a path toward destroying what is good in the current system.”

          • JasDal2

            Nice cut-and-paste, Frankie. A professional fact-gatherer would differentiate between direct Ron Paul quotes and disavowed newsletter quotes – at least so others know where their origin.

            No need to have a reasoned response to this. “He’s a fucking kook!” is what I expect. But I could be wrong about you.

          • Nope, I don’t believe personally attacking each other on here resolves any real issues.

          • nathkatun7

            You are amazing! You asked for facts and JPF gave you facts. Instead of engaging the facts you simply dismiss them. By the way, if you were honest you would have acknowledged the “newsletter quotes” you dismiss were taken from “RON PAUL’S NEWSLETTER” and not from some anonymous newsletter.

            Obviously you are TRUE BELIEVER in Ron Paul so nothing any one says will change your mind. Besides, while you demand that people produce facts to support their opposition to Paul, you have yet to state a single fact of why you support him

            What is annoying is your passive-aggressive attacks while hiding behind your pretensions that you are the only one capable of using logic. You may not have called people, like nicole, “kook,” but accusing her of lacking logic you are saying the same thing while pretending to be the only victim of insults.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I agree that Ron Paul’s ideas, if taken to full fruition in law and public policy, would ruin America. I doubt that the wholesale un-doing of civilization would be good for any country, let alone one the size, complexity, economic and military power of this one.

    That said, I think we’ve learned over the past 11 years that a president does not really have the power to make his ideas/agenda/vision/whatever into law and public policy in their entirety and unilaterally, let alone to “ruin America” all by himself. Remember that GOP fans were saying, as early as March 2009, that President Obama had “already destroyed most of the country,” and they’re convinced that he has been destroying it, is continuing to destroy it, and will continue destroying it until he leaves office in 2013, but if you turn off Fox and talk radio for a minute and take a look around at the real world, you won’t actually see or find any destruction of any kind.

    I just don’t think we do ourselves any favors by hyperventilating about the destruction and ruination that the election of this or that presidential candidate would bring, especially when we find the other side’s similar proclamations so absurd. From our perspective, the nation survived George W. Bush; a year from now, they’ll be telling each other that the nation survived Barack Obama. It will likewise survive Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul.

    • Graf, I think the jury is still out as to whether we’ve actually survived George W. Bush’s presidency. Many of the things that he set in motion will not come to fruition for a generation or more. Like every other fallen nation or kingdom, we’ll only be able to tell what the turning point was in retrospect. Do you think Romans were able to predict the beginning of the end for their empire? Not likely.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Well, I agree that much of the damage the Bush presidency inflicted on the country will take generations to undo, and some of it will never be undone. I doubt, for example, that we’ll ever have a balanced budget again; Bush and the 107th/108th Congresses threw the country’s finances so grotesquely out of balance and into such disarray that massive deficits will be a fact of life probably forever (but they’ll only be a problem and a topic for public discussion during those rare occasions in the future when there’s a Democrat in the White House, assuming that ever happens again). The blowback from the Iraq misadventure will also be incubating for decades.

        Nevertheless, I still say that the nation has survived George W. Bush, because the nation immediately handed the Congress, and stands ready to hand the White House back just as quickly, to his party, whose ideology and behavior enabled all of this. This is what we want, and deserve.

        • I don’t think anyone that votes for Pres. Obama deserves that future! The idiots that vote for a Republican President certainly do. Unfortunately we all live together so who deserves and who doesn’t is immaterial.

          I am beginning to think that the lack of education of the average voter is what will ultimately doom this great experiment of ours. People who vote on emotion and not facts or logic will continue to elect pinheads who will continue to run the country into the ground.

          • GrafZeppelin127

            Unfortunately, it seems everyone believes that his or her own cohort votes on “facts and logic,” and anyone outside that cohort, who votes the other way, votes on “emotion.” What’s more, everyone believes that their own voting cohort lives in the real world, informed of real facts by unbiased sources, while the other cohort lives in an imaginary fantasy world informed only by the lies and propaganda of their preferred party and a biased media.

            I basically agree that the lack of education (i.e., the lack of knowledge and understanding of important things like macroeconomics and law) will doom us because the less you know and understand, the easier it is to persuade you of things that would be laughably absurd to you if you did know and understand the subject matter.

          • Well what people believe and what is objective reality are two different things, obviously. I’m not disputing that. But I know that I can identify many individuals in my life that even when objectively proven wrong, they will still vote the same way. No one has all the truth and no one is completely objective. In general I find that liberals are much more willing to admit this than conservatives. And that is definitely a result of being more educated (“the more I learn the more I find I know so little” idea)

          • I am beginning to think that the lack of education of the average voter is what will ultimately doom this great experiment of ours.

            I don’t know, IrishGrrrl. I work with some very educated people and am constantly amazed at the right wing idiocy that they gladly spew.

          • Good point, let me qualify that statement to say that “between the uneducated and the educated that vote based on emotions…will ultimately doom” us

  • ivykid

    Ro paul is fighting a gvernment who thinks that removing our rights is a good thing. Obama is one scary individual. Watch him in this video from one year ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdpXNIwunc

    • You’re a political dumbass. Educate yourself.

      • Ronulans are always right

      • JasDal2

        My, that was a very educated thing to say. Graduate from insult school? Waiting for your next insult. Make it so cool!

        • Robert Scalzi

          your brain is full of goo Jas…give it some real food , not that right wing Poison …you want insults….???? you’ve come to the right place you teatard moronic toad sucking goat licker FUCK OFF

          • JasDal2

            “you teatard moronic toad sucking goat licker FUCK OFF”
            – Come on, now! You can do better than that. Have an insult-challenged day?

            Poor baby! Try again now. Don’t give up! You can do it!

          • jjasonham

            Acting this way still isn’t proving any of your points. So…?

        • Look man…don’t turn this into a passive aggressive cut fight. The last thing you want is for me to get involved on principle. Or maybe you do…maybe you’d enjoy being that guy on NYE.
          That said, while I’m sure you rather enjoy defending RP against vague charges of racism (as the GOP has well learned, there’s nothing like playing the victim while the substance of backward, ignorant, hateful fact-free fantastic policy ideas skate under the radar), Paul is nothing more than a deeply shallow, shockingly thoughtless, batty old man who has no real concept of how government ought to work.
          It’s been said before, and I’ll say it again: Anyone over 14-years-old who thinks Ayn Rand has anything to say about how to construct a fair and just society is an ASSHOLE.

          • JasDal2

            You sure are convincing. Not much logic but your use of insult is priceless.

            “ASSHOLE” – love it! Amazing word. Think it up yourself? Genius!

          • sitting back with coffee waiting for Avi.

          • JasDal2

            The Book of Insults is great reading.

            The guiding principle is that, when others disagree with you, they are inferior and must be aggressively attacked. This justifies one’s opinion.

            But of course, you know all this already! I would never want to insult your intelligence.

          • nathkatun7

            Do you even understand the meaning of logic?

    • Robert Scalzi

      your brain is full of goo Ivy…give it some real food , not that Ron Paul Poison …unless you are an unapologetic racist you need to do a little more research ….ASSCLOWN

  • Sorry to threadjack, but it’s gonna be a busy weekend around here and I’ll probably miss the inevitable happy new year thread, so I thought I’d leap in and wish all you Cescans Xīn Nián Kuài Lè.
    Thanks for all the work, the laughs, the outrage, the effort…you are all (even here including the various and sundry firebagging sockpuppets and trolls) a large chunk of what makes the internets so freakin’ awesome. It’s reached the point where I can’t even hear a RUSH song without thinking of Bob (and I’ve been listening to them since Cesca had training wheels!).
    In any case, here’s a sincere wish that you all get what you most want and not what you most deserve.

    xo
    Avi

    PS. Fuck Ron Paul.

    • Backatcha, avi. love ya! 🙂

  • mgardener

    Deleted andrew from my favorites list, like finding out your friend is bigot

    • Same here.

    • missliberties

      Disappointing that Andrew would find Ron Paul’s schtick fetching.

    • MrDHalen

      I have been very disappointed with Andrew lately, from his IQ & race questions and now this Ron Paul flirtation.

      I still read his site because he’s about the only conservative I can stomach these days and it helps me refine my arguments against conservative policy.

      • Yeah! That whole iq thing bothered me alot, and it made me view him very differently.
        His man crush on Ron Paul is just the last damn straw for me.

  • If Obama were to change his position on marijuana legalization, Ron Paul would instantly lose half his supporters.

  • There is no possible way Paul will win the nomination. The GOP establishment will never allow it, nominating process be damned. Besides, even is it DOES happen, is there any way Ron Paul can win the presidency? When it’s just Paul vs. Obama, the skeletons in Paul’s closet will be too great to overcome.

    As far as his supporters, you can’t take them seriously. The younger ones with the most enthusiasm are thinking he’ll bring the troops home and legalize marijuana because that’s how libertarians roll. Yeah… right.

  • trgahan

    Throughout America’s political history the “non-interventionism” platform has always had high appeal on both sides of the political spectrum. But such a platform would NEVER become policy. Like it or not, the world is (and always has been) interconnected. One of the greatest myths of US history is that we have ever enjoyed a period of “splendid isolation.” Trumpeting the idea that America should withdraw from the world is both intellectually lazy and extremely miss-guided.
    Also, why the hell is everyone all the sudden so up in arms about human rights and indefinite detention? Less than 10 years ago we couldn’t hand over our rights fast enough to keep our malls from blowing up and NOW it is a problem?!?
    Ron Paul’s platform is very simple: If you can make money doing it, it should be allowed without regulation or oversight and the person who profits should have no responsibility for the consequences.

  • “is everyone losing their fricking minds?”

    There are two types of people in the Prog firebagger camp who are going for Ron Paul.
    1. Those who understand his positions but will not be affected by things such as an end to a free public education, etc.. [& secretly kinda like, or at least don’t mind, the outright bigotry]
    2. Those who only think they understand his positions, and have latched onto one or two issues.
    So you have the Firebagger leaders, the sheeple who follow the Firebagger leader fools, Greenwald, Schultz, Cenk, et al.. Then, on the side you have the anti-war Cons-Libertarians.

    And, it is my firm contention that it is mostly based on latent racism, at least for the Emoprog and Con leaders who are promoting this creepy little racist.

    Ron Paul is the anti-Obama.

    Adding……..Think Progress needs to have a chat with Zaid Jilani who is absolutely enamored of Greenwald and Ron Paul, and is using his twitter account to promo Paul.

    “Top Ten Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters”
    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/

    P.S. Andrew can kiss my ass along with the fucking firebagging creeps.

    • JasDal2

      Yes, so true.

      If racists like you, you are a racist.

      If American Idol winners like you, you are an American Idol winner.

      That’s logic. So educated!

      • No. Ron Paul is not just beloved by racists, he IS a racist.

        Now, I am not going round with ignorant trolls today, so don’t even bother to continue with your drivel/baiting. I could care less what you think, what you call me, who you are. You are meaningless to me.

        Have a nice day.

        • JasDal2

          I am having a very nice day. Thank you!

          Don’t reply on a public thread if you don’t want to engage in conversation. Oops! I mean trading insults.

          You have a nice day too!

      • nathkatun7

        Please, Mr/Mrs logician, JasDal2, why would a racist support you if you are not in favor of racism, or do not espouse racist views? Your American idol analogy is silly because being an American idol winner has nothing to do with ones beliefs or views. It turns out you are not as logical as you think you are.

  • missliberties

    “Executive Order 9066 is a crime against our constitution. It allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US – without a trial. It is the worst law ever handed down by a President and it was done with nary a peep of opposition. I’m positive that a huge percentage of the population is not even aware of it, partly because the establishment media didn’t even bother covering it, and partly because most people don’t give a sh*t about Japanese-Americans.” ~wmtraillawyer

    That’s right. That was FDR.

    Everyone forgets that the liberals of his day utterly detested FDR. But because he said, “I welcome their hatred.” he is a hero of today’s liberal anarchists.

  • Once again, as with all of Paul’s views, his position at first seem reasonable to political neophytes and those who don’t pay attention to him and only compare him to Republicans. They are simple views, that sound good in general, but upon further investigation those view can not be further apart in reason…the reasoning which applied to a different problem would most likely lead to an opposite solution. His anti-Iraq position, though similar to progressives is based on different reasoning. He is not a pacifist or pragmatic with it, as some liberals or progressives. He is an isolationist, and wouldn’t use military action if warranted and supported by experts and popular choice… Another case in point, I am similar to Paul supporters in that he has not gotten enough coverage…ME: his insanity needs to be exposed. THEM: The media is ignoring him because they are afraid of the “truth”! But we do agree in general…

    • JasDal2

      Nice argument. Conclusions are based on arguing from facts. Maybe get the “isolationist” error out – and replace it with the correct “non-interventionist” fact.

      That would affect the conclusion of course.

      • pa-tay-to – pa-tah-doe..actually you can be both…he may be non-interventionist but his policies of wanting isolating our selves from any union with other countries is isolationist.

        • JasDal2

          NON-INTERVENTION is not ISOLATION.

          A person who locks themselves in their own house, boards up the windows and never speaks to anyone is an “Isolation­alist”.

          A person who talks and trades freely with his neighbours and who makes sure his own house is safe and secure and in good repair is an “Non-Inter­ventionist­”. He also does not go into other neighbours yards without permission­, blow up their children and poop on their lawns.

          • I did not say they were the same thing…just that his position as a non-interventionist is close to an isolationist…but also his not wanting to participate in international orgs makes him an isolationist as well…also, regardless of what Paul supporters think, he is a protectionist as well, but tries to hide as a free marketer…a free marketer who hope the free market leads to protectionism…which also reminds me that is how all his policies are…he wants the freedom to nudge towards his shallow views

          • jjasonham

            Ah, but he wouldn’t lift a finger to help put out a fire that is burning his neighbor’s house down, would he? Not until it crept over to his lawn.

          • JasDal2

            Depends on what kind of neighbor you are.

            What would you do? Me? I’d help if asked. But I’m not going to get involved in a fire-fight he’s having with his other neighbor. If they want to burn each others houses down, that is thei business.

          • That is why you are not a good human being. You should help regardless. Wouldn’t you want someone to help you? I was once driving home after a 4am workout and was running to get to work. I saw a house on fire. I called 911, got out of my car, banged on the door rang the doorbell, til i got the people awake and aware they needed to get out. I was late for work. But I did the right thing!

          • jjasonham

            I guess it would depend on what kind of neighbor you are. It’s awesome that you would help if asked.

            But let’s extend the analogy that you set up: In a non-interventionist municipal, how would this work? I read an article on a Tennessee fire station that pulled up to watch a house burn down, because the tenants hadn’t paid the local fire department the annual fees. Apparently those fees weren’t included in property taxes. You would help if asked, but there are some who wouldn’t. It would suck if you were born into a non-interventionist municipal that wouldn’t help if asked if you hadn’t updated your deed after two years because you hadn’t properly applied for a building permit. These are things that would be different from locality to locality. That’s not a stable way to run a country, and that’s not my opinion. Non-interventionism AS A BLANKET SOLUTION has been as debunked as Reaganomics throughout our history as something that has failed to work out.

          • JasDal2

            You’ve got me there, boys. I’m just a bad human being. Bad to the bone.

            There is a difference between helping when welcome – and “helping” when unwelcome. If my neighbor’s house is on fire, I go to help and he forbids me from doing so. What do I do? Put the fire out for his own good? Force my better choice upon him? Or let it burn down? Whose property is it anyway?

            Where does it stop? You can’t burn your house down. You can’t paint it that color. You can’t have “those people” over. You can’t put that sign in the window. Don’t do anything – come for approval to us for everything.

            You either allow others to make foolish mistakes (like buy a house they can’t afford, not buy insurance for it, burn it down for whatever reason) – or you say we (government) knows better and will decide for you.

            Now, if you’re wife and kids are burning inside the house – I’ll go in and get them – you don’t have the right to hurt other people.

      • Ron Paul is a John Bircher who wants the United States to withdraw from the UN. That’s ISOLATIONISM. We used to call it “paleoconservatism,” but that doesn’t go far enough for Paul — maybe we should go with “coelocanth conservative”?

  • missliberties

    Yes. Everyone is losing their freaking minds.

    The progressive Ron Paul bubble will burst. It’s a shame people are so driven by feel good sound bytes.

    I suppose the emo-progs who keep dissing neo-liberalism are all aboard the Paul train. His record on race, etc., they don’t find troubling, because these are the folks that wondered aloud about all the stupid mofo’s that voted for Obama in the first place.

  • Paddy

    Same thing here. Everyone knows I’m political, so I’m getting calls and emails from people who never pay attention until the last minute wanting to know, “Why not Paul?” Batshit stupid.

    • “Because he’s a racist asshat.” There, I answered them for you.

  • Ron Paul’s campaign to end the fed over the bailouts makes me think of those idiots who reacted to Katrina by declaring the city should just be allowed to drown.

    • JasDal2

      Maybe think of something else. But if some political campaign “makes you think”, maybe you need to go think for yourself. Base that thinking on facts or illusions. Your choice.

      • Thanks, I’ll base my thinking on the facts about Ron Paul. Like his racist newsletters, his continued pandering to Stormfront, his public stance on the Civil Rights Act, his attacks on Roe v Wade and the 14th Amendment, etc. And on top of all that is his goldbug routine. William Jennings Bryan would recognize it for what it is: a hard money policy that works for oligarchs and no one else.

        Factually, I’d call that a persuasive case to dismiss the flying monkeys of Ron Paulite fandom.