Presidential Candidates

Ron Paul Does Not Call Himself an Isolationist, but 'Many Others' (Including New York Times Reporters) Do

|

The lead story in today's New York Times refers to Ron Paul's "non-interventionist foreign policy views," in contrast with the paper's usual description of his position as "isolationist," which is both pejorative and inaccurate. Isolationism suggests not merely a bias against the use of military force but a desire to avoid any engagement with the rest of the world, including trade, diplomacy, immigration, and cultural exchange. Paul has never been an isolationist in that sense.

An archive search shows this confusion is a longstanding problem at the Times. In a January 1984 story about the U.S. Senate race in Texas, for instance, reporter Wayne King said Paul's "foreign policy views are regarded [by whom?] as noninterventionist to isolationist," which suggests isolationism is an extreme version of noninterventionism, perhaps akin to pacifism. That does not describe Paul either, since he supports the use of military force when it is necessary for national defense (following thr 9/11 attacks, for example). Less than a week later, King more accurately called Paul "a noninterventionist in foreign policy." The Times continued to flip back and forth between the terms in reference to Paul during the next two decades:

In a September 1987 story about the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, Wallace Turner reported that Paul was "basically isolationist on foreign affairs." 

In an October 1988 story about Paul's L.P. campaign for president, Andrew Rosenthal reported that "Dr. Paul refuses to call himself an isolationist, but that is how many others see him."  

In a January 2008 review of Pat Buchanan's book Day of Reckoning (titled "The Isolationist"), Chris Suellentrop called Paul "a foreign policy noninterventionist."

In a June 6, 2011 story, James Dao quoted John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, who called Paul and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) "military noninterventionists."

In an October 7, 2011, blog post, Richard Stevenson said Paul's "libertarian views line up with the neo-isolationist strain within the Tea Party."

In an October 8 story, Helen Cooper and Ashley Parker said Paul, as compared to Jon Huntsman, represents "a more isolationist strain of thinking."

In an October 23 "news analysis," Sam Tanenhaus (editor of The New York Times Book Reviewused isolationist and noninterventionist interchangeably, saying the skepticism reflected in Paul's warnings about an American empire and Republican resistance to the attack on Libya "recalls the isolationism of a bygone age." 

In a November 5 blog post, Richard Oppel reported that Paul "espoused a noninterventionist foreign policy."

In a November 19 story, Trip Gabriel reported that Paul's ads "conveniently avoid his isolationist foreign policy." 

A November 22 blog post about the Republican presidential debate in Washington (which is on Nexis but does not seem to be available on the New York Times site anymore) noted that "Mr. Paul calls his foreign policy position non-interventionist" but added, "To outsiders, it can sound isolationist." 

In a December 15 story, Jeremy Peters referred to Paul's "noninterventionist foreign policy."

Two days later, Peters and Michael Barbaro reported that "Ron Paul's isolationist worldview evolved into a 'strong national defense' in the post-debate "spin room."

In a December 24 story, Katherine Seelye reported that Newt Gingrich "sharply criticized Mr. Paul for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy."

In a December 25 story, Jim Rutenberg and Serge Kovaleski said Paul's "noninterventionist" views help explain his appeal among disreputable right-wingers.

In a December 28 story, Jeff Zeleny and Michael Shear reported that Rick Santorum "urged Republicans to carefully study Mr. Paul's isolationist foreign policy views."

A unbylined December 31 summary of "Where the Republican Candidates Stand on Key Issues" referred matter-of-factly to Paul's "isolationism" and said "Mr. Paul's status among the front-runners in Iowa has set off a debate that has stirred historic isolationist strains in the party."

Putting all these references together, people who write for the Times are intermittently aware that Paul does not call himself an isolationist and that the term has negative connotations (hence Gingrich criticized Paul "for what he said were his isolationist views on foreign policy"). They also occasionally note that "others" or "outsiders" (such as New York Times reporters?) consider Paul an isolationist. Usually, however, the Times treats isolationist as a synonym for noninterventionist—not just in reference to Paul but also in describing elements of the Tea Party and the conservative movement generally.

I have not noticed such promiscuous use of isolationist in the paper's coverage of people on the left who take a relatively narrow view of national defense and believe the U.S. government too quickly resorts to military force. In any case, such use of the term is imprecise at best and hostile at worst. A good indicator of whether isolationist can be treated as a neutral adjective: Does any politician describe himself that way?

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.

308 responses to “Ron Paul Does Not Call Himself an Isolationist, but 'Many Others' (Including New York Times Reporters) Do

  1. Can we please go over Tony’s latest ridiculous claim?

    The charitable giving numbers reflect the fact that more conservatives are religious, and religion is in part organized charity.

    I’m not quite sure what Tony is saying here. Is he saying being religious is a good thing? Or is he saying charity is bad because it’s done by conservative or religious people?

    1. “and religion is in part organized charity.”

      By charity or for charity?

      Religion’s purpose is salvation, and that is often expressed by charity. How can a hungry person concentrate on God? I’d say they are collegial

      1. Some religions have salvation as a purpose, but not all. Not even most. I’m not a Religious Studies major, but from my limited experience, only Christianity and Islam focus on salvation, and it’s only a minor topic in Judaism.

        Most religions, on the other hand, do concern themselves with charity to some extent.

        1. We were discussing US religious practices within the faith of divinity, and the modern context is everlasting life

    2. Who is “Tony”?

      1. The house apologist for all government excess.

        1. What’s that have to do with Ron Paul and isolationism?

          1. Because Tony supports unlimited US interventionism around the world.

            1. Except for where it is needed.

      2. why the fuck am i getting spoofed?

        1. Well, I’m told I don’t own my handle with my blog and email address; why would you without?

        2. Why am I?

    3. Does everyone in this chat room have ADHD?

      1. yes, It’s in your newsletter 😉

        1. Well, joooo can’t possibly hold me to that, then. Just because it has my name on the cover, doesn’t mean I have in any say in what goes into the fucking thing.

          1. I think I can edit that for you Rand, and get some decent media coverage:

            1. Just because I have my name tattooed on my dick, doesn’t mean I have in any say in what it goes into* either.
              Fuck the magazine.

              *applies to Rand and all men

    4. You know, it’s bad enough that people actually respond to his idiocy when he posts. But seriously? Bringing him up when he has yet to appear is just retarded.

      TONY IS A FUCKING TROLL AND PAYING ATTENTION TO HIM HELPS ACHIEVE HIS AIM.

      1. Why else would I have this Ouija board except to summon demons….err….trolls.

      2. Hugh Akston has ruled

        …who the fuck are you again?

        1. Bowdlerization excludes thinking, and I want to hear from everyone. Your brain is capable of instantly determining a post that does not merit three seconds of your life.

        1. Oh Tulpa, please tell me that was for me. I’d hate to give up masturbating thinking of you

    5. Conservatives are more likely to actually put forth a personal effort to help other people rather than have the government do it. Obviously a good way to do that is through religious organizations such as we see with church food pantries, homeless shelters, and orphanges here and in third world countries.

      This reflects poorly on liberals who think voting for higher taxes and welfare at the expense of other people and driving a Prius makes them Jesus Christ.

      1. Father, please forgive them, they know not what they say-ith.

        I bless Ron Paul for being a Pacifist. But angry at him for being THE RICH Man in my last book (Mark 10:25).

    6. Tony seems to be saying that charitable giving to churches doesn’t count for as much as giving to other causes — a Mormon tithing to build more Mormon meetinghouses doesn’t count as charity in his book, compared to, say, giving to an organization that purportedly will feed starving kids in Africa but where 90% of the money gets spent on administrative overhead and fundraising expenses.

      1. You forgot about the fraction that goes to paying off the local African officials.

        1. Yeah, that’s the other 10%.

    7. Tony is saying religious charity does not count because people giving it are afraid of Hell, instead of property seizure and prison and bank liens and wage garnishment from the IRS.

  2. Their is truth in that organized religion exposes a child to poverty, and our duty to share, from the get-go.

    Is there another organization that does? I don’t think public schools include this mission still

  3. How can we safetly build walmarts everywhere without having troops everywhere. Plus Israel is always in mortal danger from the muslums. It’s the duty of every American woman to produce Israel soldiers. Yeah, I know “the joooos”. When the neocons stop wanting us to bomb every threat to Israel, I’ll shut up about Israel.

  4. [tap tap]

    Is this thing on?

    1. Step away from the mike

  5. maybe he should start calling himself an isolationist and remind everyone that isolationism worked for japan.

  6. Come on, you anarchists, play by the rules!

    1. Tell us how much you hate cops, Brooksie!
      It’s been at least five minutes.

      1. What? He doesn’t hate cops!

        Brooksie loves bad cops…I need my cuffs and night stick back, baby

      2. Whine-bot whines; the years roll on but some things remain perpetually the same.

        Tell us how much you love licking boots, whine-bot!
        It’s been at least five minutes.

        1. Hey! It’s Brooksie’s own boot-licker, capitol l! How ya doin’, cap?

          1. If there’s a person out there with the patience to actually care about you*, I hope you spend the next year watching them die from a painful and drawn out cancer.

            Maybe that would make you less apt to whine about the little things so much. Like, web site comment sections not following your own narrow prescription.

            Maybe, but probably not.

            Anyway, happy new year, cunt!

            *I seriously doubt that such a person exists.

  7. As noted elsewhere by thoreau, the most disturbing thing about the use of “isolationism” to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the implication that violence is a normalized “mainstream” part of dealing with other countries.

    Killing people should be the absolute last recourse, to be used only in self defense or at the threat of imminent attack. Not as a common tool to achieve political objectives.

    1. Paul isn’t just opposed to starting wars, but also to having military bases in willing countries like Germany and South Korea.

      1. Willing countries which spend a much smaller amount of their wealth on defense in part because the US taxpayers get stuck with the bill. These countries then spend their money on out competing US businesses and labor.

        1. Both of those countries pay us for defense.

          1. Yup, SK pays us almost $700 mil a year.

            It wasn’t right when Donald Trump said it. I actually didn’t know that the US was reimbursed and I bet a lot of people don’t either.

            http://www.politifact.com/trut…..us-troop-/

            1. I’m almost sure money is going the other way too

              1. Keep the massage parlor handjobs out of this.

                1. Tulpa, I’m looking for my glow-in-the-dark night stick. Turn off your lights and check out the mirror for the “bad cop” logo on your ass

            2. No, that number includes in kind support, local labor costs and local building costs. That is not all cash money paid to the USA.

              1. Ok, sorry not payment, but the total reimbursement is estimated at almost $700 mil. Do you know how much on top it costs the US?

                1. IIRC total cost is about $2 billion. I know a couple years ago the U.S. was in negotionations with ROK to increase their share, but I don’t know what came of that.

                  1. negotionations?

          2. Not as much as it costs the US. Germany pays for some base improvements and maintenance but not for the troops or equipment. I think the same applies to South Korea. So whatever money the US gets it does not cover the extra costs of being there.

            And if they have extra money to pay the US then why not just have them pay their own military?

            1. There’s also the benefits of securing a valuable trading partner. That has to factor into the cost-benefit analysis, no?

              1. So you are saying that “free trade” with South Korea and Germany not only need military subsidies but even risking going to war with resultant death and destruction? And it its so important for trade with these countries why don’t they spend the next 60 years subsidizing US defense since the US paid for the last 60 years?

                1. Is that what I said? I said there’s economic value provided to the US based on securing SK and Japan and ensuring stability and predictability. Having a large military decreases the chance of conflict as it’s a pretty big deterrent.

                  1. But it increases the chance the US will get involved in conflicts which are not our business.

                    This is especially true since US politicians go around the world handing out official and unofficial defense guarantees while at the same time the number of US troops go down. Its like our banking system which leveraged itself 30, 40, 50, to 1 on the theory that no one would call them on their debts but as we have seen that was not a good plan. The same applies to issuing out defense guarantees to all sorts of places around the world while not having enough troops to back it up.

                    If we had honest politicians they would be demanding a doubling of US military spending to cover all the places that the US is saying it will get involved with militarily. But instead we live on bluff and history shows that bluffs get called. Why not cut the commitments now while we can and save both money and lives

                    1. We have no business with South Korea or Japan? It wouldn’t really affect the US if either one of those countries was involved in a war with North Korea or China? The US can certainly cut some defense spending and choose more wisely when it comes to starting conflicts, but I think there’s clear economic benefits for the US and the world from the stability the US military provides.

                    2. So you are saying that one of the downsides of large scale international trade is the need for the USA to pay out a trillion a year (If you add up all the costs) on “defense” in large part to defend the trading partners? And those same trading partners spend much less proportionally so they then can spend their money on building better cars and other goods which they then drive US producers out of business.

                    3. I think that the US having a large military helps to protect free trade and the free flow of goods and has economic benefits for the world and the US.

                      And those same trading partners spend much less proportionally so they then can spend their money on building better cars and other goods which they then drive US producers out of business.

                      How much do the S Korean and Japanese governments subsidize businesses in those countries?

                    4. I think that the US having a large military helps to protect free trade and the free flow of goods and has economic benefits for the world and the US.

                      Pax Romana Britannica Americana, you say?

                    5. I think that the US having a large military helps to protect free trade and the free flow of goods and has economic benefits for the world and the US.

                      Pax Romana Britannica Americana, you say?

                      Ok do you think that’s wrong? I can’t say I know the degree to which it’s true, and counterfactuals are useless, but I think it’s hard to argue that there’s no benefit.

                    6. Ok do you think that’s wrong? I can’t say I know the degree to which it’s true, and counterfactuals are useless, but I think it’s hard to argue that there’s no benefit.

                      I think your premise is flawed, to say nothing of whether or not having American troops stationed in any given country protects trade. Trade to and from America is most certainly not free, nor do goods flow freely, otherwise such things as most favored nation status, embargos, and economic sanctions would not be used as instruments of foreign policy.

                    7. Of course it’s not completely free, but having the military that we do discourages disruptions in the movement of goods as well as credibility to enforce those instruments of foreign policy.

                    8. Of course it’s not completely free, but having the military that we do discourages disruptions in the movement of goods as well as credibility to enforce those instruments of foreign policy.

                      Ummm…NO. Unless Venezuela is on the Moon.

                    9. But its not free trade if it requires billions in subsidies to protect it, its subsidized trade. And since places South Korea, Japan Germany etc have trade surpluses, if there is someone to pay for defending that trade let it be them.

                      Also its strange that someone who keeps on talking about trade and business wants the US to act in a non business manner but instead to hand out defense welfare for the world. Its time for the US to stop being the worlds welfare office and start acting in its own interest.

                  2. Have someone prove a cost benefit analysis. I’m going to guess that the only reason some countries are still willing is that it overwhelmingly benefits them and not us.

                    It doesn’t really matter though because well be bankrupt (or atleast less relevant in international monetary terms) in a couple decades. I doubt even Paul could fix that.

                    1. It could benefit them and us, no? The US got pretty rich and its citizens live pretty well as a result of the organization of the world, with US providing stability with its military.

                    2. Talk to me about our prosperity when we’re not a trillion dollars in deficit.

          3. Those countries pay a fraction of the cost of station troops there. They only pay a subsidy. And in South Korea’s case those troops are by treaty not available for use elsewhere. (The ROKs have this crazy problem with us potentially involving them in our quarrels involuntarily.)

            1. Do you have the numbers? Curious to know exactly what it costs vs. what they reimburse us for (with cash or in kind)

      2. Yeah, but that’s a good thing. Why should the US be responsible for defending those countries?

        1. Then make that case. Don’t pretend anyone who doesn’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy views is a warmonger.

          1. I thought I had my kick lined up perfectly, but suddenly the goalposts moved another ten yards away.

            1. You set the goalposts there yourself.

              the most disturbing thing about the use of “isolationism” to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the implication that violence is a normalized “mainstream” part of dealing with other countries.

              It’s not my fault if you forgot where they were when you kicked.

              1. You’re the one who brought up military bases, Commodore. I was talking about bombing shit.

                There are good reasons not to have military bases even in countries that ostensibly welcome the US. But they are a different (although related) matter from deploying FKR’s to the far corners of the globe.

                1. I brought up military bases because they’re something that Ron Paul opposes that do not involve war.

                  Let me explain this slowly:

                  Your contention:

                  oppose RP FP ==> support war

                  My counterexample:

                  (oppose RP FP) AND ( oppose war )

                  Therefore your contention is false.

                  1. I brought up military bases because they’re something that Ron Paul opposes that do not involve war.

                    So military bases are . . . what? Laundromats? Daycare centers? Barbershops? I need some help here, if they don’t involve war.

                    1. is in laughable bullshit argument mode at the moment. You might as well treat him like any other troll when he does this.

                  2. “My counterexample:

                    (oppose RP FP) AND ( oppose war )”

                    Except your counterexample doesn’t exist.

                    1. I’m fairly sure I exist.

                      I agree with some of Paul’s FP (the wars) and disagree with some of it (no bases and ignoring nuke prolif).

          2. Not anyone who disagrees, just anyone who is running for President.

          3. Then make that case. Don’t pretend anyone who doesn’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy views is a warmonger.
            When noted conservative media figures say that they would vote for Obama over Paul because of the latter’s foreign policiy views it is easy to conclude that they are warmongers and see a belligerent foreign policy as the over arching value in a presidential candidate.

        2. I have a proposal for countries that want protection from the US military. Join the United States. Sign on to the US Constitution, and join as a tax paying territory. Then after a certain period, say 25 years, the territory could petition for statehood.

          I would be inclined to say that a state outside of the Americas couldn’t really be part of the USA, but since we already have one state and ten territories outside of the Americas, I guess that’s a non-issue.

    2. “””is the implication that violence is a normalized “mainstream” part of dealing with other countries.””‘

      Unfortunately for the USA the paid foreign policy pundits think that violence is the normal way of dealing with troublesome countries. The public is presented with three choices, “embargo today and then bomb them tomorrow “, “bomb” and “bomb yesterday, today and tomorrow”

      1. When your only tool is a flying killer robot, all of your problems start to look like Afghani weddings.

        1. Flying surveillance robot doesn’t work so well when the Iranians capture one of ’em.

        2. +1 Griffin Missile

    3. Of course the definition of imminent threat depends on the person. Also, sometimes waiting for an imminent threat or actual attack is too late.

        1. Too late, as in we’re attacked and there’s lots of people dead or too late as in a hostile nation now has the means and the motivation to attack.

          1. Any nation foolish enough to attack the United States will soon find their ability to make war reduced to smoking craters, which is as it should be.

            But the only thing that preemptive attacks like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. etc. ad infinitium accomplish is to make other countries want to attack the US.

            1. Sure, but a retaliation is no solace to the people that were affected by the attack.

              Which countries are now more likely to attack the US because of Iraq+ Afghanistan?

              1. Iran, for one. NoKo didn’t spend 90% of their GDP developing nukes just for the halibut. Pakistan’s gonna get fed up with the constant violations of their sovereignty sooner or later.

                The more the US is willing to act like a dick, the more other countries are motivated to do something to stop them.

                1. I don’t see how Iraq + Afghanistan changed the calculus WRT N. Korea. But, ok you grant that North Korea is a threat of some magnitude

                  Iran is now a threat? Ok, then we should probably maintain troops close to deter any potential attacks on the US. I also don’t see how Iran is more likely to attack the US as a result of the war in Iraq, unless you count Iranian backed insurgents attacking American forces in Iraq (when it was happening).

                  I can grant you Pakistan, but I think the danger is much less that the Pakistani state will attack the US, and more of a risk of the state falling apart and the nukes becoming available to unsavory characters.

                  1. Those places are all threats to the larger sphere of US influence, not the US itself. If the US stopped dropping ordinance on everything that moves, and closed its foreign military bases, those places wouldn’t be within its sphere of influence, and would have a lot less reason to be pissed off.

                    Not to mention their Great Leaders would have far less rhetorical ammunition to whip up xenophobic fervor in the proles.

                    1. The entire world is connected though. Any large scale conflict that the US is not actually militarily involved with would still affect the US. A conflict on the Korean peninsula, if we removed our bases and troops, would have a pretty negative impact on our economy, given our trade links with Japan, S Korea, China, and Taiwan. Similarly, an interstate conflict in the ME would have costs.

                      I recognize that there are costs to the US having such a large military, but having a relatively benevolent country as the US maintaining overall stability does provide benefits.

                    2. Let me see if I have this right: since any international conflict will ultimately affect the US, we should preemptively intimidate, threaten, cajole and intimidate anyone that we may in the future disagree with, or any nation who might have people speak ill will of us. Do I have that right?

                      If we did that, we’d be mired in conflict after conflict, would end up spending more on military than all nations combined, would have half of the world hating us and the other half with their hand in our pocket.

                      [snicker]
                      We don’t want that, do we?

                    3. The double-dose of intimidation was intentional.

                    4. The entire world is connected though. Any large scale conflict that the US is not actually militarily involved with would still affect the US.

                      Hello world policeman.

            2. I don’t see how Iraq + Afghanistan changed the calculus WRT N. Korea. But, ok you grant that North Korea is a threat of some magnitude

              Iran is now a threat? Ok, then we should probably maintain troops close to deter any potential attacks on the US. I also don’t see how Iran is more likely to attack the US as a result of the war in Iraq, unless you count Iranian backed insurgents attacking American forces in Iraq (when it was happening).

              Pakistan is now a threat. Maybe we keep bases in Afghanistan to guard against that now?

        2. To win elections by fearmongering.

          “If we don’t spend a trillion dollars and get 4,500 U.S. troops killed in a war in a country that did not initiate 9-11, another 9-11 might happen and 3,000 people die and a quarter trillion in damages occur!”

          1. I am stealing that line and putting it my next campaign speech.

    4. The US needn’t go whole-hog on this isolationism or non-interventionism stuff all at once.

      Maybe it would be better to do it in phases. I think that it would be a huge improvement if the USG would become as interventionist as, say, Russia and China are today. That is, intervening only in territory that is internationally recognized as being within its own borders (e.g., Tibet and Chechnya) or immediately bordering (e.g., Georgia and Ukraine).

      Not saying that it would be a satisfactory level in interventionism, but it would be an improvement over the USG’s current fantasies of unipolar global hegemony. Once this step is accomplished, Switzerland would be a great role model.

      1. That is, intervening only in territory that is … immediately bordering

        So, you’re saying we should invade Canada and Mexico? What about Russia? Diomede, Alaska is only about 2 miles from Russia. Does that count as immediately bordering?

    5. It isn’t just violence; it is the damnable belief that we have the right to tell everyone in the world how to live. It is the external version of the nanny-state.

    6. I’m also transgender and a cross-dresser.

  8. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he’s non-interventionist when it comes to war.

    I can see us doing trades, welcoming diplomats, attending funerals of public figures and such with the outside world. I can see us helping someone with an Earthquake, a Sunami, or even AIDS to an extent. Help poorer countries setup basic systems, etc. However, I would ONLY do it for countries where I can send American experts that don’t require militarized security. If I have to send it tanks, military, jet planes, etc…I’m not going there.

    And I think that is where Ron Paul stands on this.

    If we don’t want Iran to close the Straight…don’t do things that lead them to even talk about this.

    1. The Straight what?

      Ohhhh The Strait of Hormuz.

      1. You are asking me if I’m Straight?

    2. Even if Iran closes the Straight, it’s not going to have the massive export-denying effects that most are predicting. UAE, Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have pipelines that bypass it. Don’t imagine that this will dampen the GOP/DEM scaremongering though.

      1. There’s no reason for Iran to close the Strait because without oil revenue, the Iranian state would be broke. It would be suicide.

      2. Ahminejad always did strike me as kind of a flit.

      3. Shit, just invest in Canadian oil companies.

  9. How many Americans are actually that opposed to isolationism?

    Left or right, people want a giant border fence, guns and tanks piled at the border, and missiles aimed at China.

    1. Exactly, somehow having only military relationships with the outside world while restricting, trade, immigration and movement to and from the US excluding Canada is somehow super friendly and internationalist.

    2. this stuff some sources sling around about America wanting to stay out of the war and not wanting to fight is a lot of baloney! Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.

  10. Does it mention RP is batshit insane?

    1. Do you have any proof of this alleged mental instability?

      Or are you just saying Ron Paul is not a true Scotsman?

  11. Dr. Paul cured my apathy – he can cure yours too!
    Besides, he’s the only one to oppose the policies that kill millions of innocent people overseas in undeclared wars.
    Think of him as the anti murder vote!

    Vote Vertebrate – Ron Paul 2012!

  12. Conservatives are more likely to actually put forth a personal effort to help other people rather than have the government do it.

    They’re just a bunch of bitter racists who like to pretend there is a distinction between the “deserving” poor and the other kind.

    It’s like they think they should be permitted to decide what to do with the fruits of their labors.

  13. That’s not the worst thing major newspapers have said about him. Yesterday in a WaPo op-ed some asshole Bush crony accused Paul not just of isolationism but wanting to destroy the “Party of Lincoln” and supporting Jim Crow..

    Half of the shit he wrote and others have wrote are libelous.

    1. True, such as this asshat who wants to pretend there is was no Fourteenth Amendment.

      http://www.balloon-juice.com/2…..ties-myth/

      1. Holy Taco, that’s a lot of stupid in one place.

    2. Martin Bashir of MSNBC fame (infamy) just accused Ron Paul of wanting to destroy the government.

      Expect this to be parroted across Jezebel and HuffPo within the hour.

      1. If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, Obama will have him detained indefinitely as a domestic terrorist.

  14. Maybe newspaper reporters tend to be dim bulbs who are sloppy with terminology, due to ignorance or laziness?

  15. Is this a conspiracy to fuck Ohio State or something? Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

  16. I always liked the term, coined I think at Cato, “strategic independence”.

    Kind of suggests preparedness, not getting bogged down or over-committed, and at the same time “we’re not saying who’s ass we are or aren’t going to kick. Who wants to find out?”

  17. If this Country fails to intervene in foreign Conflicts as a matter of Principle, we will quickly be isolated as a matter of Fact, regardless of whether that would be our Choice. Do not be deceived into thinking our Enemies have not learned from the Success of our past strategy of Containment for achieving Victory without direct Combat.

    If we should relinquish our Standing as world Power, another Nation will surely take our Place.

    1. I would be more than grateful for another country to pick up the trillion-dollar tab of being world policeman.

      1. I second the motion.

    2. By “Enemies,” do you mean the people without a modern military or the means to deliver any bombs within our borders? Those people?

      1. Which country are you talking about?

        1. The only ones that call us their enemy. Who are you talking about.

          1. Depends. North Korea has a formidable military. I don’t think they’re likely to attack because the leadership seems happy to enslave their people while enriching themselves with China’s support, but it’s not completely unthinkable. North Korea has the capability to hit South Korea with a nuke. Yes, SK is not the US, but depending on the placement, could affect not one, but two very important trading partners.

            1. Um, the Norks aren’t going to attack because they don’t have enough diesel in their country to get one ship here, let alone a landing party. And if they attack SoKo, it better be by way of the air. If it’s a ground attack, it’ll end when they hit the first grocery stores in their path.

              Those people eat grass, for fuck sake. Do you think they wouldn’t collapse in awe when they invade another country only to realize they’ve been getting fucked over their entire lives?

              1. Not saying they would win or come close to it, but it probably wouldn’t be good for the world economy if they launched a nuke at SK or attempted another attack.

                I also prefaced my previous comment by saying it’s not very likely.

                1. You preface a statement with “This isn’t very likely,” but keep insisting that we should spend hundreds of billions of dollars in preparation for it.

                  You know what else isn’t very likely? An attack by a Martian/Venetian alliance. Should we spend upwards of $600B a year preparing for that as well?

                  1. Do Martians exist? I don’t think so, but North Korea is a nuclear armed country with leaders who are less than benevolent. I don’t think a martian attack and a North Korean attack have the same probabilities.

                    1. On this country – they sure as hell do have the same probability. As for SK and Japan (and China and Russia for that matter – you know, countries that actually border the whacknuts of NK) – well, they can do what is in their national interest.

                  2. It isn’t very likely precisely *because* we’re spending money on it.

                    And it’s only on huge time scales that it costs hundreds of billions of dollars. I’m not even sure if it’s cost that much over the past 50 years. The yearly cost is nearly negligible as military budgets go.

                  3. You know what else isn’t very likely? An attack by a Martian/Venetian alliance.

                    That’s probably more likely than an attack by Martians and Venusians.

            2. Hey, I own an LG [Life is Good, Lucky Goldstar] Plasma TV with a TruBlack filter and I don’t want to lose my customer support.

            3. North Korea has a formidable military.

              Now that’s funny.

              1. I’m not saying that they could challenge the US for supremacy, but I think a million plus man army+ nuclear weapons should count for something.

                1. Only against South Korea.

        2. Every single country in the world excluding the Big 5 + India.

      2. You grossly underestimate the Magnitude of the Threats we face, little Man. Nestled in the protective Cocoon of a hard-earned national Security for your whole Life, you think that our Nation’s unquestioned Supremacy is the natural Order of things. I pray that Events do not occur which would obliterate this Delusion that you share with many of your Generation, but fear that they will if we fail to heed the Wisdom of previous Generations.

        1. And your pants-shitting fear of attack is hysterically unfathomable.

          Not only are we isolated by oceans on both sides, but we have the technology to thwart anything but a surprise ground attack. And where is that going to come from? Mexico? Our intel services are so imbedded in their power structure that we know what’s going on there the minute it happens. Canada? Those guys sure as shit aren’t gonna take kindly to an invading force using their nation as a staging ground. Cuba? Um, we have troops there and Cubans want a relationship with us so bad, they’re not gonna do anything to jeopardize our goodwill once the Castro cabal dies off. Venezuela? Hugo ain’t that crazy, besides, we have the Caribbean pretty well covered.

          Face facts, you have nothing justifying your irrational fears. You are a mindless simpleton that eats the spoonfed shit the war hawks in our government and their lackeys in the media are shoving in your cakehole.

          1. Careful Sloop…he’s sliding into Colonel Nathan R. Jessup territory!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

          2. we have the technology to thwart anything but a surprise ground attack.

            Holy shit! Then that means we’re still right here, after all!

            1. And there go the goalposts!

              We were talking about nations attacking us, not a bunch of rogue terrorists. If you’re gonna play that game, was McVeigh’s OKC attack considered a Civil War?

              Go fuck yourself.

              1. McVeigh was part of a movement that committed numerous attacks and was based in a foreign country with a government providing refuge to it?

                1. Oh, so now being based in a foreign country=attack by a foreign country? And that “government-provided refuge” you speak of is utter bullshit and you know it. That area of Afghanistan was a wilderness with virtually no control. The only people who knew where they were hiding were our intelligence services, oddly enough. Maybe because we put them there.

                  As to your claim of “numerous attacks,” tell me how many of them took place in the US?

                  1. There was two on the WTC, and the second one worked, the Pentagon, and the failed one in PA. There was also the attack on the Cole, and the thwarted Bojinka plot and the failed attacks by Richard Reid and Abdulmuttallab.

                    The only people who knew where they were hiding were our intelligence services, oddly enough. Maybe because we put them there.

                    What are you talking about? Al-Qaeda, was known to be in Afghanistan by more than just our intelligence services. The Taliban were the defacto leaders of Afghanistan. Neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaeda was created or put into place by the US. The Taliban were students who trained in Saudi funded madrassas in Pakistan during the 1980s. After the Soviets withdrew and then collapsed, Afghanistan was ignored and the Taliban took advantage of the power vacuum and eventually solidified control.
                    As for the US having a hand in creating Al-Qaeda, that’s also a common misconception. The non-Afghan contingent fighting against the Soviets was minuscule and didn’t have much effect on the outcome. The legend of the ‘afghan arabs’ bringing down the Soviets was cleverly propagated by Bin Laden, but the Afghans themselves did nearly all of the heavy lifting.

                    1. Um, the Taliban basically controlled Kabul and not much else. And for a “mountainous wasteland,” we seemed to be able to pinpoint the targets pretty well from the outset. Gee, I wonder how we managed to know where tiny training camps were in a nation the size of Nevada…maybe because we knew all along.

                      And if we weren’t meddling around in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc for so long, al Qaeda wouldn’t have had anything to preach against to begin with, and those terrorists wouldn’t have existed.

                      Thanks for proving my point for me, dipshit.

                    2. I don’t see the need to call me a dipshit, but whatever.

                      Oh, so when the Saudi government invited/ asked for the US to station troops there to deter Saddam from invading, that was a legitimate grievance to cause people to plot flying commercial air liners into office buildings? We meddled in Iraq by repelling and removing Iraq from Kuwait?

                    3. What would have been so wrong for us o say, “Gee, we make a point not to involve our military in conflicts that don’t directly involve us. But, here are the names of a few manufacturers who would be happy to sell you some weapons you could use to defend yourselves. Also, you may want to use if your neighbors would be willing to help defend you, as Iraq has been threatening them as well.”

                      What you’re saying now is that everyone who asks us to station troops to defend them should get “yes” as a response? And especially the most repressive regimes that ask us…you know, the ones that won’t even let women drive cars and that cuts the hands off of petty thieves?

                      If that “dipshit” comment was uncalled for before, don’t worry you just earned it with your last post.

                      Oh and once we “removed” Iraq from Kuwait, why didn’t we up stakes and come home?

                    4. What you’re saying now is that everyone who asks us to station troops to defend them should get “yes” as a response? And especially the most repressive regimes that ask us…you know, the ones that won’t even let women drive cars and that cuts the hands off of petty thieves?

                      Because life is more complicated than that and Saudi Arabia provides a lot of the world’s oil. However, this is a diversion from your point, which seemed to be that we should have expected those attacks because we had troops in Saudi Arabia. What were the crimes that those US troops were committing that led to such a backlash? Much of the justification for OBL’s hatred of the US is because the Saudi government turned down his help and that there were Christian and Jews among the US troops, and that’s some sort of sin to have infidels to set foot in the Arabian peninsula.

                    5. What were the crimes that those US troops were committing that led to such a backlash? Much of the justification for OBL’s hatred of the US is because the Saudi government turned down his help and that there were Christian and Jews among the US troops, and that’s some sort of sin to have infidels to set foot in the Arabian peninsula.

                      You answered your own question. Our “crimes” were being there in the first place. At least the crazy fuckers who were willing to fly airplanes into buildings thought they were crimes. And as far as I’m concerned, if we’re not wanted somewhere, or if our being there puts American lives in danger, then it’s adios charlie.

                      And another thing. If they wanted and needed us there so badly, why did they make demands on what soldiers could come, what they must wear in public, which sex could drive, how far behind men our women had to walk, etc.? When they ask for our help, we should have told them to go fuck themselves if they weren’t going to allow our soldiers to be as free as they’d be if they were at Ft Hood.

                      Fuck those repressive regimes. They don’t want to be our partners because they don’t respect out freedoms. They don’t respect their citizens enough to let them vote. They don’t respect their women enough to grant them basic human rights.

                      They can suck my balls.

                    6. Um, the Taliban basically controlled Kabul and not much else.

                      Taliban massacres
                      According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians.[20][21] UN officials stated that there had been “15 massacres” between 1996 and 2001.[20][21] They also said, that “[t]hese have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself.”[20][21] In a major effort to retake the Shomali plains, the Taliban indiscriminately killed civilians, while uprooting and expelling the population. Kamal Hossein, a special reporter for the UN, reported on these and other war crimes.
                      In 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by the UN’s World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people “for political and military reasons”. [48] The UN said the Taliban were starving people for their military agenda and using humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war.
                      Upon taking Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998, about 4,000 civilians were executed by the Taliban and many more reported tortured.[49][50] The Taliban especially targeted people of Shia religious or Hazara ethnic background.[20][21] Among those killed in Mazari Sharif were several Iranian diplomats. Others were kidnapped by the Taliban, touching off a hostage crisis that nearly escalated to a full scale war, with 150,000 Iranian soldiers massed on the Afghan border at one time.[51] It was later admitted that the diplomats were killed by the Taliban, and their bodies were returned to Iran.[52]
                      The documents also reveal the role of Arab and Pakistani support troops in these killings.[20][21] Bin Laden’s so-called 055 Brigade was responsible for mass-killings of Afghan civilians.[17] The report by the United Nations quotes eyewitnesses in many villages describing Arab fighters carrying long knives used for slitting throats and skinning people.[20][21]
                      The Taliban’s former ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, in late 2011 stated that cruel behaviour under and by the Taliban had been “necessary”.[53]

                      Good thing the Taliban barely controlled Kabul!

                    7. Those cities were constantly in a state of conflict. Claiming that the Taliban controlled the country is pretty inaccurate. About 80% of the population outside of the capital didn’t recognize their authority, leading to the mass-executions.

                      I’m sorry, but I’d love to do this all day, but it’s time for me to get out and watch the Rose Bowl. (Presented by Vizio).

                  2. Also, yes, by providing safe haven and refusing to hand over Al-Qaeda, the Taliban became complicit in 9/11.

              2. “invading force using their nation as a staging ground…” But what if the Canadians themselves decide to invade? — what’s to stop them from rolling through Detroit? Oh, uh…..

                1. what’s to stop them from rolling through Detroit? Oh, uh…..

                  As long as we keep them from entering the great state of Ohio, I’ve got no problem with them being in Detroit. Or that whole shitty state for that reason. Fuck Michigan.

        2. By gawd — THIS is a good troll!

        3. Dude, I think something’s wrong with your “shift” key. It’s worrying me. You might want to have that checked out.

    3. All those enemies with carrier groups able to best the US Navy on the high seas and transport to another hemisphere and army of invasion and occupation? That enemy does not exist.

      1. It will develop if we withdraw from our superpower Role as Britain once foolishly did.

        1. No, it collapsed under the colossal expense of having a unwieldy world spanning empire that lorded over people that wanted to do their own thing. No being everywhere with a gun totally screwed Anglo-Saxon culture what with English being the primary language of the world, former colonies and commonwealth countries with models of governance owning a great debt to the Magna Carta.

          Wait why the hell am I arguing with a troll?

          1. The revisionism is killing me. The Brits never withdrew from their superpower role. They were beaten back in Africa, WWI became a priority, they were spending more than they were getting out of India, and the rest of their empire was too large to control.

            And if you look at things intelligently you’ll come to the conclusion that the world the British used to control is still pretty stable without their colonial masters running things (with the exception of Pakistan, which has always been a train wreck-before, during and after the British occupation).

            1. and Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Malaysia, Uganda, …

            2. Nigeria, Sudan,…

              1. They’re as stable now as they’ve always been. Certainly as much so as during their British colonial occupancy, with the exception of Egypt, which was stable up until this past summer.

              2. Tulpa,

                Half those countries were designed by the British to be unstable. The whole sanctity of borders that were only created to help imperialist fucks dominate locals needs to be abandoned.

        2. We can cut our military in half and still have the biggest navy in the world, and one of the best defense forces in the world. We will still have the best technology and technical intelligence and huge numbers of nukes. And lots of allies and fewer enemies pissed off at our meddling.

    4. So if America doesn’t rule the world, someone else will?

      I say ‘bullshit’ to that.

  18. Touchdown!!! Miller actually looked competent for a change.

  19. Don’t pretend anyone who doesn’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy views is a warmonger.

    Can we “pretend” people like Dorothy Rabinowitz and that shrieking panic-stricken hack from the Union Leader (if I recall correctly) are warmongers?

    And Bill Kristol? And Chas Krauthammer?

    Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze?

    1. They are indeed warmongers.

      But one can simultaneously not be a warmonger AND think Paul goes too far with his FP, as I do. (and I opposed Iraq and Libya etc)

    2. No need to pretend, Brooksie. They come out and say it every time they mention the words “middle-east,” “Israel” or Iran.

      1. Your hatred for all things brown, including people, is well-known, Sloopy! Anybody that can’t see that we simply MUST get involved militarily with everything, at every point in time, at every location anywhere, in all circumstances, is a fucking isolationist and deserves to be ridiculed by the reasonable DNC and RNC-approved candidates and the supportive media!

        1. I will admit that I hate Brown. I’ve never once net a graduate from there that wasn’t a complete dickhead. As far as Ay-rabs, Messicans, negroes and any other ethnic group of our well-pigmented brethren, I’ve never once had a problem with any of them.

  20. Ron Paul doesn’t call himself a RACIST either, but he fucking is one.

    1. Poor little Maxie. Looks like it’s time for mommy to change that diaper.

    2. Max, I don’t think he is because he conducted himself as a decent OB when he treated ‘hard cases’ with compassion.

      If he was prejudicial, it would have been known in the community.

      Dr. Paul did a prodigious amount of bro bono

      1. “bro bono”

        Ew.

      2. I’m not sure why I should believe that, but I do know that he published racist material for ten years under his name.He has never given a credible explanation. That he neither wrote the racist diatribes nor know about them is not credible. At the very least he was willing to exploit racism to raise money, and that willingness indicates a weak moral character. I know he has ties to confere\ates and other insavoury racist elements, not to mention the John Birch Society. I’m glad he’s messing up the Republican field, but other than that, fuck the old crackpot.

        1. Max,I believe him when he said he never read the letters but I have a feeling he is not outing the author(s) for a reason.

          This was his norm, he never turned anyone away
          http://www.prisonplanet.com/ro…..video.html

        2. Re: Maxipad,

          I’m not sure why I should believe that, but I do know that he published racist material for ten years under his name.

          He didn’t. Don’t be a liar.

          And use a Kleenex this time – your mommy is tired of scrubbing your stains from her carpet with Oxyclean.

    3. The haters like Max call Ron Paul a racist.

      Meanwhile, honest and intelligent black people, like Walter Williams and Nelson Linder (President of the Texas NAACP) say that Ron Paul is not a racist.

      Who you gonna believe?

      1. Believe tan years of racist diatribes, asshole.

        1. Prove he wrote them, let alone believes what others wrote.

          1. And after he proves he wrote them, he can then prove that he still holds those views despite what he has been saying for 40 fucking years. 40 > 10, Bitch. And then after that, he can prove that a racist who wants to pardon non-violent drug offenders(a significant portion of which are black) and end the war on drugs would somehow hurt black people. You fuckers claim he’s a secret racist just like those other fuckers claimed Oby is a secret Muslim. What you don’t realize is that you are all full of shit, and assholes like you who get bogged down in trivialities are one of the big reasons this country is FUCKED. Go crawl back into your shit-filled doghouse you cancer-ridden brain-dead yorkie.

    4. MaxiPad, if you believe that, you are free to reelect Bloody Barack, mass killer of black Africans. That should make you feel better.

    5. Prove it, Max.

      The newsletters do not count as proof.

    6. You promised never to post here again, Max.

      That makes you a liar, even if you don’t call yourself one.

    7. Re: MAxipad,

      Ron Paul doesn’t call himself a RACIST either, but he fucking is one.

      You don’t call yourself a Thorazine-taking, compulsive masturbator either. That means you must be one – by your own logic.

  21. I believe strongly in the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations. Am I an isolationists? Do I hate black people and feminists and shit, too?

    1. What does withdrawal from the UN accomplish, exactly?

      1. It says to the rest of the world that sugardaddy isn’t gonna be around to foot the bill for every corrupt jobs program for the relatives of delegates, he isn’t going to stand for letting violent regimes head councils on human rights and he isn’t gonna stand for having his wealth confiscated in the name of European/American White Guilt.

        And that’s for starters.

        1. “Sending a message” is never a good reason for a law or a policy. Libertarians should know this better than most.

          1. But the message you are sending is that you will not participate in wholesale graft and acknowledging murderous regimes as arbiters of human rights. I’d say those are both messages libertarians would be behind sending.

          2. I care less about the message, I’d rather just save the money.

      2. Yeah, we can veto anything.

        We just vetoed Palestinian statehood – and the right-wing nutcases still say Obama is anti-Israel. There is no one that is anti-Israel in DC – unless his initials are RP.

        1. You’re going Max-stupid now, shrike. RP is no more a Jew-hater than he is a racist.

      3. You’re fucking with me, right? You honestly believe that it’s justifiable (let alone beneficial) for the United States, both from a practical and moral standpoint generally AND from a constitutional perspective, to not only legitimize through its own membership but also actively contribute, even drive, one of the most corrupt, ineffective, catastrophically immoral organizations in the world?

        How, “exactly”?

      4. Tulpa|1.2.12 @ 2:04PM|#
        “What does withdrawal from the UN accomplish, exactly?”

        Wrong question. Right question:
        What does membership in the UN accomplish, exactly?

  22. *plural form unintentional

  23. If we should relinquish our Standing as world Power, another Nation will surely take our Place.

    Yup. If we stop spending money on airplanes which kill their pilots (assuming they can even be gotten into the air, that is), we surely will be overrun by the greasy brown Islamofascist hordes.

    1. Because all the other countries in the world are just hoping for the chance to spend as much on their military as the rest of the world combined.

      The U.S. could halve the amount it spends on offense (rather than defense) and still be the strongest military in the world by far.

  24. What does withdrawal from the UN accomplish, exactly?

    What does membership accomplish?

    Other than allowing us to veto meaningless resolutions?

    1. What does withdrawal from the UN accomplish, exactly?

      Not spending a lot of money on an ineffectual bureaucracy run by an organization the support of which is not an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8?

      Perhaps in your eyes not spending that money for that purpose is a bad thing …

      1. Congress can spend money on anything it wants by the first sentence in A1S8. The enumerated powers are the areas where it can exercise coercion.

        1. I would say making our nation financially responsible for actions not carried out by the US and conscripting our troops to UN command would be considered coercion.

  25. … yes, because politicians frequently call themselves “statists” and are never referred to as that by Ron Paul fans.

    1. They deserve no less, Liberty.

  26. Apparently now days “isolationism” means “not interested in bombing the fuck out of everyone everywhere”.

    1. Pretty much. You want to trade with everyone, not impose sanctions, use your diplomats, but you don’t want to maim some little kid with a drone! Isolationist!!

  27. You grossly underestimate the Magnitude of the Threats we face, little Man.

    spake the Commodore of the Intertubez.

    1. Note the use of capitals in nouns. Dude thinks he’s in 1791, or something.

  28. Apropos of nothing…

    I just want to see a headline which says,

    Santorum Headed Down the Drain

    1. I’m waiting for,

      Santorum Surge Blows Out

      1. Santorum returns to sanitarium

  29. Next explanation for a Paul victory: Occupy Wall Streeters disrupting the caucuses by swarming the caucuses to register as Republicans or hacking into the vote tabulation system.

    Handling Occupy protestors was part of this year’s state GOP precinct captain training. The protocol: Don’t give them any special treatment. Any Iowan who arrives should be offered the opportunity to register as a Republican on site and then to vote. Anyone else should be allowed in the allotted observation areas.

    The state GOP has already moved the vote tabulation off site, but now there are worries of hackers infiltrating the reporting system. Instructions are being circulated directing caucus leaders not to touch protesters or yell at them, along with a number to call if things do get out of hand.

    […]

    In fact, Fallon said that he and other Iowa resident Occupiers are planning to join the voting by registering as Republicans at their local caucus sites on Tuesday night. He hasn’t decided whom he’ll be voting for, but he knows there’s sizable support for Ron Paul that he expects will give the Texas congressman a few extra votes from a constituency he hasn’t exactly been courting.

    1. He hasn’t decided whom he’ll be voting for, but he knows there’s sizable support for Ron Paul that he expects will give the Texas congressman a few extra votes from a constituency he hasn’t exactly been courting.

      He has been favorable to it though.

  30. Paul is now within 10 points of Mitt in New Hampshire:

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/…..hampshire/

    1. But notice the headline: Poll: Jon Huntsman ties Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire

      Yeah, because news stories are usually headlined by the guys tied for third.

      Fuck! I hate the media.

      1. Did you take a look at the “Which Candidate Will Win the Iowa Caucus?” poll at the bottom of that article?

        Given it’s unscientific, but amusing none the less.

        1. 78% for Paul? Wow.I’m assuming that poll has been up for a while, Newclear Titties has 8x the number of votes TurdLube has.

    2. And yet the headline is “Santorum tied with Gingrich” when both are 20+ points down. Paul has been consistent rising in the New Hampshire and God knows a big win in Iowa will only continue that trend.

      1. Er, I meant “Hunstman tied with Gingrich”. But more importantly, who the fuck cares?!

      2. Paul is not going to win big. It’s quite possible he finishes third behind the santorum surprise.

        1. behind the santorum surprise

          You’re a disgusting individual tulpa. Didn’t your mother teach you better than that?

          1. I think you mean “truly disgusting creature”

        2. The polls that show Santorum surging (ewww) completely underestimate the youth and independent votes that strongly favor Paul. Santorum may finish 3rd but he won’t come close to either Paul or Romney.

          1. Last time around the evangelical churches turned out shitloads of Huckabee voters at the last minute that no one expected. Not sure if that icky papist Santorum can duplicate the Baptist preacher’s feat, but it’s a possibility.

    3. On realclearpolotics, the Poll shows Romney at 41, 20 points ahead of Paul, in other words the same place as last week.

      1. Yeah, the State Column seems to have the wrong numbers:

        http://race42012.com/2012/01/0…..-survey-3/

        Romney is back to his pre-Gingrich-surge numbers. Paul, though, has been steadily increasing.

  31. Start 2012 off right with a heaping helping of black-eyed peas Krugnuts:

    Nobody Understands Debt

    In 2011, as in 2010, America was in a technical recovery but continued to suffer from disastrously high unemployment. And through most of 2011, as in 2010, almost all the conversation in Washington was about something else: the allegedly urgent issue of reducing the budget deficit.

    1. Oh. My. Fucking. God.

      He needs to return the Nobel immediately, just like his tall lanky worship object in the White House.

    2. And that’s why nations with stable, responsible governments ? that is, governments that are willing to impose modestly higher taxes when the situation warrants it

      LOL, nice definition, which totally ignores spending.

      Britain, in particular, has had debt exceeding 100 percent of G.D.P. for 81 of the last 170 years.

      Geez Kruggy, ever hear of “The Sick Man of Europe”?

      1. Cutting spending is the height of irresponsibility. Everything the government does is vital. If we didn’t find out whether Jello wrestling in Antarctica was possible America would collapse.

        1. That would have been funnier (and more irritating) if it was something the government actually spent money on.

          In emails, several people who had been at NSF’s McMurdo Station said the time, effort and jello involved in the wrestling were paid for by contract employees for Raytheon Polar Services, not employees of NSF, and said the event was held outside of work time.

    3. I was perusing the comments section earlier. Does the NYT censor critical comments, or are all NYT readers that stupid and synchophantic?

      1. Krugman censors comments on his NYT blog, so…probably.

        1. That’s cowardly, but as expected.

  32. The criticism of the analogy of the national debt to a family’s mortgage debt is particularly painful to read.

    First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t ? all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.

    That’s not really a difference; a family can add mortgage upon mortgage too, so long as (a) someone is willing to lend to them, and (b) their income increases faster than their total mortgage payments.

    (b) is analogous to Krugman’s condition on govt debt, and (a) is also active for govt debt even though PK chooses to ignore it.

    Second ? and this is the point almost nobody seems to get ? an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

    …and are counting as assets that we own. That’s not a good thing. (and btw I got that point, Kruggy)

  33. One of the funny things about the onslaught against Ron Paul, something that no one in the media is commenting on, is that it is being conducted almost entirely by paid government agents. On FOX News there is a daily interview with such figures as Clinton White House advisor Dick Morris, Bush White House speech writer Marc Thiessen, and Bush appointee to the United Nations John Bolton on how Ron Paul, his monetary policy, or his foreign policy, is “crazy.” The original source of Paul attacks is my friend James Kirchik, who in the last election cycle was merely a journalist at the Democratic magazine The New Republic, but who is now an employee of a government agency, Radio Free Europe — a government employee whose job is to represent America abroad is writing articles in the New York Times and the Weekly Standard weighing in in a Presidential race. (Is that legal?) Today in the Washington Post the aforesaid Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson weighs in on how Ron Paul would not effectively conduct a new Civil War in America, should we have one next year.
    http://teapartiers.blogspot.co…..-paid.html

  34. The debt from World War II was never repaid

    So all those people who bought War Bonds got stiffed?

    1. Technically it was refinanced, not repaid.

  35. Basically the modern-day definition of an isolationist is any American who doesn’t believe we should be babysitting the rest of the world or someone who doesn’t think we should throw away taxpayer money and the blood of brave American soldiers trying to be the world’s policemen.

  36. by causing a diversion of resources away from productive activities into tax avoidance and evasion.

    Nice capework.

    *crowd roars “OLE!”*

    1. Tony could’ve written that one with his eyes closed.

  37. Funny how Reason has only within the past week jumped on the Paul bandwagon and started to defend the man. Little late guys don’t you think? If Ron wins Iowa I bet you cosmotarians will pat yourselves on the back as if you had anything to do with it all. If he wins it was in spit of you.

    1. spite too!

      AND CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!

    2. Mitt will win, so settle your panties.

      1. Mitt’s coming in 3rd.

  38. Can we please start calling Rick Santorum “TurdLube” from here on out? Santorum just sounds too disgusting.

    Can I get a second?

    1. On how many threads are you going to post this plea?

      I know gratuitously insulting other people is cheap fun, but I’d hope you’d be mature enough to avoid it. You hedonist scalawag.

      1. Looks like I’ll stop at two

  39. Ron Paul might be better situated to defend himself against the isolationist slur if he had a better track record re trade and immigration.

    He’s in favor of free trade in principle, but in practice he votes against basically every FTA and against GATT/WTO. He also agreed in the 2008 campaign to limiting immigration and has repeatedly argued for an end to birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment.

    Whereas a typical libertarian (or Gary Johnson) could argue that he opposes militarism, but actively supports freer trade and greater immigration. So armies should not cross borders, but people, goods and money should.

    1. Re: NL_,

      He’s in favor of free trade in principle, but in practice he votes against basically every FTA and against GATT/WTO.

      Those treaties have nothing to do with “free trade,” as Mexican truckers have found the hard way.

      He also agreed in the 2008 campaign to limiting immigration and has repeatedly argued for an end to birthright citizenship through the 14th Amendment.

      Agreed and that is the only quibble I have with him, as birthright citizenship is traditionally based on English Common Law which stated that the person belonged to the land that saw him being born.

      1. Maybe not absolutely free trade, but NAFTA certainly promotes freer trade.

        1. Re; Tulpa,

          but NAFTA certainly promotes freer trade.

          Freer trade only means with less burdens, but it does not mean Free Trade.

          1. No shit. So?

            1. Re: Tulpa,

              No shit. So?

              What do you mean “so”? Saying NAFTA is freer trade is like arguing that being a serf is better than being a slave. Yeah, no shit, but it is not being a free person.

      2. I agree that the agreements have tons of carveouts and exceptions that limit economic freedom. But the only game in town right now is FTAs and the WTO, or similar structures and agreements. There’s a reason that protectionists, unions and socialists are stridently anti-WTO and anti-FTA.

        It’s not that I’m challenging his libertarian purity. I’m challenging his commitment to actually bringing about greater freedom to cross borders.

  40. You have to admit the dude has some pretty good ideas. WOw.

    http://www.Privacy-Stuff.tk

  41. Technically it was refinanced, not repaid.

    While the cumulative total of debt did not go down, the individual obligations were repaid. I’m pretty sure those War Bonds were cashed in; otherwise we would have heard about it.

    1. Yes, that’s what refinancing is. You pay the old creditors with money from the new creditors.

  42. Ron Paul interview on CNN, calls Santorum a liberal

    Notice how nervous the reporter becomes after the interview pretty much slips from her incompetent little hands.

    By the way, the Pauls are right about Santorum.

    1. Sorry, but RP is barking up the wrong tree there. He (rightly) throws a hissy fit when people call his foreign policy “liberal”, so to call Santorum “liberal” over a few minor spending issues is the height of hypocrisy.

      However, most of the stuff he said was correct.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        but RP is barking up the wrong tree there[…] to call Santorum “liberal” over a few minor spending issues is the height of hypocrisy.

        Are you on drugs, Tulpa? “Minor” spending issues?

    2. Jesus Christ, the idiot son Rand looks like Ron Paul’s fucking puppit. and niotice how the old fuck immediately reaches for a loony conspiracy theory to account for the polls showing him sliding. God, I hope he comes in third.
      The reporter is nervous, byt the way, because she’s a Jew.

      1. Re: Maxipad,

        Jesus Christ, the idiot son Rand looks like Ron Paul’s fucking puppit.

        You should take your Thorazine, Maxipad. Oh, and some sugar – your speech is becoming slurred.

        1. Shut the fuck up, Max.

    3. Is Rand wearing a Star Trek uniform?

  43. You pay the old creditors with money from the new creditors next greater fools.

    Quibbles aside, the answer to my original question regarding holders of War Bonds is “No.” Krugabe is lying.

    Again.

    1. So if I refinance my mortgage, would it be right for me to say that I’ve paid it off?

  44. would it be right for me to say that I’ve paid it off?

    As far as the original note holder is concerned, yes.

  45. Refinancing your house is a poor analogy; a credit card with multiple discrete purchases over time would be better. If you never pay your balance down to zero, does that mean you “never” really paid for those tickets to TCats in 1992?

    1. Technically no. The bank paid for them.

  46. Ron Paul doesn’t call himself a boring old crackpot with fake eyebrows……but he is one.

    1. Same old shit, Max.


  47. Those people eat grass, for fuck sake. Do you think they wouldn’t collapse in awe when they invade another country only to realize they’ve been getting fucked over their entire lives?

    I remember a bit from “Ivan’s War” about what members of the Red Army saw and felt when they entered Germany and saw stores with more goods and more variety of goods than in the Soviet Union.

    Instead of getting angry at the Soviet government for wrecking the Soviet economy, the men of the Red Army jacked their anger towards the Germans up a notch. “Damn fascists, not only did they invade our country, they hoarded all this wealth!” was the basic reaction.

    True, the North Koreans don’t have as many reasons to hate the South Koreans as the Red Army men had to hate the Germans. The Red Army wasn’t eating grass. Given the reaction of the Red Army to the relatively higher level of wealth in Germany compared to the Soviet Union, I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that the North Korean army will halt an advance into South Korea as soon as they see the first store.

    1. true, but i think the dpk soldiers reaction would be more than surprised. it would probably mindfuck their whole worldview. not that it would stop the attack, but it would mindfuck them.

    2. Even if it doesn’t make them turn their bayonets around on Kim-whoever, it will be pretty distracting. I’d imagine NK soldiers eat like kings compared to the average North Korean, but that’s not saying much.

      How are you going to keep them down in Pyongyang when they’ve seen Doritos?

  48. Ron Paul 2012, the only intelligent way to go. Check out this latest MSNB bias vs Ron Paul. Gross Distortion.
    http://www.voteforronpaul2012……quotes.php
    http://www.voteforronpaul2012.com/

  49. stfu if you have nothing to say.. stay on the subject

  50. Okay, if anyone has any numbers on how many RP newsletters were printed AND mailed, I’d like to know how he made even *one* million dollars, let alone more, based on:

    1. Cost of printing
    2. Cost of mailing
    3. Subscriber base
    4. Copies SOLD (not given as freebies)

    Assuming a 1980s-1990s timeframe, and how much shit cost in those days… could he have sold enough copies to cover printing and mailing and THEN make a profit?

    Max… you don’t need to respond. You’ll just fuck it up, anyway.

  51. Reality is, Ron Paul is not only anti-American but anti-Semitic and anti-humanity. His core followers also tend to be the most vile of individuals and conspiracy theorists including such radical and fanatics as the Nazi Stormfronters, the 9/11 truthers, the Islamic terrorists and their supporters, the Libertarian advocates of child molestation and hard drug legalization, and other enemies of western civilization. I personally hope he wins Iowa so the media finally starts to focus on his fringe and wacky conspiracies, positions, and fanatical ideas and beliefs.

  52. The fact is that Ron Paul was one of two congresspersons to vote against funding for malaria immunization and prevention in Africa which saves millions of lives a year is also “wise”. Away from the vital humanitarian concerns (as we are a hope and beacon for liberty, freedom, and human rights) imagine the void that this would create in which Islamicists would quickly fill without avoiding an eyeblink. And then, Islamicists would control and run a new terror haven called AFRICA.

  53. I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on “why won’t he come out on the truth about 9/11”. It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8

  54. An isolationist is a hermit. The opposite of a hermit is someone who is neighborly. The person who is in his neighbor’s house without their permission killing them is known as a psychopath. If those people all happen to be brown the psychopath may? be racist as well. Let’s get our definitions straight once and for all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.