How much longer will we have to endure libertarians’ (liberals disguised as Republicans) endorsement of Ron Paul? Just how much history are they aware of?
An article today was misleadingly titled: Paul Tops List of GOP Candidates. Unforunately, that is not where the absurdity ends.
The author links Ronald Reagan to Barry Goldwater of all people while simutaneously giving us a rundown of true Republican values. We know what those values are:
- National Security (#1 these days)
- Life
- Low Taxes
- Small government
Barry Goldwater was not in any way like Ronald Reagan when it came to the social issues. Barry Goldwater lost in the biggest defeat ever of a Republican candidate and Reagan won in two historic landslides.
We have endless carping about the interference of our civil liberties with Bush’s magnificient anti-terrorism measures set forth since 9/11. These “big government” decisions that some are complaining about happened to have saved thousands of lives. It stopped the Brooklyn Bridge from being blown up, plans to bomb the Sears Tower, the passengers headed to England on a flight destined for 9/11esque destruction, and finally the JFK terror plot.
Conservatives (the real ones) have tried explaining over and over again to liberals and libertarians that the mistakes of the Carter administration in dealing with the Shah of Iran and embracing the new government led by Islamic fanatics began most of the issues happening in the world today.
We have a guy here who wants to be our Commander-in-Chief and also wants to pull all military out of Iraq and leave it to terrorists. He does not see the value of deposing a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein nor does he acknowledge the fact that when you have a madman like Saddam making purposed bluffs to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11, you don’t ignore it! Especially after we went in and put a stop to rape rooms and torture chambers that were in daily operation. And nevermind the fact that Saddam harbored and funded terrorists as well.
Such individuals living in this kind of denial are called liberals. Not people who live by “true Republican standards.” How about the Republican standard of realism?
We also have a man who could blame a tragedy like 9/11 on our own Government (thus explaining the support gained from whacky conspiracy theorists). Has he paid attention to the endless terrorist attacks on our interests for the past 20 years? Do the conspiracy theorists have explanations for those, too?
People like Ron Paul and folks who support him are dangerous to our humanity. They want us to remove anti-terrorism measures proven to be effective right here in our homeland, they want us to run out of Iraq like “paper tigers” (as declared by OBL after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia), and serve as Al-Qaeda’s head-cheerleaders.
I’m sorry, Republicans aren’t that stupid to run away and stick our necks in the sand praying that somehow, some way, our enemies will like us more and will never attempt to hurt us again if Ron Paul becomes President.
Ron Paul hardly “tops” Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson in the various polls available to us. (click here to see how things are looking)
Once the Iowa Caucus is done and over, we can finally see an end to this madness.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
i agree about all this starting back with the shah of iran, and i dont know much about Ron Paul. i thought he was a democrat! told you i’m new at the politics thing. i think reagan was pretty bad with the whole contra thing. but you have a good point for whackos like me, look at all the other attacks over the past 20 years. you help balance me out.
i still think something is up with 9/11 though.
(liberals disguised as Republicans)
Swing and a miss – not even close. Unless by “liberal” you mean: absolutely for liberty QUA Liberty. Minarchist is better than stapling the weak (and false) left-right paradigm on us.
Further, you should research “state sponsored terrorism”. Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically. Who’s exploiting fear for power, now? Wake up, bro – you do not have the full story, and you should.
Burden’s on you to take care of the contents of YOUR mind. My mental house is nigh spotless. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is right on, and he is alone on the GOP stage saying it.
Be a TRUE conservative.
a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein
Known CIA asset whom we installed in power, ya frikken idiot (with apologies for the perceived slight).
GET INFORMED.
I got two words for you, senor Turkey:
Justin Raimondo.
Go to Antiwar.com and read everything he’s ever written. Then, I expect a full report.
I should remind you, that the NeoCons are democratic party rejects, NOT true “republicans.” Your posturing is neither admirable nor courageous, although I’m sure you’d like to think so. The same people who hate muslims are the “god hates fags” people. Be aware of who and what you supposedly represent.
You must renounce your evil ways and embrace Paul’s message of liberty. It alone will free everyone!
Ellis:
“GET INFORMED.”
If by “get informed”, you mean understanding that alliances have always been known to switch throughout the history of the planet, I guess it’s no surprise that liberals (including the ones that call themselves something else) think that the US went to Saddam along with Rumsfeld and said “hey guys, here are a few bombs, now give us oil!”
In your complete ninny rant, you’ve managed to avoid the fact that indeed fanatics in 20 years have attacked our interests, twice on our soil, and countless other times in other areas of the world.
“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically. ”
You can refer to my new post on this one
.
This whole new era is just an excuse for liberals to call themselves something else (libertarians) and leads to Republican Candidates that appeal to nutjob 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
“You must renounce your evil ways and embrace Paul’s message”
That very language alone has a Jihadistlike ring to it, or cult if you will.
“In your complete ninny rant, you’ve managed to avoid the fact that indeed fanatics in 20 years have attacked our interests, twice on our soil, and countless other times in other areas of the world.”
What do you suppose the good people of texas would do of china suddenly decided that the gulf of mexico was its “interest”
Re: the “cultish” comment – what I said was said partly in an ironic mode that doesn’t translate well to text. I expect you to be about as likely to convert to reality and liberty as Dick Cheney.
Your crap about “liberals” wanting to call themselves something else is ridiculous, but I’ll bite – we are actually “classical liberals” in the Jeffersonian sense. But I’m sure your American history starts with Wilson and “progresses” from there. Pathetic. You should be ashamed, but I’m sure you’re not.
No one should allow themselves to be as ignorant as you paint yourself to be. Ronnie became governor of California through an act of betrayal. He was NEVER a Conservative. He positioned himself as eager to become one, elicited trust, then took the nickel. The people who knew him then are still around.
Ronnie was a delightful guy. Charm, does not trump the truth. See my article, second down on my blog above – or elsewhere on the web including my column in the Iconoclast.
“I expect you to be about as likely to convert to reality and liberty as Dick Cheney. ”
Thank you, Bret — wow and I didn’t even tell you about the prison camps we neocons have planned for you “free-thinkers” –
It’ll all be detailed in the neocon endorsed legislation titled the “Steal all the Oil and Kill the Nonconformists Act of 2008.”
Melinda, are you crazy? Who was a conservative then? Barry Goldwater? Good lord. Ronald Reagan was as conservative as one could get on all the social issues, was tough on taxes, and dealt with our enemies in a way that most liberals and “libertarians” would call unconstitutional.
By the way, when Ron Paul made his big splash during the debates, he cited Ronald Reagan. Looks like he needed a little backup back then, and while Paul’s stanchest supporters go around constantly linking him to Ronald Reagan (while simutaneously throwing Barry Goldwater in the mix) pretty much makes my case for me.
If it makes ya feel better though, I’ll check out your column.
Sorry – Paul not only tops the rest in polls online, but he’s topping them here in NH in the straw polls and in numbers of people at events.
I’m starting to think this is satire after all.
“Sorry – Paul not only tops the rest in polls online, but he’s topping them here in NH in the straw polls and in numbers of people at events”
Sorry but the only one he topped was a straw poll of about 200 people — I included a link to all recent polls of Republican candidates. Get your head out of the same place that is telling you that America caused 9/11 and that Ron Paul just isn’t another conspiracy nut.
“I’m starting to think this is satire after all.”
What? Someone can’t interject humor into a discussion? The joke I made above illustrates and patronizes the left’s (and libertarian’s) view of standard conservatives and Republicans by labeling us “neocons” and “war-mongers” — I’m sorry, instead of sitting back and taking it, I will make a joke about it pointing out the utter extremism in such an idea.
If “small government” is one of your guiding tenets, then I’m curious … how would you rate President Bush on that score?
Hey Red, I’m glad you asked.
Small government and “conservative” spending has certainly been an area where Bush could have improved on. But the kinds of things liberals and the Ron Paul lovers attribute to that category are things like the Iraq war and characterize surveillance legislation as a sign of “big government.”
No, there are many things that Bush has done wrong — along with supporting the amnesty bill — and I do hope that the next President will indeed carry his strong point of fighting war and perhaps learn to stop listening to critics and actually fight wars to win them as we once did 60-70 years ago.