Conservatives

Ron Paul Rocks CPAC! Carping by Krauthammer Ensues

|

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the best-selling author and libertarian standard-bearer who provided the only actually unique contribution to the 2008 presidential campaign, killed at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual right-of-center confab noteworthy this year for its being boyotted by social cons such as Jim DeMint and the folks at Heritage Foundaton due to the inclusion of the gay group GOProud.

Take a deep breath after reading that Faulknerian intro and then check out these snippets from a glowing CNN (yep) report:

Easily garnering the most enthusiastic applause of the day, Paul advocated for a complete governmental retreat in every realm of society.

"We've had way too much bipartisanship for about 60 years," said Paul, in comments that drew one of many standing ovations during the 25-minute speech. "It's the bipartisanship of the welfare system, the warfare system…it all goes through with support from both parties. "

"There is truly a revolution going on in this country. We live in a time where we don't just need a change in attitude and a change in ideas," Paul also said. "We need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about. "

Paul, who ran a quixotic presidential bid in 2008 that caught fire with many fiscal conservatives and libertarians, added the crisis in Egypt is further proof American needs to disentangle from its foreign engagements.

"We need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, not only in Egypt, but around the world," he said. "The people don't like us propping up our dictators no more than we would like it if a foreign country propped up a dictator here."

Paul was the winner of the straw poll here last year, and, judging by the reception of the over-capacity crowd, is a favorite to win again. This year's straw poll will be closely watched given the annual event has become an early testing ground for potential GOP presidential candidates.

More here.

Fuel for the fire: Last night on Fox News, Charles Krauthammer dismissed CPAC as fringey precisely because Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll last year! And, to be fair, because The Donald Trump spoke there this year.

Reason on CPAC here.

Check out Reason.tv's CPAC with these two videos:

Advertisement

NEXT: Just Trust Us. It's Bad.

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.

  1. Good morning, Reason!

    1. shut up you muslim bigot. Miss “muslims and other brown people don’t want liberty.”

      1. Not all Muslims are brown. Historically, those of the Muslim faith have been rather hostile to the concepts of liberty and autonomy.

        1. Historically, those of the Christian faith have been rather hostile to the concepts of liberty and autonomy.

          1. Who is the more hostile to liberty and autonomy now?

            1. Well, if I were Muslim I might point out Christianty’s 700 year head start…

              Then I’d call for a fatwa on you 😉

              1. In the here and the now, I would expect that. It’s not the head start, it’s the finish. So far in the race, Christianity is much more in line with liberty and autonomy than Islam will ever be.

                And I would also expect such a vindictive action from a central planning worshiper. I’m just surprised you would use a agent of theism when your god is secular, i.e. The State.

                1. Someone needs to learn about emoticons…

                  1. I know the emoticons well; I’m allergic to smug, sugar. 😉

                    1. I was just a boy when the infidels came to my village in their Blackhawk helicopters. The infidels fired at the oil fields and they lit up like the eyes of Allah. Burning oil rained down from the sky and cooked everything it touched. I could only hide myself and cry as my goats were consumed by the fiery black liquid death. In the midst of the chaos, I could swear that I heard my goats screaming for help. As quickly as they had come, the infidels were gone. It was on that day I put a jihad on them. And if you don’t believe it, then you’d better kill me now, because I’ll put a jihad on you, too.

                    2. They were bringing peace, liberty, and democracy. In rocket form.

                    3. AMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!! COMING AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHER FUCKING DAY YEAH!!!!

                    4. Are you talking about the first Gulf War? IIRC, it was the Iraqis who set fire to their oil fields, not us.

                    5. It was a reference to Team America.

                2. Christianity is essentially dead as a political force in Western society. Yes, most Westerners check a box next to the word but voting activity is almost entirely based on secular concerns. It’s simply not plausible to call the West “Christian” in the same way one would call the Middle East Muslim.

                  Oh, and by the way, the rise of democracy and liberty in the West has occured during the same era as the decline and fall of Christianity as a political force.

                  1. Not Really.

                3. Christianity is based on human sacrifice. There is also cannibalism since some Christians believe when they take the Sacrament they are LITERALLY consuming the blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. The Catholics, who were the only game in town before the Reformation, believe that you must blindly follow the edicts of the Pope and that the only way to salvation is through the priesthood. Not big on liberty and autonomy.

                  1. Whattadick

                    1. goddamn threaded comments…that was aimed at IceTrey. For, you know, being a prick just because.

          2. Christianity has gone through an enlightenment. Islam has yet to do that and it can be argued they won’t ever, since it would be tampering with “the direct word of god”, which is what the quran is regarded to be.

            Despite all of this, i would argue that those of the Christian faith are still rather hostile to concepts of liberty (bar the exception here and there). Sure, they like *some* liberties, but in that they don’t differ from Trotskyists.

            Of course, all of this only matters if the facts about the Islamic world and the Islamic faith are negated through the use of the Tu Quoque fallacy by simply mentioning Christians as if that makes the state of liberty in islamic communities and less wretched.
            They aren’t and it doesn’t.

            1. Well, modern democracies and republics developed in states that were (and are, though the level of devotion is less now) heavily Christian.

              On the Islam issue, I argue that it’s much harder to undergo a reformation in Islam because it is so decentralized (especially in sunni Islam) by nature. However, I’m hopeful that after generations of Muslims living in the West, the ideas of religious freedom and separation of church and state will eventually permeate.

              1. Unlikely, as the imposition of Sharia law in these Western countries has been rising subtly.

                Impossible to separate the theism from a theocracy.

                Turkey is a noted exception, but they had to go balls to the wall secular and quite forcefully at that; time will tell if it tenable and sustaining.

                1. What sharia law in western countries?

                    1. Religious arbitration courts of other faiths exist in the U.S. If people wish to willingly have civil disputes handled by religious courts of their choosing and both parties agree, then what is the issue?

                      The existence of rabbinical arbitration courts in the US does not mean that Toranic law is being imposed on the US.

                      For example:
                      http://www.bethdin.org/services.asp

                      From the article you linked to, “Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act. “

                2. Christianity was easier to “liberalize” because it is, at heart, a liberal doctrine.

                  If you take the words of Jesus literally, you’ll never lay a hand on anyone else.

                  Judaism and Islam, however, have mass murderers as prophets. Thus, it’s a lot harder to preach non-violence and tolerance

                  1. “If you take the words of Jesus literally, you’ll never lay a hand on anyone else.”

                    If you ‘take the words of junior literally’, you’re a fool.
                    There never was a “Jesus”; nor were there ever the words of same.

                  2. Christianity was easier to “liberalize” because it is, at heart, a liberal doctrine.

                    If you take the words of Jesus literally, you’ll never lay a hand on anyone else.

                    The difference is more fundamental than that.

                    Jesus said that “My kingdom is not of this world”. and “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”.

                    Christianity is about individual behavior and responsibility superseding state authority.

                    Islam is a fusion of state and religion. Sharia is all about the supremacy of the community over individual liberty.

                  3. I follow Jesus by using drones instead of hands.

              2. On the Islam issue, I argue that it’s much harder to undergo a reformation in Islam because it is so decentralized

                The enlightenment era changes in christianity/government came from the decentralized churches. It was the Catholic countries. And the anglicans (not wholly) were on the wrong side of the English Civil War.

                1. Right, but it was clear what they were breaking away from. There’s no central authority in islam against which to address your grievances. You follow another ayatollah or imam.

                  1. Change is HARDER in a religion with a central authority. There is much more diversity among Protestants because there is no central governing agency laying down dogma.

                    1. Change is HARDER in a religion with a central authority.

                      Ever heard of the Gregorian calendar? It took the Protestant countries 150 years or more to finally get with the program even though it was obvious to everyone the Julian calendar was broken.

                      Quite often, decentralization leads to a bunch of petty tyrants who are even more resistant to change in their own little fiefdom than a single leader of a giant empire would be, and that’s exactly what happened after the Reformation.

                    2. Tulpa’s right. One centralized emperor does have an easier time imposing changes on his subjects, whatever his idea of positive change happens to be.

                      It’s also way easier for grassroots campaigns to make a difference in their homelands. Specifically they often change from living human beings into cadavers occupying shallow mass graves.

      2. I heard a guy on NPR the other day discussing Egypt say that no Arab nation has been able to define its own borders and government free from colonial fiat (both the initial drawing of the national boundaries and the subsequent assumptions of power by militaries created by the colonial powers). Is that true?

        1. No. That makes no sense as defined borders would be useless for large swaths of nomadic tribes. Fluid borders were defined by rather grisly means, pioneered by Muhammed and further accentuated by later devotees such as Saladin.

          1. Whereas Mohammed’s European contemporaries were settling border disputes over tea and crumpets, right Mr Immunity?

            1. Sometimes by war, sometimes by tea and crumpets, always detrimental and arbitrary in result.

        2. That’s pretty true – belligerent big government imperialists pig-dogs like Churchill, Winston were allowed to scribble on maps during alcoholic blackouts and thus we ended up with very silly very deadly borders in places like the ME, North Africa and Pakistan/Afghanistan

          1. “Pakistan/Afghanistan”

            The Durand line makes perfect sense for what it was trying to achieve – a split up and remixed buffer zone between the Russian and British empires.

            1. How does one define the “correct” borders? Are the colonial borders any less correct than those drawn and redrawn and redrawn through endless tribal warfare? If we were to throw away colonial borders in favor of something realistically reflecting brute force in the region, Egypt will need to hand the Sinai back to Israel, Lebanon will cease to exist, and Saudi Arabia would be a no-man’s land punctuated by a few cities. Is that better/more fair/etc.?

        3. Well, yes and no. A lot of the national borders in the Middle East are those of the old Ottoman Empire political divisions.

      3. …Muslims can be any color. Google the word “convert”.

        Second… yeah, some Christians suck. But how many Christians lop off womens’ clits, or beat them to death with rocks?

        Third… go fuck yerself.

    2. I predict uncivil off-topicness.

  2. I thought it was the best delivered speech I’ve seen him give. He seemed a lot more energetic than I’ve seen him too. Not bad for a 75 year old.

    1. It wasn’t a “speech”, but did you see him on the Morton Downey Jr show in 1988?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k

      1. The man has been consistent all of these years. The idiots have changed like falling leaves, but Paul’s ideas have stood the test of time.

      2. That was painful. He sounds like Don Knotts.

        1. Yeah, and that Sliwa cunt sounds like my ex-girlfriend

          Not this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yqru5UXWGY

      3. Why the hell would anyone have subjected themselves to that buffoon?

        1. The same reason they would subject themselves to “Crossfire”.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc

          I live in South Jersey and would get WWOR 9 on cable. I used to love that show. It was like watching a train wreck. He and his guests were serious, but me and my friends would nearly piss ourselves laughing them.

      4. Ouch. Why did I watch that?

        Although I did like the caption, “Morton Downey, Jr. – Dumbass”

  3. Can Ron Paul Trump critics in 2012?

    Thomas J. Whalen
    Professor of Social Science, Boston University :

    Ron Paul would make a great Republican presidential candidate?if he was running in 1924. Come to think of it, he does have that dry Calvin Coolidge routine down pat.

    DURRR HURR HURR

    1. Paul/Zombie Calvin 2012.

      Or vice versa.

      1. I might vote for vice/versa.

    2. That entire thing was bad. The whole “arguing with (nonexistent)people who think that Ron Paul could be elected pres” thing is growing tired.

      And how many goddamn “consultants” can you get for one piece. Is ‘consultant’ D.C. speak for unemployed?

      “Here’s some cash Mr. Monkey Screecher consultant man, please screech.”

      1. Is ‘consultant’ D.C. speak for unemployed?

        Yes, as is strategist whenever one of these hacks appears on the idiot box.

        1. Whenever I hear that someone is a strategist I imagine a guy that sits around a small apartment playing mah jong all day; waiting for CNN to call so he can put on his one nice suit and go on the teevee.

          1. Which sounds chillingly like an undertaker doing while completing his or her apprenticeship.

    3. Excerpts from Robert Zelnick, journalism professor:

      Second, people like and respect Paul, but a fistful or two of seasoned pros planning and directing a campaign, he shows no signs of putting together.

      In sum, Ron Paul is a nice guy. It would have been nice were Leo Durocher here too assess his prospects.

  4. I hope Ron Paul doesn’t infect me with his awful optimism again. That was painful last time.

    1. Paul has done remarkably better than his libertarian critics ever imagined, and not all that much worse than his supporters (i’m one of them) thought he would.

      Could you ever have believed in 2008 that we would have Paul and a group of young Misesians in congress, along with a younger Paul in the senate railing against military interventions overseas? Could you have imagined that the Chairman Paul would be hauling the head of the Fed before his committee and that CNN would seriously be discussing the end of the institution?

      1. Catch the fever! CATCH IT!

      2. Chairman Paul

        Where’s the little red editions of End the Fed?

      3. I don’t think you can really dispute that Ron Paul owes his newfound prominence to Obama and Pelosi. If the Dems had been able to restrain themselves from going berserk during the past two years, he’s still unknown outside Truthers, Reasonoids, and insomniacs watching CSPAN-5.

        1. “If the Dems had been able to restrain themselves from going berserk during the past two years, he’s still unknown outside Truthers, Reasonoids, and insomniacs watching CSPAN-5.”

          Uh, sort of forgot the spike in ’08, did you?

          1. That was more of a thumbtack than a spike.

  5. Barack Obama: He inspires and invigorates the liberal base and they can not understand why everyone else doesn’t see it and like him.
    Sarah Palin: She inspires and invigorates the conservative base and they can not understand why everyone else doesn’t see it and like her.
    Ron Paul: He inspires and invigorates the libertarian base and they can not understand why everyone else doesn’t see it and like him.
    Whatever group you are in, you think the other two groups are fools who don’t understand what needs to be done to fix this country.

    1. Two of those groups are wrong.

      1. Two of those groups are wrong to every group, that is the problem. The people in each group can not see how bad their candidate is.
        I wouldn’t mind seeing a Paul/McMillan ticket.
        http://bit.ly/fDzWMv

        1. No, Im not talking about what they think. Two (or possible more) or those groups are WRONG. Factually.

        2. What about McMillan/Wife?

    2. Yeah, but the libertarian group is the group that is right about the other two groups.

      1. To give them their proper due, though, each of the other two groups is half right.

    3. Paul/Palin will preside over the Death of the American Empire. You pathetic “free markets” will crumble under the might of Glorious Central Planning. When was the last time America built a dam?

      1. This is mighty lame trolling.

        1. No it’s not!

      2. You pathetic “free markets” will crumble under the might of Glorious Central Planning.

        Backwards. Central planning was a failure before it “allowed” free markets. Without such markets to feed from, central planning will fail.

        Now CP’s just a jobs and money scam, same as it ever was – but it can’t hide anymore.

    4. That’s false on both the Palin and Paul fronts. Conservatives love Palin precisely because liberals hate her, and I don’t think they’re incredulous at all about why they hate her.

      Paul’s fans also understand that people don’t like him because they’re attached to their favorite government handouts.

      1. And everyone but “No Labels” knows why certain people hate Obama.

    5. “Sarah Palin: She inspires and invigorates the conservative base and they can not understand why everyone else doesn’t see it and like her.”

      It’s more like some of us can not understand why people lose their goddamned minds and attack her family at the mere mention of her existence, and have done so since day one.

  6. remember
    they hate us for our ‘freedoms’

  7. The speech seemed to be aimed directly at the heart of the GOP establishment.

    He’s not going to make any friends with the GOP leadership doing that.

    1. They already do not like him, the least he can do is appeal to the anti-establishment mood in that party.

      I wish we had some of that in the party I tend to favor to be honest. But right now we don’t. I think John was right the other day, liberals need their own tea party to make Democratic pols match the liberal base’s position on things like the WOD.

      1. They already have it. It’s called The Permanent Underclass*.

        * Which progressives created, maintained, and expanded.

        1. WTF? I guess someone needs me to repost the chart showing that pre-Great Society 50% of blacks and 22% of whites were under the poverty line while shortly after those numbers were closer to 20-25 and 10%…

          1. I’m familiar with that voodoo; theft and redistribution on a national scale, coupled with redefining “poverty” made that hokum possible.

            Same thing happens today: increase the number of of those in poverty by merely redefining it, a common trick employed by both sides of the aisle.

            1. So that’s where the Bernank learned how to calculate CPI and GDP.

          2. So you’re saying that the only possible cause of growing prosperity are the acts of liberal politicians, and not technological progress and the ability of capitalism to overcome all the hurdles modern liberalism puts in its path?

      2. liberals need their own tea party

        Nutroots?

        Problem is the hardcore base is socialist and the democrat politician want to keep getting elected.

        1. I submit the lack of enthusiasm from Obama’s base after he followed an almost exclusively economically liberal agenda demonstrates that a good chunk of his base cares more about social liberalism issues, which the Dems have been dismal on for decades.

          1. Perhaps some of that base is disappointed that the economy still sucks and unemployment is hovering around 10%, despite supporting the actual policies that have caused the malaise?

            That, and continuing policies against most social freedoms, which advocacy for social freedom is the thing that modern liberals purport to be good at, and their politicians are decidedly bad at?

          2. His backing down on the public option and the Bush tax cuts are the choices he’s been most heavily criticized by liberals for.

            There’s been barely a whisper about Gitmo, the continuing land wars in Asia, the med MJ betrayal, etc.

            1. There’s been barely a whisper about Gitmo…

              1. WTF? Half the comment disappeared.

                9/11!!!!! Eleventy!!!!

                There can’t be any whispers, because that might interfere with the cash mining operation that results from ‘your guy’ being in charge.

      3. No, the non crazies from the democrats and the non crazies from the republicans need to join up. I bet they have more in common then they think.

        1. Like standing alone in the corner at parties?

      4. …liberals need their own tea party to make Democratic pols match the liberal base’s position…

        In my opinion, the only person “qualified” to do that, is Dennis Kucinich.

        And regarding the WOD, RP and Gary Johnson have beat you to it. Here’s Johnson’s speech:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

        As far as I’m concerned, the liberal Democrats have lost the “moral” high-ground regarding personal freedoms. They are full of “concerned mothers”. Their current desire to control personal behavior, is similar to the Christian Conservative’s desire to control it in the 80s.

        1. Their current desire to control personal behavior, is similar to the Christian Conservative’s desire to control it in the 80s.

          Christian conservatives are still at it (see CPAC boycott).

          The left’s expansion into personal control follows what is obviously expansion of government. Why? Because personal control is profitable.

          1. Christian conservatives are still at it (see CPAC boycott).

            They always will be, but their voice doesn’t seem as loud. At least not as loud as the voice to ban Happy Meals and Four Loco.

      5. What Whipple said… Kucinich is the only person in the Dem Party with a smattering of what remains of Leftist principles.

        1. Well, there is Bernie Sanders….

          1. Backstabber Bernie??????? I think he lost credibility even with the Left after that little audit the fed stunt.

      6. MNG: “Liberals need their own tea party to make Democratic pols match the liberal base’s position on things like the WOD.”

        But what’s your message going to be? The libertarians/conservatives have the movement because we have the ideas. As your side dominanted during the 20th century, our side was developing the intellectual arguments against it.

        Face it. Your side peaked in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Since then, your side has remained stuck in the mire of your own discredited ideas. Essentially, you guys are still all about Marx but even most liberals these days will admit socialism doesn’t work.

        The libertarian/conservative movement is ascendant. It’s only a matter for time. The Republicans may pick a shitty person to run against Obama in 2012 but it’s coming. We are the reaction to your sides excesses. The cycle is inevitable in a dynamic society. Like the Renaissance led to the Reformation and the Reformation to the Enlightment, the Enlightment to the Romantic Period, history keeps marching on. It’s our turn now.

    2. It was classic Ron Paul — no danger of him pandering to anyone who doesn’t already agree with him.

      Ron Paul: I’m against unconstitutional wars.

      CPAC conservatives: Boo!

      Ron Paul: We wasted 70 billion on foreign aid to Egypt, and all we got was instability and a deposed dictator.

      CPAC conservatives: USA! USA! USA!

      Ron Paul: And the Mubarek family absconded with 40 billion of that money to their Swiss bank accounts. Your money.

      CPAC conservatives: Uhhhhh….

  8. What can one say? Paul is the most refreshingly principled pol around these days. His son has shown me some things too.

    I hate, hate, hate the smarmy punditry doing the “horse race” thing in politics, especially in primaries. Economists have demonstrated that pretty much EVERY vote is “thrown away” in the sense that one vote is not going to decide many elections. This is even more true in a primary. People should vote their preference especially in a primary and forget all the “well my vote is needed for this lesser of two evils to put him over” stuff. It’s stupid. If Paul matches your views more than any other candidate, you’d be silly not to vote for him.

    1. > “What can one say?”

      That Ron Paul — or any rigidly Libertarian politician — has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 or any foreseeable year, that’s what.

      As much of a hard-on as his rhetoric gives to the dogmatic Libertarians at Reason and elsewhere (and as much of it with which I might agree), Libertarian candidates in presidential elections garner less than 1% of the votes. Routinely.

      And yes, CPAC IS fringe — it has virtually no impact on who the Republicans actually nominate.

      1. Paul is not rigidly libertarian-see his position on immigration for example. And he did considerably better than 1% of the vote in the last GOP nomination process.

        1. A few years ago, when interviewed by Glenn Beck, he advocated tariffs as a means for funding the federal government in lieu of the income tax.

          He’s not a libertarian – he’s a paleoconservative with an anarcho-capitalist streak; Pat Buchanan crossed with Murray Rothbard. The fact that he’s considered a libertarian standard bearer says a lot about how little standards matter in politics.

          1. Whom would you pick in a strict, no-third-party, two-way race, Rogue: Ron Paul, or Bernie Sanders?

          2. He’s not a libertarian – he’s a paleoconservative with an anarcho-capitalist streak

            You say that like it’s a bad thing.

          3. What are you talking about? I don’t know how you could have an anarcho-capitalist streak and be anti-immigration. He’s as libertarian as the pop version peddled here at Reason is, even if it doesn’t mesh perfectly.

            1. DRINK!

      2. You’re confusing libertarianism with the Libertarian Party. A candidate who held about 70% of the doctrinal libertarian positions would do far better than the nutjobs who the LP typically runs.

    2. The “wasted vote” idea is much LESS valid in the primaries. Far fewer people are voting, so minority opinions can have far more weight. If 5% of the population supports Ron Paul and votes in the general election, he would get 10% of the vote. If they all voted in the GOP primary, he would 50% of the vote and be the nominee. But people would rather believe that they are powerless, I guess, like an elephant trained from birth that it can’t pull a small wooden stake out of the ground when it is tied up.

  9. Dear Charles Krauthammer:

    Shut the fuck up.

    Set yourself on fire and roll down the steps of the Supreme Court building.

    1. I loved Red Dragon!

  10. Ron Paul — or any rigidly Libertarian politician — has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2012 or any foreseeable year

    You might think you know what you want, but you don’t. Our intellectual superiors in the media, who know much better than we what’s good for us, will pooh-pooh anybody who does not see the government as beneficent savior and protector of the feebleminded sheep who populate the land.

    If Bloomberg announced a run for the Presidency, the media would be only too happy to explain in great detail why such a man is “exactly what this country needs” all day, every day, until the polls close.

  11. What percentage of the federal budget is foreign aid? I don’t see the harm in using foreign aid to promote pro-freedom civil society groups in countries with awful governments? That is not hypocritical, as is supporting foreign dictators. It’s not accurate that all foreign goes to the leaders, and I think that we can focus more on pro-democracy groups

    We’re also technically at war with North Korea still, so I think bases there are justifiable. Japan and Europe are different cases, and I think we can safely withdraw from many of those countries.

    1. We’re also technically at war with North Korea still, so I think bases there are justifiable.

      War? I thought Korea was a “Police Action”. If you have a link to the Declaration of War authorized by the US Congress on North Korea, please post it.

      1. Ok, sure you win. But it is defacto war, which was only halted by an armistice.

        1. Yeah, and. If we pull out of Korea, will the North invade the US, or are our bases there simply to protect our business interests in the South?

          1. South korea is one of our bbigger trading partners yea, but are we of the opinion following with non intereference that we shouldn’t care or it wouldn’t matter.if the worst regime.in the world engulfed south korea?

            1. North Korea could do a lot of destruction on the peninsula, but they couldn’t take over. Despite what we hear, South Korea’s got a better army, to go along with their larger population and vastly bigger economy. If the norks start a war, it’s out of desperation or stupidity, because it will likely be the end of their regime.

              1. I don’t think China will take to kindly to Nork wars either.

                1. They did in 1953.

              2. “Despite what we hear, South Korea’s got a better army,”

                And they get to *EAT*!

    2. Don’t you understand that we can put marines on the ground anywhere on earth with armor and air support within 48 hrs? We don’t need permanent bases anywhere exept in the US.

      1. We can’t put boots on the ground in a landlocked country without permission from at least one of their neighbors…

        1. What does this have to do with permanent bases in foreign territory? You can’t have a foreign base without permission from that country. Or something. Did the U.S. really ask permission for those? When it comes down to it… fuck permission.

        1. We could nuke em, though. Kinda makes the rest irrelevant in terms of existential threats

    3. Honestly, Esteban, the problem with foreign aide is one of unintended consequences. It sounds nice to fund pro-democracy groups under authoritarian regimes in theory. But in practice, every anti-government group that the US has funded has either become a radical terrorist group or actually seized power and become authoritarian thugs themselves.

      1. Serious non-sarcastic question: Which non-military anti government groups that we’ve funded have become radical terrorist groups or became authoritarian thugs? I’m not great with Latin American history, there’s probably something there.

        1. Not sure what you mean by non-military. Do you mean the times the US paid militant groups that had nothing to do with the national army, or times the US supported non-violent resistance groups?

          1. In either case, the question remains why the US government should be support any foreign groups of any kind.

            If you support a particular pro-democracy group in egypt or iran or kentucky, feel free to cut them a check. But involving the US government brings a lot of undesirable baggage along.

            1. Small arms is the best kind of foreign aid we can provide. Private groups handle the food better but I don’t expect Christian missionaries to run guns.

    4. Or we could lower taxes and let individual Americans decide whether they want to support pro-democracy foreign groups.

    5. Funds we send to the government of another country diminish the spending power of the citizens of that country and diminishes their control over their own government’s spending. Foreign aid is a hostile act.

      1. I’m not talking about sending money to governments though.

    6. While your intention is noble, foreign aid is almost guaranteed to corrupt the system you intend to help and entrench people in power.

    7. “We’re also technically at war with North Korea still, so I think bases there are justifiable.”

      That’s exactly why the U.S. has bases in Japan.

  12. I like Ron Paul – I’ll vote for the guy in the primary if he runs but he ain’t going to win the nomination and frankly I wouldn’t want him to – his best chance for affecting real change is to make libertarians a real electoral force that must be dealt with and taken seriously from within the GOP beyond the empty libertarian rhetoric we hear big government republicans spew from time to time in speeches. he can do that not necessarily by winning the nomination which he wouldn’t be allowed to do but by cloning as many Ron Paul republicans at the state and local level as he can and helping to ensure a lot of them get elected and work their way into the GOP machinery – that will be far more effective in the long run than winning the nomination and getting 30$% of the national vote.

    1. Ron Paul wins nomination by one vote. Guy who didn’t want him to win the nomination voted for him anyway.

      1. Jawbreaker sucked.

  13. I don’t see the harm in using foreign aid to promote pro-freedom civil society groups in countries with awful governments?

    That what George Bush, senior, said as he funneled money to Saddam Hussein.

    1. Well, then that’s the opposite of what I said should happen, isn’t it? I’m not talking about military aid. For example, George the lesser sent $45 million to Egyptian pro-democracy civil society groups, and Obama halved that.

      http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…..egypt.html

      1. It’s just not good policy. Our “freedom fighters” may qualify as terrorists to others.

        It’s all about the Golden Rule. Would we want foreign governments funding insurgent groups in the United States?

  14. When the fuck did libertarians take over the republican party?

    1. While you were wanking off to pictures of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman.

    2. The important thing is that Ron Paul’s good showings at CPAC tell politicians what’s important these days to conservative activists.

      1. Republicans already know what’s important: fighting Democrat legislation until they agree to cut $20 from the spending projections, and keeping teh gay/muslim alliance from conquering the country.

        1. Right fuckin’ on!

  15. Somehow they still have to call his top-five 2008 run “quixotic.” What does that make the failed efforts by Giuliani and Thompson?

    1. >What does that make the failed efforts by Giuliani and Thompson?

      Pathetic.

      -jcr

  16. Is it just me or does that Moynihan guy seem like he’s related to Crispin Glover?

    1. Be careful, he can kick, Dave.

  17. If I was alive today, I would have personally kicked the Heritage Foundation out of CPAC myself for being reactionary twats.

    The young people have more in common with me than they do George Bush.

  18. Amnesia lyrics
    for reasons untold born a body mass no excuse for
    intolerable kick set in glass grasp a moment shattered
    a lock on the door scraping demon trapped resides
    starving for freedom all my strength to keep inside
    tear it down
    if I could move heaven or hell I would
    to summon heads rush all perception void and meaningless
    anti fathoms life in spite of it negate all feeling fractured
    mocked deplore naming reverse remote viewing
    empathic lesion surrounding the guilt cannot deny
    tear it down a process to describe
    whatever truth means nothing
    when adding no results times a shallow digging through
    the mud thrown out so expectable intentions not up front
    and the shit that never faced reflects the sliver
    looped a flaw rotates forever unresolved
    tear it down

  19. I think the name “krauthammer” is belligerent towards our friends in Germany. Isn’t it time to let bygones be bygones?

    Change your name, Charlie. Don’t be an asshole.

    -jcr

  20. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the best-selling author and libertarian standard-bearer AND RACE BAITING ASSHOLE. Why doesn’t anybody mention those newsletters anymore? How does this disgusting piece of shit get a pass on publishing a racist newsletter for ten fucking years???

    1. Max, go back to your boy Erikson at Redstate, he needs some service from you.

      1. Notice how any controversial “race” incident, no matter how insignificant, drowns out all other issues for lefties?

        Ron Paul, who during the Republican debates spoke highly of Obama, who voted against DADT, who supported the right of Muslims to build a Mosque in Manhattan, is clearly a racist bigot.

        Those newsletters didn’t even say anything outside the realm of reasonability. They were nasty and blunt, but it wasn’t friggin’ Mein Kempf

        1. Max believes Paul wrote the “racist” screeds. Gullible fuckwits believe stupid shit.

          1. Paul’s “racist” letters = Obama’s birth certificate.

        2. Without race the Democratic party wouldn’t exist. Once 95% of black people finally realize Republicans aren’t going to eat their babies if they didn’t keep voting Dem, the donkeys will go the way of the Whigs.

          1. I can’t rmember now where I saw them, but those newsletters were indeed very racist. Didn’t Ron Paul claim he didn’t know about the racist content? That’s unbelievable on the face of it. Surely he sometimes looked at a newsletter that came out under his name. It is a bit amazing that he seems to be getting a pass on it. Either the press is really synpathetic to him, or he’s so marginal, it doesn’t matter.

            1. He’s not getting a pass on it. It was brought up in the 2008 campaign repeatedly.

              The issue isn’t whether or not he wrote the newsletters or even if he knew about them. The real issue is if he is indeed a racist. Since every single one of his policy positions suggests that he is not I think it’s a pretty stale story at this point.

    2. “Why doesn’t anybody mention those newsletters anymore?”

      Strange how embarrassing newsletters from many years back (and they did go out over Paul’s signature) continue to dominate asshole’s thoughts, while Teddy continued to get elected in MA after murdering (I’ve been corrected; probably “man slaughtering” a woman.
      Strange indeed; think it might have to do with asshole’s politics?

      1. Racism is worse than murder to these people.

        1. Don’t forget the black-lynching Grand Kleagle, the Honorable Robt Byrd.

    3. on pan raouls kok.

  21. It would take about 6 months for the gov to assassinate him if he won the presidential election

    1. Yes, planes have been known to fly into mountains for no reason. Just ask Ron Brown. Oh wait….

      1. There was a reason.

      2. Just like Malcolm X was killed by a “disenfranchised black muslim”, I’m sure Paul will be killed by a “frustrated anarchist”

        1. “frustrated anarchist”

          Is there any other kind?

  22. If Lemmy Kilmister were a US citizen, I bet he’d vote for Ron Paul.

    http://www.lemmymovie.com

    1. I recorded that off of Palladium last night, is it as fantastic as I’m imagining it probably is?

  23. Ron Paul,

    Imma happy for you, but GARY JOHNSON IS THE BEST LIBERTARIAN AT CPAC OF ALL TIME!!!

    BEST LIBERTARIAN AT CPAC OF ALL TIME!!!!!!

    1. You’re still a jack-ass.

  24. Admit it–Krauthammer is a hoot once he gets rolling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.