Economics

Ron Paul: Less Lonely These Days

Libertarianism is now on the political agenda.

|

The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.

"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."

Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.

"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So … I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."

Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.

"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"

The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.

"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. … We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else … grab(s) the moral high ground."

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself—don't ask the government for anything."

The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research, or defense.

Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax—essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.

In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.

"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that … use fear to intimidate."

A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.

"They're probably going to … (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."

But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.

"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. … The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government—you cannot have these deficits—if you don't have the Fed."

We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.

He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"

Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing … ."

Yet he's a realist: "I think … our problems are going to get worse … before we correct them."

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: TSA Continues to Half-Defend "Cookie Cutter" Screening Procedures

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. I’m wondering if the MSM and establishment politicos are going to use the same playbook as last time he ran.

    1. Is this a spoof?

      1. I guess we’re all spoofs now.

        1. I’m Spoofacus!

          Actually, I’m not, but I couldn’t resist.

        2. Reason needs trip codes?

    2. You mean ignore him, then laugh at him, then fight him, and then (hopefully) he wins?

      1. He won’t! And I say this as a supporter!

        It will take years to turn this ship.

        1. I thought the ship was sinking?

          1. Hey…I heard that the “Most Interesting Man in the World” has a wallet made of your skin.

          2. Maybe the ship is a submarine?

  2. He added: “You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there’s nobody likely to attack us. Who’s going to invade this country?”

    Burn the witch!

    1. Who’s going to invade this country?

      (manning up)

      We will!

      1. This will be fun.

        1. They’ll hit South Beach first. No one will care until they reach Orlando. Then Walt Disney’s head will rise up and smite them.

  3. People want change. They don’t want business as usual. They know that there are some fundamental flaws in the system. Well, here’s a real alternative to the failed status quo. If Paul is a little too odd, then vote for Johnson.

    Speaking of replacing consumer protection regulation with the tort system, I agree, but I also think massive court (not just tort!) reform is needed at the state and federal levels for that to work. The system is geared almost solely to rewarding the attorneys at the expense of the parties and society at large. Until that’s fixed, running to court to deal with nuisances and negligence won’t be cost-effective.

    1. Change the court system? Woah! You are talking sense. We cannot have any of that. Please provide your contact info. I am not sure which will happen but you will get a knock on your door. Either twos with dark glasses, or two lawyers with dark blackberries.

      If I was you I’d be praying for the thugs, not the lawyers.

      1. They’ll never find me. I’m disguised as an attorney.

  4. The interstate highways are actually a defense project. Ike saw how Hitler could move his armies on the autobahn, and wanted the same for America. Ike had to mobilize troops over dirt, and often mud, roads in NW Europe.

    1. Ike led a convoy from the East Coast to the West Coast in the 20s. It took him over 2 months to get across America. That was the real impetus for the IHS.

    2. True–one wonders why the benefits of defending against armed invaders are among the only ones we’re entitled to. Are there not forces, other than aggressive foreign armies, that act against human freedom in the world? Natural disasters, market failures, etc.?

      1. I was under the impression the president was to be concerned with this country first.

      2. “Natural disasters, market failures, etc.?”

        What about government failures? Are we entitled to be protected from those? Because they are usually much worse for everyone than what you call “market failures.”

        1. Tony confuses government failures with market failures. The fact that the cable company has a monopoly is a market failure in his mind.

          1. Might be……depends on how they came to be a monopoly.

            1. Well sure, theoretically. But in real life every cable monopoly got there through government.

              1. Point taken.

              2. That’s why the word monopoly has a negative reputation. Because monopolies are bad when they are forced by government. A free market monopoly would be great for everyone…if a company could provide such a service that it eliminates all its competitors just by offering a superior service or price than I would not have any complaints.

          2. Tony can rarely figure which end to use when he’s brushing his teeth. And I’m not talking about the toothbrush.

          3. Well, when the market can do no wrong by definition…

      3. “Are there not forces, other than aggressive foreign armies, that act against human freedom in the world?”

        Are you just mad that they defunded SETI?

      4. No? Human freedom is not merely a synonym for human well-being. For people that make poor choices, freedom may be worse, since they can’t offload the consequences of their mistakes on innocents.

        1. How is a hurricane the result of poor choices?

          1. Tony|5.12.11 @ 3:05PM|#
            “How is a hurricane the result of poor choices?”

            The hurricane isn’t; the results are. No one cares about hurricanes.

            1. I just fail to see the fundamental difference between armed invasion and a natural disaster when it comes to government’s role. Don’t say “because the constitution sanctions one role and not the other.”

              1. Tony|5.12.11 @ 4:28PM|#
                “I just fail to see the fundamental difference between armed invasion and a natural disaster when it comes to government’s role.”

                Your willful ignorance it no my problem.

              2. That would kind of negate your argument, huh?

              3. Fair point. The state sucks at everything else. Why do we presume its good at courts and defense? Let’s just do away with it altogether.

          2. No, but living in Florida in an insufficiently built house is.

          3. Don’t build your house below sea level in a swamp. Make that choice and hurricanes are much less of a problem.

            1. And if you’re the child of someone who chose to live there?

              1. Then you have shitty parents? Sorry, still not my (taxpayer) problem. I will gladly contribute to a charity to assist you after a crisis.

              2. Tony|5.12.11 @ 5:46PM|#
                “And if you’re the child of someone who chose to live there?”

                Yep, miserable parents are a problem. But fortunately, not mine.

                1. And this philosophy is supposed to appeal to people who aren’t themselves children?

                  1. Yes.

            2. Just buy federally subsidized flood Insurance.

        2. Freedom may be worse in the short run and in a narrow context. But freedom is a reality check and teaches. Without it some would/do live in ignorance. Offloading mistakes on others is not a benefit in the long run.

  5. Good luck, Ron.

  6. Don’t read the comments to this article at Townhall. It is eat up with the stupid.

  7. Prediction: If libertarian ideas become more popular and a driving force in an election, a bland GOP candidate will co-opt those themes and then screw us over once elected.

    Somebody put that in the form of a quatrain for me please.

    1. A pious wolf in freedom’s cloak
      Roaming hill and river and dale
      Betrayal by inches, or clean stroke
      All that changes ever is scale

      1. Straight out of Nostradamus, who predicted that Hister would rise to power as a libertarian candidate. Beware the man spouting libertarian values who wears a watch from the Land of the Swiss!

        1. I must away to my Delphic fumes. The all-seeing eye must reopen!

          1. Chew some bay leaves.

        2. You know who else was named Hister…….

        3. Technically, I think Nostradamus was actually warning us about the rise of the hipster, not the rise of the third reich. Sadly, The History Channel does not consider my interpretation of Nostradamus to be accurate enough to warrant appearance on one of their 40,000 nostradamus shows that runs daily.

          1. You may be on to something:

            Beasts wild with hunger shall cross the rivers:
            Most of the fighting shall be close by the Hister,
            It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,
            While the German shall be watching over the infant Rhine.

            I have no idea what this means. Maybe it refers to German hipsters overthrowing some sort of hipster leader? Who is the leader of the hipsters?

            1. Beasts wild with hunger shall cross the rivers:

              Those with cravings for Parliament cigarettes and PBR will cross the rivers of urine located in gentrified urban areas

              Most of the fighting shall be close by the Hister

              These gentrified urban areas will be close to pockets of high crime so that the hipsters can feel daring, thus excusing their tendency towards otherwise dorky and effeminite pursuits

              It shall result in the great one being dragged in an iron cage,

              Eventually, like hippies in the 60’s, the Hipsters will become domesticated, and be dragged into settlement with sane spouses who will reform their dirty ways and convince them to buy luxury SUVs (iron cage)

              While the German shall be watching over the infant Rhine.

              The one remnant from their hipster past will be the ill-conceived lovechild they named Rhine due to their tendancy towards unique and odd but reflexively white names. Rhine will be a latchkey kid raised by an au pair from Germany.

              1. You know your hipsters!

              2. I heart you.

            2. Who is the leader of the hipsters?

              Hipster Hitler of course.

              1. Hipster Hitler

                I wonder if anyone has actually bought any of the ironic tshirts like Vegetaryan or back to the furher.

                Although I do like this one, should be the official LP shirt.

  8. I loved Paul and Johnson in the debates. I agree with Johnson more consistently but Paul was even more fun this time than he was in the last GOP debates.

    1. Its great to have the two there offering two fundamentally different rationales for th libertarian position: Paul with his impassioned first principles approach, and Johnson with his cerebral consequentialist approach. In order for libertarianism to gain broader support throughout the mainstream political culture, both arguments have to be made coherently and consistently because each will appeal to different segments of the population.

      Sadly however, I don’t think either Paul or Johnson were very effective in communicating these positions in the last debate. Paul’s thought process can become a bit chaotic and jumbled at times and I don’t have much faith in him being able to turn it around. He sounds good to us because we know what he stands for and generally agree (at least more than we do any other nationally significant political figure). Johnson I think can turn it around, as I imagine the scale of the stage kinda overwhelmed him a bit at first. But he seems like he is a likeable and smart enough person to adapt. But he really does need to work on his mannerisms, as he comes of off as far too effeminite, and dare I say faggy, for the GOP base (even if his hobbies include ballsy and manly things like climbing mountains that most GOPers couldn’t even ponder).

      1. “even if his hobbies include ballsy and manly things like climbing mountains”

        Does he climb them with a gun in order to shoot animals, cause that might help with the base.

        1. No, but he has season tickets to the tractor pulls so he probably isn’t intellectually sufficient for you, MNG.

        2. Does he climb them with a gun in order to shoot animals, cause that might help with the base.

          No, but he broke his leg during training for Everest and decided not to cast it as the cast wouldn’t be off in time for the climb. Yes, he climbed Everest with a broken leg.

      2. and dare I say faggy

        Insert Idiocracy reference here.

        Sometimes I think the political culture of this country would be better if people had no idea what the people they voted for looked/acted/sounded like. At least then the masses would have to read and debate the ideas rather than get hung up on shit like this. Oh wait, reading is for fags too.

        1. Your shit’s all fucked up and you talk like a fag.

        2. Why do you keep trying to read that word? What r you a fag or somethin?

        3. Sorry, I don’t understand. I can’t read your comment.

      3. Johnson is fine. I would prefer Paul. Johnson is looking to fight the good fight regarding grass – we need to first deal with the $3.6T debt. He needs to be itching to take a buzz saw to the budget.

        1. He’s got a great budget chopping record. And I’m not sure Paul has proposed larger cuts than Johnson has he?

      4. Yeah, they weren’t very effective but they were fun. I wish Johnson would take more moral positions like uncle Ron with the cost/benefit stuff peppered in like this “stop treating individuals like state property, it is wrong and evil to treat others as the slaves to your ends!! Plus it never works out anyways.”

      5. If he’s an improvement over Ron “I want to rip my ears off every time he opens his mouth” Paul he’ll be way ahead of the game.

  9. Rep. Ron Paul, the man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda

    He said, jealously.

  10. I think I’ll vote for Barack Obama. He’s black, and is a great speaker and writer.

    1. And shiny clean!!

      1. And he single-handedly deafeated Osama Bin Laden while raping Hitler and freeing the Slaves!

        1. All while walking on water!

  11. Ron Paul Says He Wouldn’t Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid

    “I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” he said, citing the rules of international law regarding respect for national sovereignty. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

    Will the Paulbearers continue to bitch that no one takes his chances at getting the Republican presidential nomination seriously?

    1. Because when its done this way the wargasm isn’t nearly as satisfying. Lord knows Boobus needs his release!

    2. Ahh beat me to it.

  12. If competition and the tort system were adequate to provide sufficient minimum standards of safety then we wouldn’t have needed the regs in the first place. Not everything that operates outside of what libertarians lecture to everyone about on the proper role of government came about because of a tyrannical socialist conspiracy to oppress people.

    The market doesn’t provide everything people need and want in this world. If you want government to do less, then maybe the market should try harder.

    1. If you’re honest Tony even someone as passionately in love with the state as you would have to admit that the line where the gov….`provide(d) sufficient minimum standards of safety was crossed about 30 years ago.

      Most reasonoids might grumble about this and that but the utter antipathy that many of us feel for guv has to do with the fact that they just don’t get the concepts of “good enough” and “law of diminishing returns”!

      1. It really just comes down to how many human deaths are acceptable. The free market mat calculate that differently than a democratic population. Libertarians should own up to the numbed. You want more people to die because businesses dont have enough freedom to poison people. You’re entitled to that view but you and RP aren’t entitled to make up fairy tale worlds in your head where the numbers dont work out that way because you say so.

        1. Tony…this is a little less coherent than I’ve come to expect from you.

          Breathe…..breathe……try again.

          1. Sorry I’m on lunch and typing on my phone.

            1. Produced by an evil capitalist country, no doubt? Now, feed that sandwich to a starving kid in Africa! Do you have the poor or something?

              1. I don’t hate the poor, I just prefer not to spend too much time around them. Still, I realize it’s in my best interest for there not to be an underclass of miserable or dependent people.

                1. Tony|5.12.11 @ 5:02PM|#
                  “Still, I realize it’s in my best interest for there not to be an underclass of miserable or dependent people.”

                  That’s hard to believe, since you constantly support polices that pretty much guarantee an underclass.

                2. It is in our best interest!

                3. He asked if you HAVE the poor.

                4. “I just prefer not to spend too much time around them.”

                  Poor people are icky.

                  1. they live in clusters and smell like spoiled milk – cartman

        2. It really just comes down to how many human deaths are acceptable. The free market mat calculate that differently than a democratic population. Libertarians should own up to the numbed. You want more people to die because businesses dont have enough freedom to poison people. You’re entitled to that view but you and RP aren’t entitled to make up fairy tale worlds in your head where the numbers dont work out that way because you say so.

          Tony, there are times that you make cogent points, but it is shit like this that makes you lose all credibility. We “want more people to die because businesses dont have enough freedom to poison people”?

          Mother….er, please!

          1. I’m just asking for a little honesty. (That Mises link above just seems to restate RP’s fairy tale assumptions.) If we reduce safety regulations more people will die. If we stopped requiring seat belts, more people will die. It’s just statistical reality.

            So it’s always a balance. We could virtually eliminate traffic deaths by reducing all speed limits to 5 mph. But that’s impractical, so we make the trade-off and allow for what is generally agreed an “acceptable” level of traffic deaths.

            RP wants to say if we stopped requiring seat belts, then car manufacturers would find some magical way to prevent traffic deaths through competition and torts. It’s an entire philosophy based on magical thinking. Either own up to that, or own up to the fact that you are OK with more human death and misery than we currently have.

            1. Yeah, Tony. I think we can say with some certainty, that life in a libertarian world would not be as easy and “safe” as you “believe” it to be now. Said another way, I’ll agree that an animal in the zoo has less to worry about than one in the wild, but which one is really free?

              1. I think that’s a more complicated question than you do. Animals in a zoo are fed regularly, and can live long stress-free lives. That’s some measure of freedom that their wild counterparts don’t have.

                As humans we value things like mobility and meritocracy, and so accept a certain level of risk in our lives. There’s absolutely no reason that risk has to be on the extreme side of things.

                There is a balance to be struck between being caged in protective shells and being left to darwinian forces. Either of those extremes, if you ask me, means treating people like animals.

            2. Tony, we could prevent lots of traffic deaths by outlawing cars. Are you in favor of outlawing cars? Why do you want people to die?

              1. Tony, we could prevent lots of traffic deaths by outlawing cars. Are you in favor of outlawing cars? Why do you want people to die?

                True, we could. I believe I was advocating for striking the right balance between liberty and safety, rather than going to the extreme on either.

                1. “I believe I was advocating for striking the right balance between liberty and safety, rather than going to the extreme on either.”

                  So, Tony, while libertarians presumably ‘want more people to die’ than you, you admit you still want more than zero people to die in car accidents by advocating for a greater than 5mph speed limit.

                  Or perhaps it’s not that libertarians want people to die, they want people to be able to make more choices, even if some of those choices may be more risky than you might choose for yourself.

                  1. Or you could look at it in another, completely valid way: we both like policy that results in people dying. You are just OK with many, many more dying. I don’t see what could be more important a measure.

                    1. Only that correlation doesn’t hold true. NH has no seat belt nor motorcycle helmet laws for adults, yet the fatality rate in vehicle accidents in NH isn’t higher than the other 49 states as a result.

                      http://www.census.gov/compendi…..1s1103.pdf

                    2. Stop confusing Tony with facts! He just floats gross assertions that more people would die without the government running all aspects of their lives and doesn’t have a shred of proof to support them. You’re ruining his moment!

            3. RP wants to say if we stopped requiring seat belts, then car manufacturers would find some magical way to prevent traffic deaths through competition and torts.

              And I’m sure that you believe that the presence of seat belts will allow you to live forever….as long as you never leave your car! Tony you are becoming a caricature of a caricature….nobody would have ever conceived of seat belts had not some functionary in cube 144a somewhere in DC not scribbled something on a napkin.

              It’s an entire philosophy based on magical thinking.

              No more or less magical than your childish belief that human suffering is being eliminated a rate greater than it would be otherwise by the machinations of a parasitic and counterproductive government.

              Either own up to that, or own up to the fact that you are OK with more human death and misery than we currently have.

              No need to dignify this one.

              You’re slipping Tony.

              1. fish,

                All I’m saying is that a car manufacturer’s idea of the acceptable number of traffic deaths might differ from society’s. Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being, not profit for car manufacturers.

                1. But you’re not trusting society….you’re using government as a proxy for society. Not the same thing at all.

                  Now can we get back to the part about me wanting to poison people?

                2. All I’m saying is that a car manufacturer’s idea of the acceptable number of traffic deaths might differ from society’s. Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being, not profit for car manufacturers.

                  Your argument is a false dilemma. Society DOES make such decisions, even without government intervention. You contrive a fantasy world where individuals don’t make decisions to benefit their self-interests, instead willingly following “the corporation”, to their recognizable demise.

                  1. How do individuals decide individually to set safety standards for cars?

                    Individuals have one important tool at their disposal for making society how they want it: their government. You guys want to restrict people’s ability to act collectively. I don’t get why that equals more freedom.

                    1. Individuals have one important tool at their disposal for making society how they want it: their government.

                      Individuals have one important tool at their disposal for making society how they want it: their government That tool is how they choose to spend or direct their personal resources.

                      There…all fixed.

                    2. You guys want to restrict people’s ability to act collectively. I don’t get why that equals more freedom.

                      You’re gay….in California people acted collectively to deny gays the right of free association and as a consequence the disposition of property and the ability to involve a “spouse” in personal matters.

                      That’s how collective action restricts individual freedom.

                    3. ou guys want to restrict people’s ability to act collectively. I don’t get why that equals more freedom.
                      —-

                      Not being forced to live by your standards perhaps?

                3. “Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being…”

                  We beg to differ.

                  1. “Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being…”

                    Excuse me!?

                    1. “Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being…”

                      Are you insane?

                    2. “Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being…”

                      You’re an idiot.

                4. I had my eyes on a Pinto until the government told me I couldn’t buy one. Good thing they stopped me from buying a car prone to explosions.

                5. “Better to trust society, since their interest is human well-being, not profit for car manufacturers.”

                  Is this the same society that just bailed out GM and Chrysler?

            4. So how many dead in industry in ’69? How many in 71? Or even 75?

            5. “That Mises link above just seems to restate RP’s fairy tale assumptions.”

              That’s quite a dismissal of all the material referenced therein. Still, allow me to offer this lagniappe.

            6. RP wants to say if we stopped requiring seat belts, then car manufacturers would find some magical way to prevent traffic deaths through competition and torts. It’s an entire philosophy based on magical thinking.

              Then the safety of our consumer electronics is based on magical thinking.

        3. “It really just comes down to how many human deaths are acceptable.”

          I doubt that’s actually true, even for the most socially progressive among us.

        4. Governments killed more than 100 million people in the last century. By comparison the market is damn near altruistic.

    2. If competition and the tort system were adequate to provide sufficient minimum standards of safety then we wouldn’t have needed the regs in the first place.

      Well, as long as we’re running disingenuous, unfalsifiable arguments: if having a military and nuclear weapons were adequate to provide sufficient minimum standards of security then we wouldn’t have needed to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

    3. provide sufficient minimum standards of safety then we wouldn’t have needed the regs in the first place
      —–

      Right. Politicians would never inject regulations granting more government authority just for the sake of increased authority. Nope, never.

      All those failures of regulations to prevent what the regulations are claimed to exist to prevent just means more regulations are needed.

      /Sarcasm

  13. The greatest part about a Ron Paul presidency would be that we’d all get jobs in the administration since he’d have more vacancies to fill than there are libertarians in the Milky Way.

    1. Even though I like the guy, I think he has terrible executive skills, namely being incapable of firing people who really deserve it.

      I suspect that President Ron Paul would be brought down by massive corruption scandals involving 2nd tier political appointees. Even the non-corrupt ones would be likely to have terrible tenures since the entire civil servant aparatus would be against them, like Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister

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

      1. The next Warren G Harding? We couldn’t be so lucky to have a second.

  14. Well, apparently, Ron Paul said he wouldn’t have approved the Bin Laden raid and that the operation wasn’t necessary. Good luck getting and mainstream support now. He somehow believes that the Pakistan would have handed OBL over if we had simply asked, unaware that it’s likely OBL had support from at least some elements of the Pakistani state.

    http://www.politico.com/news/s…..54822.html

    1. Yeah, even CBS has picked up this story now: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..03544.html

      This could get ugly quick unless he’s able to explain himself in a way that satisfies people.

      1. We could’ve done it that way, all while watching the location and reminding them that the last government that denied us bin Laden isn’t in charge any more.

        1. Nice city you’ve got here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

        2. So you would threaten Pakistan that we would invade? And then if they denied they had Bin Laden or refused to give him up, then what?

          1. Isn’t that what your lord and master Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo essentially promised? Why would you question the wisdom of the (chronologically impossible)reincarnated Ronald Reagan? Oh my god, have you stopped masturbating to pictures of the “Mission Accomplished” moment! Heretic! Blasphemer! Quick someone nail this fuck to a cross, set it on fire, and make his awful children watch in horror!!! What? Oh yeah, I forgot… and make sure those kids can’t ever see porn or do drugs. EVER.

            1. Wow, what a stupid comment.

              1. Wow, what stupid cunt.

          2. Well, it would be a cheaper way to get rid of nukes…

            We don’t even have to kill anyone. A few warning shots and they would probably fold. (I am considering that Pakistan has nukes as well. Honest criticism welcome.)

    2. Yeah, Ron Paul might lose the FUCK YEAH AMERICA FUCK YEAH WOOOOOOOO USA USA USA USA vote now.

      1. Needz moar gunshotz!!!!!1!!!1!!!eleventy!!!

      2. Apparently, there’s nothing he can say or do that turns off his hard-core supporters. Looks more like a religion than a campaign to me.

        1. Yep, that makes two prominent people who have taken up this position – Ron Paul and Michael Moore.

          Not good company there, old Ron.

        2. Yes, it’s a religion when people support someone who sticks to his principles.

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

        3. Was bin Laden a greater threat than the continued expansion of government power, the reduction of civil liberties, and the out of control spending? If I have to choose on that basis–and I don’t accept that I do, because I think a more legal capture of bin Laden was possible, if not preferable–I’m choosing the guy who is committed to fixing our broken system more than the guy who bullshits me and wraps himself in the flag.

          1. A) How was it possible? Given OBL’s circumstances when he was found, you really think it was possible that we could have gotten Pakistan to arrest him and hand him off to us? Sure, KSM was apprehended by the ISI, but that was at a different time, when US-Pak relations seemed to be better and Bin Laden was living in a town with the Pak military academy and tons of retired officers. OBL was being protected by somebody.

            B)Pursuing enemies that started this war (OBL declared war on us) is wrapping yourself with the flag?

            1. Look, I’m not up in arms about the way we went after bin Laden, but a principled criticism about the legality of the approach can be made. It’s hardly insane, and there are ways it could’ve been done without giving bin Laden a way to escape.

              1. I definitely agree, I’m just concerned about how this will play out.

              2. OBL did not wear a uniform, but he is also was not a civilian. The last version of Geneva convention that we signed up to actually addressed this. He does not get the protection of a civilian. He does not get the protection afforded a uniformed combatant. In effect – he can be killed out of hand.

                You do not like that answer? Then somehow convince our guv’mint to sign the next Geneva accord that did provide non-uniformed combatants some protections.

                1. he doesn’t get the protection afforded a uniformed combatant- so he can be prosecuted and thrown in supermax for the rest of his life.

                  Soldier = protected from killing in the course of war
                  Civilian = prosecuted for crimes committed

        4. Not true. He could start agreeing with state worshiping welfare warfare fuckheads.

      3. Um, the article is about Ron Paul being less lonely now, where about 85% of people were happy with the Bin Laden raid, the UCK YEAH AMERICA FUCK YEAH WOOOOOOOO USA USA USA USA vote is rather large and these statements are going to be used against Ron Paul and he’s gonna be lonely again soon.

        1. Right, we need politicians that say only what the masses want to hear, especially after the masses have been heavily propagandized by the people who currently control the state, the ones who have pushed the nation further and further down the road to crisis.

          God damn Ron Paul for having principles and talking to the American People like they were grownups who could be swayed by well reasoned dissenting opinion!

          😉

        2. Whatever you like, chief.

          1. Ok, be obtuse. It’s not about what I like (though, yes, I did enjoy the raid to get OBL), if we’re sticking to the topic of the article, Ron Paul’s popularity is going to suffer from these statements. To believe otherwise is putting your head in the sand.

            1. though, yes, I did enjoy the raid to get OBL

              Send your used sticky tissue samples to the home office for validation. If verfied, then you will receive your next merit badge in 4-6 weeks.

              1. HERP DERP DERP

                1. Still waiting for those samples Esteanalbalm.

                  1. Retarded troll is retarded

      4. That’s kind of the foreign policy plan of a large segment of the Republican Party.

  15. The overwhelming majority of the American people wanted bin Laden’s head on a stick outside the White House, and don’t what to hear about “national sovereignty” or “the rule of law.” Good luck on the presidential run, Ron.

    1. It’s precisely our attitude that made WW I so bloody.

      1. Having a conciliatory attitude towards OBL only helps us feel better about ourselves and nothing else. Once provisions are made for complying with the laws of war, effectiveness then becomes our overriding concern.

  16. BIRCH SOCIETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!!11111111111!!!

  17. Endless bashing of RP here and here.

  18. This will hurt Paul politically, most principled, nuanced stances do.

    1. He could have possibly deflected the brunt of this by immediately saying he would have offered a huge bounty for Osama to be brought in dead by other hands. But the Foxaholics are going to attack him over this some kinda hard.

      1. I imagine this will be featured in the next debate extensively. Hopefully, he will be able to make himself understood in a way that people will like.

      2. You’re assuming FOX’s chest-pounding patriotism isn’t trumped by its activism against democrats. It was a D who got bin laden. Any semi-plausible reason for why that was bad should be fine with them.

  19. “Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past 10 years have proven.”

    Paul’s full statement.

    1. Hopefully bin Laden does not get the last laugh. He claimed the 9/11 attacks were designed to get the U.S. to spread its military dangerously and excessively throughout the Middle East, bankrupting us through excessive military spending as he did the Soviets, and to cause political dissension within the United States.

      This statement is such BS. “Weakening” the US through drawing us into long wars (and OBL predicted Iraq? C’mon) was pretty far down on OBL’s wishlist. He was much more concerned with building an Islamic caliphate by overthrowing the governments of the Middle East. OBL thought 9/11 would make the US scared and vacate the area and stop supporting Israel, but he was wrong.

      1. ^citation needed

        he said numerous times that he wished to bankrupt us and spread our forces. He bragged that he could send two fighters with an Al Qaeda banner anywhere in the world and America would send a General and a fleet to that area

        1. You know, I always thought that was nonsense. He said a lot of things, much of it contradictory, to try to show how his actions resulted in precisely the results he planned. I’m sure the fact that such comments came ex post facto is irrelevant.

          Personally, I think he had no idea that the attacks would even succeed. I also think they were a stupid move, as they resulted in no fewer than two Muslim governments falling to the U.S. and an active opposition by us to his organization. Bullshit like our involvement helped recruitment is just that.

          This is a guy who thought referencing the Crusades was justification for everything he did. The Crusades, which were launched after Muslim forces invaded lands held by Christians. Not that the Crusades are at all relevant, but he’s not even up to wrong on that one. Guy was a not all that bright spoiled scumbag.

          1. One of those muslims governments is currently set to take back Afghanistan, and the other was no friend of Al Qaeda.

            This meme that he expected the 9/11 attacks to result in an American surrender is idiocy. Iraq was “the best possible gift we could have given to bin Laden”, according to one analyst (Michael Scheuer, who hunted the guy at the CIA).

            Saying “HA! he thought we would retreat but we sure showed him tough we are!” is silly. Al Qaeda has an even greater reach now than it did before 9/11, and the U.S. is indeed running out of money (not cuz of him, but the wars arent helping)

    2. The idea that bin Laden was safely protected for 10 years in Pakistan, either willfully or through incompetence, should make us question the wisdom of robbing American citizens to support any government around the world with foreign aid.

      How does this statement square with what he said in the interview? He either believes Pakistan would have been a willing partner in the arrest of OBL or he doesn’t. Can’t have it both ways.

      1. That the U.S. could get Pakistan to turn bin Laden over for trial in no way contradicts the notion that providing financial support to the bankrollers of the Taliban was a waste of U.S. tax-payer money.

        The U.S. does not provide foreign aid to France (much) and they turn over criminal all the time (except in cases where the death penalty is in play).

        1. Yeah, fine on the foreign aid part. The contradiction is that in the interview he said that we should have gotten Pakistan to turn OBL over and in this statement he says it’s obvious that OBL was protected for 10 years in Pakistan willfully or through incompetence. So how would the US have gotten Pakistan to turn over OBL if he was being protected?

          1. Privatized soldiers…wearing robot suits. Mother Fucker.

          2. Privatize Soldiers…wearing robot suits. Dick Cheese.

          3. Because when the U.S. government does not know where OBL is hiding, the cost of protecting him is low.

            When the U.S. govt knows where OBL is hiding, the costs of hiding him become more substantial. hell, even the Taliban offered to turn him over to the U.S. back in 2001, an offer which George Bush in a moment of inexplicable diplomatic stupidity spurned.

            1. Bush wanted the troops in Afghanistan so he could then role into Iraq. Just Stupid? No. Evilly stupid, or, supidly evil.

            2. They offered to turn him over after the bombing had already started. Who knows how genuine that was, and OBL wasn’t the end of Al-Qaeda, especiallyu at that time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..terrorism5

              The other offer was to try OBL in Islamic Court in Afghanistan. OK sure.

              1. I actually think we were justified in the invasion of Afghanistan. The continued occupation is another issue, but the invasion wasn’t as objectionable as other actions we’ve taken.

                I also think we could avoid some of this by letting Europe and Russia deal with the Middle East, while we worry about things closer to our strategic interests.

  20. So how would the US have gotten Pakistan to turn over OBL if he was being protected?

    By paying them lots of foreign aid. Duh.

  21. It’s probably best to remind warmongery Republican types that are leery of his alleged pacifistic tendencies that, if Mr. Nobel Peace Prize is any indication, President Paul will shift in the direction of ass-kicking by several notches upon being elected. It’s the nature of the beast. Nothing to worry about.

    1. Warmongery because they wanted OBL’s head on a pike?

      1. You know, I’m surprised no one is selling those. Plastic bin Laden heads on pikes, I mean.

        1. Or drinks called “Bin Ladens”.

      2. No, just in general.

  22. So this is going to turn the American electorate against Paul?
    How could anyone with a lick of sense or ounce of awareness be surprised by Paul’s response?
    Oh, wait. I see…

  23. After watching the debate and then seeing the comments and columns afterward, I came away realizing how uninformed and easily swayed Republican voters are. Herman Cain was considered the winner, despite his evasiveness and inability to make a substantive answer about anything. Ron Paul was able to concisely and substantively answer questions and do so on a constitutional basis and showing a grasp of economics and liberty. How on earth did people think Cain was the winner?

    As for Johnson, well, okay I would take him if Paul doesn’t run, but he really, really made a poor showing.

    1. Herman Cain has a radio show in Atlanta. I bet a bunch of listeners turned out to vote for him.

  24. Paul:

    “Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past ten years have proven.”

    I’m guessing he’s gonna come out and clarify his position soon. He better, anyway

  25. Ugh I hope things don’t get too much worse… Ron Paul 2012

  26. Say it ain’t so, FoE. Car 54 where are you?

  27. Bill O’Liarly is a simpleton. Seconded.

  28. Gnomes will get even “gnomier”?

    1. It’s that thing of when two jacked midgets…

  29. Stossel’s stache defeats Bill’s receding hairline.

  30. They get high AND drunk, then bet on oil?! Holy shit, I’m in the wrong line of work.

  31. Boudreaux, you magnificently creepy bastard.

    1. He’s the mortician of economic fallacies. The undertaker even.

  32. That guy has a French last name. Anything he says is automatically disregarded.

  33. His audience is partisan.

  34. They use the word “speculate” like Smurfs use the word smurf.

  35. Talk about the onions!

    1. Oh shit, did I call that or what?

      1. You cheated by looking into the future. Witch.

        1. Speculator!!

  36. Taxes get boos from out of nowhere.

  37. HA, he didn’t give her a last word!

  38. HA, he didn’t give her a last word!

  39. That dude is totally going to rape that chick on their way out in the parking garage.

  40. Commercial for truck driver masquerade balls.

    1. I got that also. OD shipping. Original Drivah.

  41. Obama, tilting at wind turbines.

  42. Oh god, a NIMBY fuckwad. Christfagbushpig I hate these guys.

  43. “Certain groups of people” = …Mexicans.

  44. Ted is dead, Stossel. How dare you attack his corpse.

  45. “Zed is dead, baby”

  46. “Zed is dead, baby”

    1. DAMNIT I hate this laptop.

      HAHA to bird getting killed.

  47. Ha, take that you stupid bird.

  48. Ha, dumbass brought up bats when Stoss hadn’t even thought of that.

  49. Recent figures LIE! Let’s go to older numbers.

  50. I hate the way they’re pronouncing “turbine”. The way they say it is sounding like “turbin”, like what an Arab wears on his head.

    SAY it, fucktards, say TURB – EYE – N

  51. He’s combining NIMBY-ism w/ fiscal conservatism? Interesting.

  52. Wind gets applause, much to Stossel’s chagrin.

  53. “Or should we do what France did?”

    The answer to that question is always, “no”.

  54. If you want to be the first to cure cancer, the beginning step is GET A HAIRCUT YOU LOOK LIKE A GIRL.

  55. HAHA I got an “on demand” commercial for the Justin Bieber movie.

  56. Magic Jack, the Harry Potter book they wouldn’t let you read.

  57. Why do they care about CO2 emissions, if global warming is a hoax?

  58. The government should issue more nuclear permits and less earthquake permits.

  59. Which Greco – Roman god was in charge of earthquakes? Clearly the Japanese need to begin appeasing him / her.

  60. Some day we will be great at nuclear.

  61. Why do you hate coal miners? They need jobs too! Esp. in West Virginia.

  62. Let the guy compare nuclear to wind, John.

  63. Rhode Island? That’s it? We can do w/o that shithole, go ahead and cover it up for something more useful.

  64. Indian Point Nuclear Facility, bought for just $24 in uranium beads.

  65. Spock was killed by radiation.

  66. To be fair, I’ve seen some video of Hiroshima survivors w/ radiation poisoning. Clearly we need to not drop atomic bombs on American cities, and we’ll be able to avoid this.

    1. Americans would never accept demonstration bombing. We have to take out a city or two.

      1. Plus, it sends the right message to Uncle Joe Stalin up in Canada.

  67. Haha, he’s butthurt over being booed. Hey asshole, if it requires gov’t involvement, it’s not worth doing.

  68. You have to have governmental involvement to counter governmental involvement.

  69. Damn, I wish that would happen to my water supply, that was bitchin!

  70. LifeLock would protect the equity in my home? Even after that trailer park goes up next door?

  71. Identity theft was a “huge huge problem” for you? What the fuck are you doing wrong?

  72. Does that 100 year natural gas prediction include additional population from…ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!!

  73. Isn’t that how they get Punxsutawney Phil out of the ground, too?

    1. At least they just fracked him out this time when you do it that other way you just trade extended winter for extended nuclear winter.

  74. Jesus Christ turned his tap water into whine, too.

  75. This guy is a great company flack. I’ve seen “A Civil Action”, asshole, I know you’re lying.

  76. So you get two guys on who both don’t like the movie? BIAS!!!

  77. You dirty, dirty fossil fuel.

  78. Those fracking oil wells, always a fracking problem. Those frackers.

  79. He’s bald because of the fracking chemicals.

  80. He was using weird science. Kelly LeBrock! Remember her?

    1. Every morning in the shower.

      1. The extra energy it takes to heat that additional amount of hot water is killing the environment.

        1. Thank god, because I thought it was my radioactive semen.

  81. HAHAHAHA, water is “likely” safe. Way to set the bar.

  82. Ugh, audience participation (beyond booing), up next.

  83. His audience is suspiciously older and white.

  84. Listen you little shit, don’t call out your elders like that.

  85. If you’re going to make a speech, put on a tie.

  86. Yeah, those fracking commies.

  87. “We’re in favor of speculation.” This guy is the spokesman for the audience.

    1. Oh we are, are we? Did you speculate that?

  88. MAN that guy is creepy looking. And I’m suspicious of why he came back, but the chick didn’t. Where did he hide her vagina…after he cut it out?

  89. Let Boudreaux get back to his Christopher Walken lookalike contest.

  90. Man, look at those three white suits sitting next to eachother. “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.

  91. And the dangerous substance is…feces.

  92. HAHAHA “high definition” sun glasses. Because you know, you don’t actually see in HD without these $10 sunglasses.

  93. “Tonight in the news, an extremely popular soft drink has been found to be lethal. We’ll tell you which one after sports with Rusty Steel and weather with Sunny Storm!”

    1. It’s only lethal if you combine it with perfume and hair-spray.

  94. What if that one person was Paris Hilton?

  95. Where’s Gregory Smith, er L4F? He said killing guys with tasers is acceptable because it usually is used on bad-guys.

    1. any kind of force can result in deaths. you can pepperspray somebody and they stumble into traffic and get killed, etc.

      tasers are safe and effective. their abuse should be dealt with harshly, though, just like ANY form of abuse in the use of force.

  96. Just like fireworks, we accept a few blowed up Americans because it’s worth it.

  97. The “banana people”? Is that a 50s sci-fi movie, that I saw on MST3K?

  98. What happened? Chemtrails! That’s what happened.

    1. That’s why I lost my hair.

  99. He looked like he was about to tell a ghost story.

  100. Three rapes just occurred in the Stossel studio.

    1. And then the lights went out.

  101. Well, what’s the verdict? Can we call this one a win?

    1. Sure, no one else around to say otherwise.

  102. Okay, that’s that. Later, bator.

  103. *end communication*

  104. Of course, Paul believes in the Constitution…except when it comes to the blatantly unconstitutional defense of marriage act. At no point does the Constitution say the federal government has the right to define what a marriage is, but Paul doesn’t care. In my experience most so-called Libertarians LOVE government subsidies for people with sex lives they like.

  105. Go Ron Paul. Protect us from the printing press.

  106. Libertarians may now be on the political landscape but there are a number of things that must be done for them to win an election….
    http://devereauxdailydose.blogspot.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.