Ron Paul Responds to a 9/11 First Responder

Nothing would be more expected to make any politician toe the standard line on 9/11 than being confronted by a NYC policeman who was himself a 9/11 first responder.

A back-and-forth this afternoon at a Meredith, New Hampshire town hall meeting is instructive about what kind of politician Ron Paul is. It occurred in a hotel meeting room jammed far beyond comfort with 500-600 people. You need to show up an hour early if you want a seat or to avoid being sardine-crammed in a back corner these days at Ron Paul event.

During the Q and A, a man identified himself as having two jobs: a professor of American constitutional history at a community college, and a New York City police officer who had been a 9/11 first responder. As part of his question to Paul, he said: "A lot of people like what you say about the Constitution and domestic policy but go on the defense in terms of what you say about foreign policy and especially 9/11...what can you say to reassure them?"

It seemed to hearken back to what is in many ways the origin story of the Ron Paul revolution: the moment in May 2007 at a GOP debate when Ron Paul shocked Rudy Giuliani, then the frontrunner, with the idea that American policies and behaviors may have had some influence on the fact that 9/11 happened.

Part of Paul's response today: "It was shortly [after 9/11] that we had a vote to give the president the authority to go after the individuals responsible for it, which I strongly supported. 

"But I did not believe for a minute that authority should have been used the way it was used. It was used to go to war against Iraq, oh yeah the Iraqis were involved...it was used to do things like the Patriot Act which was already floating around...We can't just fly off and do things that are more harmful, we have to do things that defend this country. [With all our bases around the world] we are not doing ourselves much of a favor because we don't have any money.

"One thing important about the evaluation of 9/11 was that one thing Paul Wolfowitz, a big orchestrator for the war, for going into Iraq, as soon as that happened, within days he said you know what? This gives us a chance to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, because Bin Laden is using that as a recruiting tool....our troops in Saudi Arabia are seen as in the Holy Land used as recruiting tool by Bin Laden to do us harm. So we took troops out of Saudi Arabia, but they don't understand that troops in Muslim countries...are still inciting people, we go into Pakistan with no authority whatsoever and launch these bombs, go after one, two, three people, the bad people and have innocent people killed. The best way to look at that is ask, how would we react if someone did that to us?"

That drew out long, huge applause

Paul went on. "I very much want to be engaged [with the world], but in a different manner. I don't want to be engaged by acting like a bully, if they do what we say we bribe them, give them more money, if we don't we start a war with them and occupy their country. I'm sick and tired of that...we need to influence the world with our goodness, our goodness will be spread if we do a good job, if we have freedom, prosperity and civil rights here in this country and we mind our own business and we don't go around bullying people maybe people will see us as an example...this is so much different than what we are doing today."

That got more huge claps and long cheers.

That famous Paul/Giuliani dustup from May 2007:

More from the Ron Paul New Hampshire campaign trail will be coming soon here on Hit and Run and in the April issue of Reason. In the meantime, pre-order my forthcoming book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • El Commentariosa||

    TOW ThE LION!

  • yonemoto||

    it may be a different lion, but he's still towing it.

  • MrDamage||

    I knew Ron Paul had balls of steel, but towing lions?!? That's just ridiculous!

  • Mitch||

    Read bewteen the lions

  • Punster #5||

    He's a lion sack of Santorum.

  • Realist||

    Ron Paul is by far the best Republican candidate, but the warmonger/fundies will never allow his nomination.

  • ||

    ... unless he gains enough support from other groups to make the warmongers and social-policy-is-supreme fundamentalists irrelevant. Then, he can organize an event, get up on the podium, and give them all a huge, heart "go fuck yourselves, assholes."

    Let's hope he can pull it off, eh?

  • db||

    I think "big tent" will work better for him but the key is him being in the position to invite them in rather than the other way around.

  • CE||

    Unfortunately for the neocons, the nomination is determined by the voters.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You foolish, foolish person.

  • Karl Rove||

    Unfortunately for the neocons, the nomination is determined by the voters.
    Kinda in the same way Santa Claus decided on your gifts

  • ||

    You mean it wasn't Slash?

  • ||

    Unfortunately for libertarians too.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yes. No matter who wins, someone from the government will be putting their fucking nose in my goddamn business.

  • Team Red||

    That's why we're here, guy!

  • Team Blue||

    If not for us, you'd be smoking in public places, eating trans-fats, and driving SUVs.

    But we'd let you be gay!

  • Team Green||

    We exist too!

  • The Whales||

    And we're glad you do!

  • ||

    I see the success of his candidacy as a stepping stone for libertarianism. This election is the first time since Goldwater that libertarianism has gotten any traction at all. If/When he loses, it's still a big win for liberty and small government principles.

  • jt||

    unless you participate, you are in no place to step stone on anyone's behalf whose effort belongs to those that contributed. paul's movement is being documented and archived.. the non-participants will be well known. in the age of internet, it's hard to jump in front of a parade and pretend to lead it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Are you taking names, comrade? This counterrevolutionary and subversive activity will not be tolerated!

  • Baby Blue Iris||

    Whah! Whah! Whah!

  • Baby Blue Iris||

    Whah! Whah! Whah!

  • ||

    Puleeze...when is the last time the Dems have nominated someone besides a looney liberal?
    I thought Hillary was far left until the Community Organizer spouted his re-distribution foolishness.
    Watch Jerry Springer. These are the people Obama and crew think are getting screwed by people that work hard and become successful.

  • Zeb||

    If you thought Hillary (or Obama) was far left, you need to get out more.

  • ||

    He's become much softer in order to make himself more palatable for general voters, but he STILL refuses to sell out on major issues, and that's fantastic. I'm behind Paul 100%.

  • Amakudari||

    Softer where? I'm not dismissing that it can or has occurred, but as far as I can tell he's been pretty outspoken against things the Republican base loves, like a permanent state of war. Ditto for demanding sound money or cutting a trillion in the first year.

  • libconlib||

    Softer in rhetoric.

  • libconlib||

    Well, actually that's not right, he's become a lot meatier in the way he talks. Like on foreign policy, he dropped the hippy love talk from 2008 to play up how he wants a strong defense call out Chickenhawks. Same thing, though.

  • ||

    ...and on things like Social Security.

  • Child from beyond thunderdome||

    V-v-v-v-v-v-v-v-ideo?

  • Brian Doherty||

    I'm not shooting video as I do my own reporting this week; generally almost everything public about Paul ends up on YouTube, start checking tomorrow for "Ron Paul Meredith town hall" or somesuch.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Union rules.

  • ||

    You wrote "these days" twice in the second paragraph.

  • Brian Doherty||

    Do you have video on that?
    OK, I'm going to fix it and this exchange will just be confusing.

  • ||

    Some pinko's going to forget his Thorazine and troll you and us for 100 comments on our collective grammatical failings as libertarians, and how Reason discredits itself every day by, like, forgetting commas and stuff.

    I'm just trying to spare us all the pain and grief.

  • Brian Doherty||

    thanks, RPA. Your efforts are appreciated.

  • ||

    It's my pleasure. I'll be outside with my rifle enforcing gambol lockdown.

  • Almanian||

    ELIMUNASHUNIST RHETORICKS!!!11!

  • rather||

    Art in chaos

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • fartman||

    *fart*

  • np||

  • CatoTheElder||

    Thanks for the video.

    I appreciate Ron Paul's analysis and critique of US foreign policy leading up to 9/11 and since then.

    But he missed a golden opportunity to mention that, with respect to the 9/11 perps, he was the toughest guy in Congress. Marque and reprisal, bitchez.

  • Bok Sux||

    If this country can't serve as a good example, it can at least serve as a warning to others.

  • Iran||

    Us?

  • Zimbabwe||

    I heard that.

  • Untermensch||

    The alternative to Ron Paul right now is the the new Enemy Expatriation Act (HR 3166 and S. 1698), which would extend NDAA by allowing the government to strip anyone of their citizenship without trial and then apply NDAA. That is what we get from following the status quo foreign and defense policy. I should be astonished that anyone can defend such deviation from our nation’s principles, but “we have to save America” and so forth.

  • ||

    Did Anonymous hack that website and put up a parody, or something? Because I cannot mother-fucking believe what I just read. Tell me this isn't happening.

  • Your Government||

    Last October, you complained about assassinating US citizens and we listened! Now it won't ever happen again.

  • Yuno Hoo||

    +1776

  • jj||

    +666

  • Avon Lady||

    Do you live here?

  • ||

    im 12 and what is this

  • Mr Whipple||

    Would I still have to pay US taxes for 10 years after forced expatriation?

  • Uncle Sam||

    No.

    You have to pay taxes for life.

  • ||

    So, much less than 10years.

  • ||

    SCOTUS has struck down all legislation purporting to revoke citizenship. This is a publicity stunt.

  • ||

    The 14th amendment defines who is a citizen, and this definition doesn't include "keep in Congress' good graces" or anything else that would indicate Congress can revoke anyone's citizenship. So it would take a constitutional amendment to do what they propose to do.

  • robc||

    It also takes a constitutional amendment to ban substances I can put in my body.

    See, 18/21 for an example.

    And yet....

  • ||

    Yeah, but that viewpoint is dependent on the enumerated powers doctrine.

    The unconstitutionality of citizenship revocation is right there in black and white.

  • Untermensch||

    I find it strange that a Jew, of all people, would propose this. I guess Lieberman forgot all about an obscure country in Europe and how it set up the legal framework for wiping out a few Jews.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Statism trumps everything, every time.

  • ||

    Paul is a lion.

  • El Commentariosa||

    Ike Taylor just apologized on twitter for playing a shit game

  • Bok Sux||

    Ike Taylor just apologized on twitter for playing a shit game

    Did he apologize for subjecting us to another week of Tebow's ego?

  • ||

    Tebow never talks about himself, so I don't know where you're getting that.

  • IceTrey||

    That's the worst kind of ego maniac. They're too good to talk about themselves.

  • Skip Bayless||

  • chris||

    I never thought he had a chance based on his coming in to the league with a passing game that was The Suck. But he has shown in a few of those wins that he can be accurate when pressed. I may have been wrong.

    It was never personal. Just what he had shown previously in his playing ability. Well, never personal except for that sometimes lispy sing song emphatic voice that I've heard him use in one interview. That's a generational thing; most guys under thirty make me want to force feed them a five pack a day habit and double shot of whiskey so they don't sound so girly.

  • Sudden||

    I made a point of picking up a smoking habit from ages 13-27 solely for the purpose of making sure I don't soundy like a lispy bitch.

  • chris||

    You make me proud. My nephew turns thirty next month. Ten years ago he sounded like a bitch because he got the idea that the best way to get into a girls pants was to appear non threatening. Fortunately, he grew out of that.

  • ||

    He's got more than a lisp to worry about.

  • Fluffy||

    I think Tim is lispy because he actually IS a virgin.

    Smoking and drinking won't help unless he gets laid too.

  • robc||

    Interesting question, is he the first virgin to QB an NFL team to a playoff victory?

  • ||

    Big Ben

  • juris imprudent||

    The best way to look at that is ask, how would we react if someone did that to us?

    Neo-con-bot: b-b-b-but American Exceptionalism!!1!1!

  • Neo Conbot||

    The best way to look at that is ask, how would we react if someone did that to us?

    Exactly why we must be proactive.

  • ||

    I saw the highlights of Paul at the debate the other night and I thought he handled himself very well. I think he figured out that the best defense is a good offense.

  • ||

    I forgot who it was that pointed this out, but the fact that he moderated and limited his attacks was great, like not going further and totally burying Gingrich on his family history after he pointed out that he served despite being married and having kids.

    ie, vibrantly call the other candidates on their bullshit, but don't overdo the offensive and make yourself look like an asshole. He's doing very well.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Exactly. It's very important RP not ruin his 'kindly grandfather' ethos, which has taken him further than he might like to admit.

  • Jeffersonian||

    "But I did not believe for a minute that authority should have been used the way it was used. It was used to go to war against Iraq..."

    I'm sorry, but that's just not true. The Iraq war was authorized under a second, separate vote more than a year after the Afghan vote.

  • A Serious Man||

    Not strictly true, but it did establish the precedent for undeclared war that gives the president broad powers.

  • Make My Monster GROW!||

    You mean that the jingoistic nationalism stirred-up in the post-Afghanistan invasion era wasn't used to manipulate the public into supporting a completely unrelated to the 9/11 attacks?

  • Make My Monster GROW!||

    Not that I'm one to advocate the "false consciousness" hypothesis, but in the case of the period from November 2001 to March 2003, the country, in general, did seem to have a big throbbing hard-on for going to war in Iraq.

  • Cytotoxic||

    we need to influence the world with our goodness, our goodness will be spread if we do a good job

    I actually started to chuckle as I read this. "If we're just nice they'll be nice!" Sorry, stopped believing in fairy tales a while ago.

    If all these people are so angry about the US going to foreign places and kicking ass, and this anger leads to terrorism (fear leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side), where is the increase in terrorism against America?

  • ||

    I'm not a fan of his dependence on that line either, but it's much better than the wholesale bullshit that assholes like Sphinctorum use to justify interventionism.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I fundamentally disagree with RP on FP and have had that argument here many times. But hey, at least his FP is cogent and has a logic structure (which is completely wrong). Most of the other candidates, when asked about FP, should just unzip their pants and whip it out for a size contest because that's what we're getting without the laughs.

  • ||

    "(which is completely wrong)"

    Because you say so, right?

  • ||

    no, because it doesn't involve Kicking ASS. Stupid-head.

  • Barack Obama||

    If all these people are so angry about the US going to foreign places and kicking ass, and this anger leads to terrorism (fear leads to anger, anger leads to the dark side), where is the increase in terrorism against America?

    Let me be clear.

    Janet, you're doing a heck of a job!

  • DK||

    According to the following PolitiFact, suicide attacks against the US and its allies number 1,833 post-9/11, while only 10 pre-9/11. That seems to be pretty damning evidence of blowback.

  • DK||

  • rather||

  • Cytotoxic||

    I believe most or really all of those are in the combat zones, no? Could be seen as vindication of fighting them over there not here, not that I necessarily agree. It hardly seems like the kind of 'blowback' that RP has been warning is coming for us.

    Problem for noninterventionists is that their blowback hypothesis is shitty at making predictions. Got no blowback for Panama, anything in the Balkans, or overthrowing some bad guys in Latin America during the cold war. They think they understand people abroad so well but they don't.

  • ||

    Considering you warmonger fucksticks use those combat zone deaths as justification for attacking Iran, it's interesting that you're discounting them now.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Seem to have struck a nerve. I'm hardly 'discounting' those deaths but I'm just saying they don't fit into 'blowback' category.

  • juris imprudent||

    Is this then some kind of strange love being showered upon us for liberating them from their tyrants? I remember being told that the Iraqi people would lay flowers, not IEDs, at the feet of our soldiers.

  • Neoconned||

    It will pay for itself!

  • ||

    Why are they ipso facto not blowback-related? Other than the fact it's inconvenient for the line you're currently toeing.

    I would think soldiers being killed by the population of the country they invaded is the most clear and obvious example of blowback imaginable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I always thought of 'blowback' as the act of terrorism/something else bad done in reaction to a foreign policy action a while back, while those deaths in war are, ah, war.

    Funny thing is, it was Al-Qaeda in Iraq that got the blowback in the form of the 'Sunni Awakening'. There wasn't much violence against America in Iraq once America won.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    Problem for noninterventionists is that their blowback hypothesis is shitty at making predictions.


    Depends on what you pretend to predict. There are still irrational, crazy people out there, but are you really arguing for a worldwide police state to stop a single fucktard from blowing shit up?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Could use some more straw there.

    No, I'm not. I advocate for the elimination of states that sponsor anti-American terrorism (Iran) to vastly reduce the threat of a large number of fucktards who are trained and armed by those states. I'm not looking to lower the threat to zero just to get it low you know.

  • juris imprudent||

    Dude, if the Iranians were a real threat to anyone - it would probably be someone much closer to them than us. And you can imagine that the Israelis could handle the Iranians quite competently.

  • Maxxx||

    Dude, if the Iranians were a real threat to anyone - it would probably be someone much closer to them than us.

    Duh,

    They're a threat to the psychotic fucks that rule Saudi Arabia. Not that the mullahs are any better, but the Saudi's are our psychotic fucking bitches. And no one fucks with America's bitches.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    I advocate for the elimination of states that sponsor anti-American terrorism (Iran)


    You prefer the pro-American brand of terrorism, don't you?

  • Luis Posada ||

    Uhm, who doesn't favor pro-American brands of terrorism?

  • ||

    You prefer the pro-American brand of terrorism, don't you?

    He is a supporter of Israel, so yeah.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Got non-sequitor?

  • Cytotoxic||

    No I don't but I wanted to make that distinction because I know that if I didn't you would be back with "so you want America to be world police and fight all terror! IMPERIALIST!1". But you'll do that anyway.

  • ||

    So how big of a parking lot do we have to turn the middle east into before you're satisfied that the threat is low-enough?

  • Brian E||

    I've got an idea. Let's develop weapons that are so powerful that even a few dozen would reduce a country like Iran to rubble. If anyone starts any shit, we'll threaten to blow them back to the stone age.

  • R. Santorum ||

    Finally, a libertarian who gets what I've been saying.

  • Brian E||

    Why does blowback need to have predictive value? Just because we don't get blowback from a particular intervention doesn't mean it's wise to discount the possibility.

    al-Qaeda welcomed our invasion of Iraq. It was an excellent recruiting tool. If even the enemy makes this argument, why not admit that the "flypaper" strategy was a bit more like kicking a hornet's nest?

  • Cytotoxic||

    This and above:

    Well, al-Qaeda can get things wrong. They got Iraq wrong and the Sunni Awakening cleaned them out.

    I discount 'blowback' because Islamists have made it very clear they have a culture problem given that other countries have suffered attacks from Islamists on synagogues, churches etc.

    Yes, we have nukes. Iran has already 'started shit' by helping kill CIA members in Lebanon, aiding killers of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, handing out death threats to Salmon Rushdie and his translators (which were acted on for some of his translators), etc. So...you wanna nuke them? Wow even I don't want to go that far. Yet.

  • Brian E||

    Why are we meddling in Lebanon?
    Why are we in Iraq?
    Why are we still in Afghanistan?

    Last I checked, Mr. Fish Rushdie is still very much alive. Anybody can make threats.

    I don't want to nuke anybody. With a more limited foreign policy, Iran would find somebody else (probably Israel) to make its scapegoat. My point is that the extent of the danger to the US is extremely limited because we are capable of overwhelming retaliation. Warmongers want to make everything into an existential threat, but there are no existential threats as long as we maintain our deterrent capability. So why not give peace a chance?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Occasional bombings from Iran-sponsored terrorists is not peace. I want to give peace a chance and I know to get it we need to terminate Iran's regime.

  • Brian E||

    Which bombings on US soil are you referring to?

  • ||

    Whack-a-fucking-mole.

  • Omega 6||

    yum fish

  • Maxxx||

    If even the enemy makes this argument, why not admit that the "flypaper" strategy was a bit more like kicking a hornet's nest?

    Maybe so, but the flypaper strategy is the only rational reason for Bush to have started the war in the first place.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    I actually started to chuckle as I read this. "If we're just nice they'll be nice!" Sorry, stopped believing in fairy tales a while ago.


    What a rough life you must had. Everybody - EVERYBODY - treated you like shit regardless. I pity you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "They" refers to the crazies. And remember, there will always be a large chunk of people in anti-individualist countries that hate America. Not that that supports military action, just saying.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    "They" refers to the crazies.


    There are a lot more people who aren't crazy, just pissed off. Paul means them, not the crazies.

    And remember, there will always be a large chunk of people in anti-individualist countries that hate America.


    They're down to eating grass or sugarcane hulks, Cytotoxic. They're no real threat to anybody.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Really? Cause they keep killing lots of people in Afghanistan. Not saying that protecting them is our prerogative but they are quite threatening.

    If that's what Paul means by 'they', then his point is worthless. If people hate us, no biggy, Venezuela has lots of people who hate America for no good reason but they aren't sending up suicide bombers. It's the crazies that count and by 'count' I mean 'probably need to be vaporized by predator drone ASAP'.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:Cytotoxic,

    Really? Cause they keep killing lots of people in Afghanistan.


    Last I saw, Afghanistan does not have a star in the US Flag.

    If that's what Paul means by 'they', then his point is worthless.


    He clearly meant the "they" that have no real interest in self immolation, C. But if you want to conflate them all, be my guest - just don't ask me to understand you.

  • juris imprudent||

    Ah yes, they hate us for our freedom, for our prosperity, but never because we do stupid shit in their backyards.

  • ||

    If all these people are so angry about the US going to foreign places and kicking ass, and this anger leads to terrorism, where is the increase in terrorism against America?

    And if the Islamic radicals hate us for our freedom, why are their terrorist attacks against America so rare? The two WTC attacks in 2001 and 1993 are the only remotely significant ones they've registered.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I guess the USS Cole and embassy bombings weren't 'significant'. That just means they aren't nearly as capable as our past adversaries. Which is great but doesn't change their motivation.

  • juris imprudent||

    You may be motivated to kill me, but as long as you are an incompetent boob I really shouldn't take you seriously, should I?

  • ||

    USS Cole: military target

    Embassy bombings: not really attacks on America but even if we accept it to be, a pretty thin hook to hang your WoT hat on, no?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So what and...what? My war on Islamic Totalitarianism is hanging just fine.

  • Matrix||

    and you're war has also hung our liberties and our dignity, shitbag!

  • ||

    I actually started to chuckle as I read this. "If we're just nice they'll be nice!"

    In most cases that maxim is actually true, which, you know, allows civilization to exist. Yes, there are assholes who screw it up and you do have to take them into account, but if you go around treating everyone like an asshole just in case you're going to get nowhere.

  • Almanian||

    "....and when you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao
    You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow...."

    The Beatles Singularity Explains the World

  • Cytotoxic||

    I wouldn't call Afghanistan or much of Pakistan civilized. These are a different people remember.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    I wouldn't call Afghanistan or much of Pakistan civilized.


    That doesn't mean they harbored ill-will towards America, Cytotoxic - that is, until the US Government started bombing them. I think that kind of pisses off people.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Uh, AQ was based there. That's where they directed 9/11 from.

    Pretty sure Pakistan has always been pretty anti-American.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    AQ was based there. That's where they directed 9/11 from.


    Yes, and drug gangs are in Mexico and they direct the trafficking from there - do you propose the US bombs Mexico as well?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. Yes, I do.

  • ||

    Either you are an idiot or, you were spoofing hardcore.

  • juris imprudent||

    OK asshole, where is your demand to go to war with the Saudis - because those are the fuckers that were the major players carrying out the 9/11 attacks and promoting Wahhabist bullshit worldwide.

  • Luis Posada ||

    Unlike the Afghans they are mostly civilized so war isn't justified; except for some Bedouins who could use a good nuking.

  • Maxxx||

    OK asshole, where is your demand to go to war with the Saudis

    Yep,

    The truth that no on dares speak is that the source of modern islamic terrorism is a death cult financed by the Saudi dictatorship in exchange for legitimacy. Our idiotic strategy in the war on terror stems from a refusal to admit and deal with this fact.

  • ||

    Unlike the Afghans they are mostly civilized

    You know, when I'm trying to sort the barbarians from the civilized folks, the first thing I look for is beheadings, mutilation, and legalized rape. Guess which side of the line all of that puts you on.

  • ||

    There have been plenty of civilizations that practiced those things. Probably the majority have.

    civilization != "kind, gentle society"

  • Cytotoic||

    So glad you mentioned that! Yes, SA also needs regime change. I don't think an invasion is necessary, so we take other (covert?) means. Or nod to Israel and cheer on them turning SA into a parking lot if they continue to fund anti-Israeli terror. Whatever gets rid of the House of Saud.

    Time to go to bed good night everybody.
    So glad to keep you all atwiiter. For final edification, read this excellent essay.

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/Ne.....e&id=15153

    Teaser: It is Iran's commitment to the goal of subjugating infidels, not a quest for peace, that motivated its backing of the Hezbollah-Hamas war against Israel and its support for insurgents who slaughter American troops in Iraq.

  • juris imprudent||

    So glad you mentioned that!

    Liar, otherwise it would be your lead, not tail as a strategy. And you know damn well why we aren't even raising our voices at the House of Saud.

  • Gojira||

    That article is full of crap.

    First, it acts like Iran simply declared war on us in 1979 utterly out of the blue, and for no reason whatsoever. That's bullshit.

    Secondly, as you use in your quote, the author uses the side they backed in a war against Israel supposedly as evidence for why we need to fight them. I'm not an Israeli, and I'm willing to bet you aren't, either. So who gives a shit what side they backed in a war against Israel; it's irrelevant as to whether or not the US should fight them.

    Last, it's completely understandable for them to sponsor hostile activities against Americans when we invaded two nations right by them, and fucked up the societies and governments there royally, driving refugees into Iran, etc., and then basically saying, "You're next!" with the whole Axis of Evil speech. Guess what: they wouldn't be supporting insurgents who slaughter American troops in Iraq if...wait for it...we weren't fucking in Iraq.

  • ||

    How about the fact that cyto's supposedly realistic foreign policy includes a four front war that includes three of the world's biggest oil producers?

    Yeah, I see nothing but freedom coming out of that mess.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Aside from all the other moral and rational reasons not to waste our time with them another problem with fighting Iran is the size of its population. Iran is 3-4 times larger than Iraq and Iraq is a fucking failure. Nothing short of deplorable pointless WW2 style bombings would keep that population "obedient". Most of the major Iranian cities are on par with European cities in terms of luxuries, so the second the water and electricity stop because the U.S. blew up the local power plant, massive throngs of people are going to have some beef. The second, literally the fucking second, one of our poorly manufactured overpriced smart bombs explodes and sends a "stray" piece of shrapnel through someone's wife/child/friend/dentist/hooker we will make 100-200 enemies. This scenario will be repeated 10,000 times the first night the bombing begins. American troops will roll in and wonder why in the fuck the locals have mined the streets.

    Frankly, if some fuckers from somewhere(anywhere really) blew up my wife "by accident", some bodies are going to be put in the ground before I start to calm the fuck down. This is why we can't win these wars. The second people want revenge they will flock to the organizations(be they Al-qaeda, Hamas, whatever) so they can exact that revenge.

    Here's another thought experiment: When did the first Iranian "sponsored" attack against U.S. interests occur? 10 bucks it happened after we started fucking with their shit.

  • ||

    Not to mention that Iran an S.Arabia supply a lot of petro to nations that would be pretty pissed if their supply was cut off.

    Does cyto think china is going to stop its growth so that we can play g.i. Joe in the middle east?

  • NeoConSantorumRomneyBot||

    ...we weren't fucking in Iraq.

    But...BUt...if we don't fight THEM over THERE....we will...01110101010101100001111......have to fight them over here!*&%#

  • Matrix||

    So, not really human, right? so it's okay to kill them indiscriminately?

  • Fluffy||

    So the thousands of attacks against American troops, contractors and installations in Iraq and Afghanistan don't count?

    Wow, way to piss on the troops, dude.

    Sorry, stopped believing in fairy tales a while ago.

    How many non-piratical terror attacks were launched on US soldiers or civilians prior to 1917?

    Indians attacked us. Mexicans attacked us. Filipinos attacked us.

    In other words, NOBODY attacked us but people we were fucking with. Nobody.

    The Barbary pirates get to be your big example of a group that attacked us while we were minding our own business - and they were just muggers on boats.

  • Matrix||

    Might have something to do with them being busy fighting us over there that they have fewer resources to fight us here.

  • Switzerland||

    Sorry, stopped believing in fairy tales a while ago.

    Yeah! Idiots, right?

  • Garry from over there||

    What's this I've come upon? A site of fundie teabaggers?

    Look Mabel, there are people who really believe this stuff.

    HAHAH

  • Mabel||

    Garry, I'd really like to know what you believe.

  • Garry from over there||

    Why the opposite of everything these hayseeds believe.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Garry from over there,

    Why the opposite of everything these hayseeds believe.


    You believe in Intelligent Design? Really?

  • Garry from over there||

    I said the opposite of what these fundy teabaggers believe. But then again, I never took you for smart folk.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Garry from over there,

    I said the opposite of what these fundy teabaggers believe.


    Really? Do these fundy teabaggers speak to you? Can you describe them? Do they speak to you all the time, or only after masturbation?

    Your case is interesting. Would you be available for an EEG?

  • Sevo||

    Garry from over there|1.8.12 @ 11:01PM|#
    "I said the opposite of what these fundy teabaggers believe. But then again, I never took you for smart folk."

    No, garry, you said nothing of the sort.
    You're an ignorant troll; nothing more.

  • ||

    Why the opposite of everything these hayseeds believe.

    Let's see, then, that means you believe that:
    1) We should be in more wars with more troops in more nations.
    2) We should be escalating the war on drugs and never let marijuana or any other recreational drugs be legal.
    3) Corporatism and crony capitalism are GOOD things.
    4) The Bill of Rights limits our government too much.
    5) What consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is the government's business.

    Shall I go on?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If he's a Team BLUE hack, then even if he doesn't believe those things, he sure as fuck ACTIVELY SUPPORTS THEM.

  • George Washington||

    Gary from over there thinks I'm a hayseed because unlike him my overalls don't have a flap in the back for penal insertion from our 'allies', lobbyist, think tanks and military contractors.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Is a teabagger the opposite of what I am, an apiologist?

  • Garry from over there||

    Tea bagger, tea partier, tomato tom-ahto.

  • Garry From Under Wear||

    I am a member of the Intelligentsia, and I am here to tell you that you tea faggers are WRONG about everything! I am the guiding light, I am the Lord and Savior. Listen to me, and everyone will have free ponies and purple unicorns.

  • WHAT ABOUT||

    TEH NEWZLETERZ?????

  • Old Mexican||

    Dead. Stephanapoulos killed them for good, the arrogant bastard.

  • Old Mexican||

  • Garry from over there||

    You all want a "FREE MARKET" Where "free" means "being able to pay 10 cents a day to have widgets made and not bother with anything related to safety precautions".

  • Brian E||

    Weak. D-. Try talking about the environment and using the word "externalities" even when it doesn't apply.

  • ||

    Not true. Free market means you're free to turn down those jobs too. Are you that big an idiot that if the government doesn't tell you otherwise, you'll take a job that pays 10 cents a day?

  • ||

    Hey if my choice is a chance of death via widget machine or sure death by starvation, I'm takin my chances with the widget machine.

  • np||

    Ok I'll play along...

    Obviously that can happen. But it wouldn't be in their best interests either. They'll liable for injuries or contract violation and/or fraud [b]if[/b] all the dangers are not disclosed. When those dangers or risks are, it leads to the next point:

    Competitors would come and lure all their workers away. And in a truly free market, you'd have no artificial barriers to entry (no external forces, restrictions or mandated burdens) so competition will always arise in such scenarios

  • Sevo||

    Garry from over there|1.8.12 @ 11:19PM|#
    "You all want a "FREE MARKET" Where "free" means "being able to pay 10 cents a day to have widgets made and not bother with anything related to safety precautions"."

    Garry, you should stay over there. Think we haven't heard that bullshit before? You're wrong.

  • ||

    Wow, where the fuck did he think he was?

  • Shorter Garry from over there||

    "Without big government we'd all be dead!!"

  • Spartacus||

    ROADZ!!!
    SOMALIA!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Garry from over there,

    You all want a "FREE MARKET"


    Are those fundy teabaggers speaking to you again, Garry? Did this start after masturbation, or before? Can you tell me what else they say to you?

    This is an interesting case. Would you be available for a sleep-depravation study?

  • Garry From Under Wear||

    Gee, I never thought of that. Why, you're a fucking GENIUS!

  • ||

    Gah. Last sentence is mine, the rest is Politico's.

  • ||

    Politico thinks it's found a Mitt gaffe from this morning:

    However, he had some faulty moments, including his boast that he’d forced Kennedy to take out a mortgage on his home to keep fighting for his seat — a line that Democrats are sure to use against the multimillionaire in an economic climate with a high rate of foreclosures.

    Uh, yeah. The Kennedys could have bought and sold Romney 10 times. Not exactly the average laid-off textile worker struggling to make mortgage payments.

  • ||

    It was the moment when Gingrich made clear that he was going to come out swinging this time, after largely taking a pass on Saturday night.

    And he did it with a clever phrase — telling Romney to cut the “pious baloney” — that will almost certainly find its way into Democratic ads if the former Massachusetts governor is the nominee.

    I can attest I've heard the phrase "pious bullshit" several times in my life; I don't know if bowdlerizing a common phrase counts as coining it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wow, they think 'pious baloney' is going to make for some catchy attack-ad material? It's showing Politico. You know what I'm talking about.

  • ||

    Impious salami?

  • ||

    Also...Kennedy, the gene pool was shallow.

  • ||

    Polls are showing that Huntsman is gaining on Paul in New Hampshire, more voters have positive feelings about Huntsman, and Huntsman may end up finishing second in NH. This totally upsets me, as Santorum's surge in Iowa did. I hate to sound like a conspiracist, but Huntsman's complaining about that Manchurian candidate video, almost attributing it to Paul's campaign, may have affected voters in New Hampshire like the focus on the newsletters hurt Paul in Iowa.

  • ||

    Cuntsman is getting free air time from the local media and he has that calm, professorial demeanor that people who think they're smarter than average eat up regardless of what he says. Also, despite the fact I haven't seen any specific policy issues where he disagrees with the GOP establishment in a significant way, he's supposedly a maverick. But not in a wacky Ron Paul sort of way.

    He had a long interview on PBS NewsHour on Thursday night and did not mention one specific policy proposal. The closest he came was saying Ron Paul was unelectable because his position on Iran is outside the mainstream.

    While I don't totally agree with RP on how to deal with Iran, to single him out as being outside the mainstream and not the "bomb yesterday" contingent that the rest of the candidates belong to, shows that Huntsman is a despicable cunt.

  • ||

    I thought Huntsman would have been sunk on his "speaking chinese at an American debate", but I have hardly seen any mention of it since Saturday night. Apparently that sort of gaffe is one the MSM is on board with.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: TycheSD,

    Polls are showing that Huntsman is gaining on Paul in New Hampshire.


    No, the PPP poll shows 18% for Paul and 16% for Huntsman but a) it still 2 days before the voting, b) other polls show very string 2nd for Paul and c) this Manchurian candidate thing is unraveling.

  • ||

    The PPP poll shows Huntsman with momentum. Paul has lost points this last week and Huntsman has gained points.

  • robc||

    538 showing:

    Romney 39.3%
    Paul 19.4%
    Huntsman 15.6%

    He doesnt rely on any one poll and has a formula that accounts for "momentum".

    It is a 4 pt or so surge for Huntsman since Iowa. Paul has been bouncing between 18 and 21. This is as low as Romney has been in forever.

  • ||

    This was a great response by Dr. Paul.

  • El Commentariosa||

    Who's this Garry Guy? Some kind of troll? You guys sure are giving him a lot of attention.

  • Old Mexican||

    I believe he is a troubled soul who suffers from a real ailment. He keeps insisting on seeing and hearing these fundy teabaggers which must be really mortifying for him. It is clear he needs help dealing with his inner demons.

  • np||

    I find the parts where he mingles with the people after the meetings pretty interesting too. (twice fyi, once after the townhall then again after press Q&A)

    Girl: "I have a question for you: Who is John Galt?"

    17th amendment

  • The Boz||

    In his first regular season game at Denver, Bosworth showed as much of a knack for marketing as for hitting people. "I can't wait to get my hands on John Elway's boyish face," The Boz boasted. He added that he'd rather get penalized for a late hit than let Elway run out of bounds unscathed.

    Bronco fans, predictably, were enraged. About 10,000 of them wore T-shirts featuring Bosworth's face with a slash through it. The shirts read WHAT'S A BOZ WORTH? NOTHING on the front and BAN THE BOZ on the back.

    "But if they looked inside the shirt at the little tag that said 44 BOZ INC. they would have realized they just paid $15 for a shirt made by my company," Bosworth wrote. "We gave all the profits to the Children's Hospital. We just wanted to prove how oxygen-deprived Denver fans were."

  • jt||

    the paul that could kick santorum's ass

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/s.....-the-60-s-(I-think)

  • ||

    Did anybody else notice how statesmanlike/manly/presidential Paul looked when he was younger, which you can see from '88 campaign videos and such? I wish he could reverse his age by 30 years

  • ||

    http://i423.photobucket.com/al...../Archangel Private/Ron_Paul_Captain_America.jpg

    Nice

  • Rich||

    Must have been *too* nice, RPA.

  • ||

  • ||

    a man identified himself as having two jobs: a professor of American constitutional history at a community college, and a New York City police officer

    Wow- I bet his class is a lot like a Philip K Dick alternate history version of Constitutional scholarship.

  • ||

    "Barack Obama dueled Thomas Jefferson and won, at which point the damned Virginian tea-baggers hate-mongering was defeated by the forces of social justice and equality."

  • ||

    *tea-bagger's

  • ||

    A little spank ,material for cytotoxic and his neocon bunkmates:

    Iran’s revolutionary court sentenced a former U.S. soldier of Iranian descent to death for spying amid rising tensions over concern the Persian Gulf nation may try to close the Strait of Hormuz if Western sanctions are imposed.

    The court found Amir Mirzaei Hekmati guilty of collaborating “with a hostile country and spying for the Central Intelligence Agency,” Iran’s state-controlled Fars news agency said, citing its reporter.

    Revenge murder on a grand scale will boost the economy and stifle the peaceniks!

  • ||

    Send special forces to get him out of there, especially if he's a citizen. What the fuck's Iran going to do? ALLAHU AKBAR the United States into defeat?

  • ||

    Unlike merely working on nuclear weapons, closing an international strait is an act of war. That would be quite foolish of them to do because it would give us legitimate cover for an invasion/air campaign.

  • ||

    Two for one!

    Nicaragua's president and longtime US foe Daniel Ortega is stirring old tensions with Washington by inviting a special guest of honor to his inauguration Tuesday: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    ---------

    “This trip by Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua reaffirms why the Obama administration’s lack of action regarding the undemocratic and fraudulent measures taken by the Ortega regime in the last election in Nicaragua are not only misguided, but could pose a threat to our national security as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is given a warm welcome in our backyard,” Florida Congressman David Rivera (R), of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Monitor.

    Late last year, former Costa Rican Ambassador Jaime Daremblum testified before a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Iran is using Nicaragua to establish a “strategic presence” close to the United States’ borders, just like the US has military troops stationed in the Middle East in close proximity to Iran.

    Those fuckers have us surrounded. How will we ever manage to survive this overwhelming existential threat? We're doomed.

  • ||

    "Late last year, former Costa Rican Ambassador Jaime Daremblum testified before a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Iran is using Nicaragua to establish a “strategic presence” close to the United States’ borders"

    ROFL. I fucking DARE them to try something. Their little caliphate will take all of two seconds to grind to dust. What sort of "strategic presence" could this third-world shithole possibly establish?

    "“This trip by Ahmadinejad to Nicaragua reaffirms why the Obama administration’s lack of action regarding the undemocratic and fraudulent measures taken by the Ortega regime in the last election in Nicaragua are not only misguided, but could pose a threat to our national security as a State Sponsor of Terrorism is given a warm welcome in our backyard,” Florida Congressman David Rivera (R), of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Monitor."

    Am I the only one that can't muster a single fuck to give about the machinations of decrepit Latin American banana republics?

  • Spartacus||

    The Costa Ricans are worried about Costa Rica, and looking for some protection. Not having an army or militia will do that to you.

    Ortega is a Friend of Castro and as such will always be sure to generate plenty of derp among Florida's congresscritters, for any reason whatsoever.

  • ||

    OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hfpt4sxpPo

    Cut-off occurs, Paul invites for a finish

  • r256||

    Wow, he actually responded to a concern and the first responder didn't get attacked or harassed by "security"? The other candidates certainly can't do any better.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement