Congress

Ron Paul: On the Attack and Being Attacked

|

Ron Paul has shifted from last campaign as the guy with a reputation for idea-based politics that didn't descend to personal attacks on opponents, to the guy seen as most aggressive in direct attacks on his fellow candidates.

Paul was challenged about this point at last night's debate. Below, his latest take on why all three of his quasi-viable fellow contestants are no good, serial hypocrites, fake conservatives, and flip-floppers. Three men with one vision for more big government, with Paul the only one ready for real change:

*Libby Copeland writing in the women's section of Slate wonders why young men seem to dig Ron Paul so much. Without actually addressing whether his ideas make moral or political or practical sense, she concludes that young men like Paul's ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

*Associated Press slams Paul for flying first-class a lot on his congressional budget, and gets very in the weeds on the amounts involved. It fails to get similarly in the weeds on the amounts he returns to the Treasury unspent from his office budget, though it mentions that "he says he regularly returns money from his congressional account to the treasury." (It was $141,580 last year.)

*The Hill fingers Paul as Santorum's biggest stumbling block in South Carolina.

*Current Texas polling from Public Policy Polling has native son Ron Paul in last place in the field at 12 percent, though rising significantly from 7 percent since fall.

*Folks on a Facebook "Stop Ron Paul" page skylark about plans to dress in KKK robes and appear at Paul events as ostensible supporters.

*Paul's four-day take since Saturday in a South Carolina-centric rolling "moneybomb" up to $1.5 million.

The Debate Tape of Only Ron Paul:

My forthcoming book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

NEXT: Romney, Who Used to Favor Campaign Spending Caps, Now Wants to Allow Larger Direct Donations to Campaigns

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. Unfortunately here in Texas, not being a good-ol’-boy cronyist, not advocating for expanding the death penalty to include all crimes and to have the punishment carried out the next day, and not advocating for immediate war with everyone, means a candidate will probably not be very popular state-wide.

    1. When the Christians are booing someone for invoking a Christian concept like the Golden Rule to preserve foreign intervention, well, we’re in trouble. That attitude, coupled with the proto-empire we already have, makes the possibility of a real empire greater than ever.

      The domestic problems are so huge and, in the not-so-distant future, so potentially cataclysmic, that I’m amazed at how many Republicans are worried about foreign policy in this election. Fix the brakes, or we’re going off the cliff.

      1. It’s not a proto empire, it already is an empire.

        1. I don’t agree, but, at the rate we’re going, time will end the debate.

        2. If we were an empire, countries would be paying us tribute, rather than us sending money out to everybody in “foreign aid.” If we are an empire, we are doing it wrong.

          1. We don’t run conquered nations for our own economic benefit, nor do we stay and assert political control for very long.

            We’re also not an economic empire in any sense other than the fact that we’re the world’s largest and most influential economy.

            What we most closely resemble is the Middle Roman Republic, which never intended to permanently occupy the regions it fought in. But, little by little, they got more imperial, as the rest of the Mediterranean world expected the Romans to intervene and call the shots. One thing that happened back then, too, on multiple occasions, is that the Romans got tired of going in, stopping the problem, leaving, and having to go back. That’s why they ultimately ended up occupying Greece, for instance. Not a perfect analogy, but a potentially telling one.

            1. I’ve long had thoughts of my own along these lines, but a book on the subject that I found pretty decent is Thomas Madden’s Empires of Trust: How Rome Built–and America Is Building–a New World.

            2. One thing that happened back then, too, on multiple occasions, is that the Romans got tired of going in, stopping the problem, leaving, and having to go back.

              Another similarity between Rome’s experience and ours is that Rome also tended to define “the problem” as “the tyrant or oligarchy we left in charge last time fell from power” and/or “those cities whose independence we guaranteed for all time decided to have friendly relations with someone we don’t like”.

              1. IN the Romans’ defense, those other powers kept attacking them.

                1. I’m not criticizing the Romans, who for quite some time, I believe, were building an empire with no intention of doing any such thing.

            3. Historically, we prefer to simply drive a native people out of an area altogether and colonize it with Americans. So, why assume we would stop?

              1. We haven’t done that in over a hundred years. I think a hundred years of counter practice would be a good reason to assume we would stop. Did we do that in the Philippines or Cuba? In Europe? In most of the Pacific that we took from the Japanese? In Korea?

                Stupid is too weak of a word for that post.

          2. +100

          3. If we were an empire, countries would be paying us tribute, rather than us sending money out to everybody in “foreign aid.” If we are an empire, we are doing it wrong.

            That’s not really true.

            Rome (and later the Byzantines) paid out quite a bit in subsidies to buffer states and puppets.

            Republican Rome tended to make a tidy profit off of its provinces, but imperial Rome and the successor Byzantine state generally lost money hand over first. They held on to their provinces partly by inertia, partly because the Roman imperial system devastated and hollowed out one area after another, and they needed provinces outside their exhausted core for fighting manpower. The Byzantines kept money-losing territories because the alternative was to let their enemies march right up to the border of their Aegean heartland.

            1. “Rome (and later the Byzantines) paid out quite a bit in subsidies to buffer states and puppets.”

              Rome did a lot of things. But that doesn’t make every single thing they did part of being an empire. Paying off your enemies and helping your friends is something that all nations do. There is nothing unique to empires about it.

        3. It’s not a proto empire, it already is an empire.

          The fact that we honored the agreement to leave Iraq disproves this in my book. A real empire would have said “Eff you, we’re not leaving.”

          1. The Americans did not really leave, they have a huge presence there, the country is essentially an American puppet.

            What do you think would happen to any Iraqi politician who wanted to hand over that huge base that is supposed to be an embassy to the Chinese ? Or perhaps throw out US companies doing business there. The Americans will respect that ? Give me a break.

          2. Or if some country said that the semi secret drone bases will now be leased to China, the US government will politely say: “we are not an empire, we respect your decision”, what they will really say: “eff you, you do that an face the consequences” (in kinder sounding political speech obviously)

          3. —“The fact that we honored the agreement to leave Iraq disproves this in my book. A real empire would have said “Eff you, we’re not leaving.”—

            We left Iraq because it suited OUR purpose. Had it not, we would have stayed.

          4. This is an excellent point. This is definitely one in the “not-empire” column.

            Although I think that partially what happened here is that our own hand-picked puppet PM outsmarted us.

            1. If we were an empire, we would have just just killed him Fluffy and put in someone who gave us what we wanted.

      2. But ProL, fixing our domestic issues is pointless if MUSLIMS are still lurking somewhere out there with their new-kew-ler bombs. What good is it to have a solvent nation if the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud?

        Like my father, the staunch republican, believes: world domination first, fiscal sanity when convenient.

        1. We’re within a decade or less (maybe much less) of not being able to afford our role in maintaining the Pax Americana. Better see to that before worrying about some nutty terrorists. They’ll be around regardless of what we do, anyway.

          I’m not entirely convinced that we can safely go from World Cop to noninterventionist, not so much out of fear of direct attack as to the world being dependent on us to keep the peace. If things were to heat up again into a major war, past experience shows that we’d likely get dragged into it. Even so, I’m firmly backing Paul.

          1. ‘I’m not entirely convinced that we can safely go from World Cop to noninterventionist, not so much out of fear of direct attack as to the world being dependent on us to keep the peace’

            I’m not either. Places like Africa and the Middle East would turn into genocidal, repressive shitholes. SoKo would have to do their own god damn diplomacy with the Norks.

            But those places were fucked up long before we ever got involved.

            1. I’m not entirely unconvinced, either. I could live with some continued intervention, provided that domestically and internationally we acted in a constitutional and ethical manner. Don’t think we need to blow up shit as often as we do, in any event.

              1. I’m fine without any involvement. I think U.S. intervention was the big reason Russia pushed so heavily on installing dictators in Africa. Not sayin that it’s the U.S.’s fault, just that there’s no point in deposing dictators and giving them assistance at the same time.

                Cutting out both would probably come up as a wash anyways

        2. When the fuck did all of the rogue states suddenly acquire nukes?

          Many claim that both Iran and NK have them. They don’t.

          1. Whew! We are safe then. Obviously a third world country like Iran, North Korea, or Pakistan could never develop nuclear weapons. At least they can’t today, and tomorrow never comes. Did I say Pakistan? Whoops!

      3. The Golden Rule is all well and good, but Jesus didn’t face the threats that we do today. He wouldn’t have pushed that philosophy to the point where innocent people were killed.

        1. Pure crap, more innocent people were dying in the past (as a percentage of the population) than they do today. The Romans butchered entire cities and crucified lots of people, including Jesus, that still did not make him call for an uprising and the destruction of Rome.

          1. Good point. I changed my mind.

        2. A guy who committed state-assisted suicide rather than deny his divinity “wouldn’t have pushed” his philosophy that far?

          Ho-kay buddy.

          1. Damn you, Tulpa – I thought that was a joke, but I still gots trolled.

            1. Damn you, Tulpa

              He does. Every day.

          2. Suicide ? did he nail himself to the cross ?

            1. He was god, wasn’t he?

            2. Suicide by cop. Praetor Dunphius Maximus.

        3. hilarious!

      4. The Golden Rule invocation was stupid. Governments are not supposed to apply the Golden Rule. Don’t most people hope that they will be assisted if someone is assaulting them? Doesn’t that mean, according to the GR, that I should attempt to assist someone if they are being assaulted? If a Nation is applying the Golden Rule, doesn’t that mean that they should be obligated to fight for the oppressed?

        Like many things in the Bible, the Golden Rule can be used to justify foreign intervention.

        1. Really not worth saying twice…..

      5. The Golden Rule invocation was stupid. Governments are not supposed to apply the Golden Rule. Don’t most people hope that they will be assisted if someone is assaulting them? Doesn’t that mean, according to the GR, that I should attempt to assist someone if they are being assaulted? If a Nation is applying the Golden Rule, doesn’t that mean that they should be obligated to fight for the oppressed?

        Like many things in the Bible, the Golden Rule can be used to justify foreign intervention.

        1. The flip side also applies.

          If I’m kicking the shit out of somebody and robbing them, the last thing I want is some do-gooder intervening.

          Now, when governments look around for which side of a conflict they identify with, so they know which way the Golden Rule points them, which side do you think they will land on?

          1. Now, when governments look around for which side of a conflict they identify with, so they know which way the Golden Rule points them, which side do you think they will land on?

            Always the wrong one? I am not sure I understand you. Wouldn’t a (hypothetical, obviously) Nation that believes in Liberty land on the side of kicking the shit out of the oppressor?

            I don’t mean this as an argument against RP’s positions. My first thought, though, was, “I would sure hope the USMC would come rescue me if I were enslaved.”

            Since a Nation is not an individual it really can’t follow the Golden Rule because not all of the citizens agree on how they wish to be treated.

  2. Your gross hyperbole aside, this is exactly as it is with the majority of the national electorate as well – the reason he has no chance to become President.

    1. Rodents! reply to Gojira

    2. Of course it was gross hyperbole, but perhaps not as gross as any sane person would want to believe.

      As I’ve said before on here, judicial elections around here literally get into a pissing match over who has sent the most people to death row. Any judge who has ever found any suspect “not guilty” is accused of being “soft on crime”. And I’m not joking.

      1. Gross hyperbole is fine. Wasn’t exclaiming; just had to note that for my point to make sense.

        1. Point taken. I just really hate judicial election season here (northern suburbs of Dallas).

          I remember a few years ago a guy ran a commercial where he practically accused one candidate of encouraging axe murderers because he once let a kid off with a mere warning for having weed. WEED! Smoking weed is actually the equivelant to being a serial rapist in the minds of the voters here.

          1. Yep, the wise criminal would exercise a bit of selectivity in choosing the state in which he is going to commit crimes – and “crimes” – and TX is definitely not on the list.

          2. Yep. “Republican, HARD ON CRIME, for sheriff” posters fucking everywhere.

  3. He’s running on the idea that the status quo is self-destructive madness, and the other candidates all represent that insanity. Hard to stay entirely on the high road when the other candidates are as bad as they are. It’s not like he’s running against respected, smaller government conservatives (pre-scandal Sanford comes to mind).

    I like the bit about people pretending to be supporters in KKK garb. That’s about where we are these days–let’s manufacture a lie rather than fight a difficult message in public. Because, his quirkiness aside, Paul is more right than wrong, and fighting him in the marketplace of ideas is really a losing proposition.

    1. He’s running on the idea that the status quo is self-destructive madness, and the other candidates all represent that insanity.

      On the rare occasion that someone asks me about the race, I tell them that Ron Paul is the only serious man running. I tend to get a lot of confused looks.

      1. It happens here.

      2. I volunteered to be on the platform committee (coming out of the caucuses). I intend to take my pocket constitution and ask the rest of the platform committee where each and every plank in the platform is authorized by the constitution. I wonder how long it will take them to unvolunteer me.

    2. I like the bit about people pretending to be supporters in KKK garb.

      Wouldn’t secrecy have been a necessary condition for this to be effective?

      I hope they’re stupid enough to try it. It can’t help but backfire.

      1. From the people who brought you the Occupy? experience comes the Openly Fake KKK Protest to Discredit Evil Libertarian Man.

        Now I’ve got “Evil Libertarian Man” in my head as sung to the old hit, “Secret Agent Man.” Dangit.

        1. The meter doesn’t work out for that one.

          1. Agreed, which makes it all the worse.

        2. Ha ha…everyone know the song is “Secret Asian Man”. Geesh, don’t you know anything?

    3. The KKK robes thing is nuts. They are so attached to the proposition that only racism could motivate people like Paul that they will fake it if necessary to convince other people. I would be a bit amused if they got their asses whooped on the way out dressed as KKK guys.

      1. But, but…newsletters!

      2. That actually sounds like a good strategy. Have real Paul fans come out and beat the shit out of them. Anti-racism points and karmic justice.

      3. A false flag operation isn’t effective if everyone knows there is a false flag operation in play.

    4. let’s manufacture a lie rather than fight a difficult message in public.
      —————–
      that is pretty much the approach the left relies on to maintain its power. Liberalism cannot survive without a massively uninformed populace.

  4. The first class attack pisses me off to know end. Michelle Obama wastes millions of taxpayer dollars flying out to Hawaii early in a separate plane. And there isn’t a peep. It is an insult to Marie Antoinette to compare her to Michell Obama. Antoinette lived pretty modestly for a monarch of her age and never said let them eat cake. She was totally unfairly slimed by history. Michelle Obama is all that her worst critics claim and then some.

    But the same people that ignore that have the nerve to bitch about Paul flying first class WTF?

    1. I think the fact that he returns far more back to the treasury is the key fact. If he is spending less than all of the other congresscritters, does it matter how it was spent?

      Also they weren’t first class tickets but refundable ones that got upgraded with FF miles as I understand it. This story was in the newspaper this morning, more distortion of the facts by the mainstream media.

      1. It is his budget. And further, they never said a peep when Pelosi turned the DC Air Guard into her private air force while she was speaker. That bitch flew home via tax payer funded private jet nearly every single weekend. But Paul is a bad guy for flying first class?

        1. why are you acting surprised? No one cared about Paul till he gained traction among voters. That led the establishment – from both sides – to attack. Same thing happened to Cain; instead of debating the merits of 9-9-9, he was hit with allegations that could not be disproven or proven.

          Pelosi and Moochelle are part of the protected establishment class. The people who make the accusations against Paul count on the public having either forgotten or never known about Air Pelosi or FLOTUS.

      2. Also they weren’t first class tickets but refundable ones that got upgraded with FF miles as I understand it.

        Exactly right. It was just another attempt to smear him, because everything else has only made him stronger.

        His staff buys fully refundable tickets in case his plans change. He can upgrade them to first class for free because he’s a frequent flyer on Continental.

    2. Madame Obama doesn’t act all high and mighty like Mr. Paul does.

      1. Madame Obama is no class noveau riche. She does nothing but tromp on people’s sensibilities. She has no sense of propriety or empathy with the people of this country.

        1. She knows what it’s like to be an oppressed minority. She has more empathy in her eardrum than you do in your entire liver.

          1. That is why she spends millions of opulent vacations and bad flowered dresses in the middle of a depression? And when was she ever oppressed? What does Princeton have Jim Crow laws? Is getting a 300K do nothing job because of her corrupt politician husband count as oppression now? Where do I sign up for such oppression?

            1. Fred Douglass lived a good lifestyle as a dockworker when he was a slave owned by an absentee slaveholder. That doesn’t mean slavery isn’t oppressive.

              1. Yes, she was forced to sit in as a board member and collect six figures and slave away in the whitehouse flying to the French riviera, Hawaii, and Europe.. Why it’s detestable, it is.. Whitey should be ashamed..

          2. Oppressed? Please. Oppressed does not mean getting a pass into an Ivy; a six-figure job where you do little, if that; or, growing up in a family where dad was a municipal worker. Her empathy is evident in her disregard for our money, with trips to Spain, and routinely taking her own flight to Martha’s Vineyard / Hawaii instead of waiting a day or two for Barry.

          3. She knows what it’s like to pretend to be an oppressed minority

            1. I am an accomplished professional, middle-aged wife and mother of two beautiful daughters. My husband is a highly accomplished politician and we live a good, but not opulent, lifestyle. I am not white and I read comments on the internet that imply that my husband and I have only achieved as much as we have because we are minorities and received assistance we would not have otherwise received if we were white. Haha, fuck em! We pay for our lifestyle with their money!

    3. Yeah, but John, she was a goddamn Hapsberg Austrian, historic enemies of the Bourbon French. And she didn’t even speak French!

      Honestly, the Antoinette thing is an example of French snoberry at its finest.

      1. She did after a while. And there were times when she was popular. Read the story about Lafayette (yes that Lafayette of American Revolution fame) saving her and the king from the mob at Versailles the night the king was forced to move back to Paris. He instinctively brought her out to the balcony alone and kissed her hand showing her to be along with the king to be the protectors of the people. The crowd yelled for the first time in a decade vive le Reine. It is right out of a TV movie. Better than fiction.

    4. Even more outrageous than this, is the fact that they admit in the article that he doesn’t actually buy first class tickets.

      He buys coach class tickets.

      Because he buys the nonrefundable fare, and because he has massive ff miles, he gets offered upgrades to first class. A lot.

      So these assholes are offering the argument that if you buy a coach class ticket and are offered an upgrade, you should decline it.

      1. Fluffy, what?

        I’m pretty sure he buys refundable tickets (which is business or first class). And if this is the biggest gotcha they could find against Paul, it enhances his fiscal example rather than diminish it.

        I had to laugh when I saw the article.

        1. Continental sells refundable and non-refundable coach class seats.

          You’re right, I got the prefix wrong. He pays a premium for refundable tickets, not non-refundable ones. But they’re still coach class.

          1. Oh, I fly Southwest exclusively so I didn’t think other airlines had refundable coach tickets.

      2. Because he buys the nonrefundable fare, and because he has massive ff miles, he gets offered upgrades to first class. A lot.

        Fluffy’s right, this is a scam by Ron Paul. Think about it, the whole Paul campaign is a giant scam to get the ultimate class upgrade… TO AIR FORCE ONE!

      3. As a former Platinum Card member of NWA’s frequent flyer program, if you buy a full-fare coach seat more than a day or so before the flight, you are almost guarenteed to get a free upgrade (no cost; no miles) to first class if you are a member of one of the elite frquent flyer categories.

    5. They Buried the lede.

      It should have read “Paul flies commercial”

      Compared with other colleagues that eschew anything but chartered flights.

    6. How is she worse though than any other first lady? The problem is not her specifically, but the fact that presidents and their families have long been seen as our royalty.

  5. For no reason other than that I’m (belatedly) into the album, Dig that Hole.

  6. Like Oscar Wilde said: The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.

    1. No one is running unfair attacks on Rick Perry. They were back when he was important, see e.g. the stupid WAPO story about the racist sign on his hunting lease. But not now.

  7. Without actually addressing whether his ideas make moral or political or practical sense, she concludes that young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

    Of course. It couldn’t possibly be that young men do most of the dying and suffering in our wars, or that they’re going to eventually pay a steep price for living in a bankrupt country. Those ideas are undoubtedly too complex and beyond the grasp of a woman like Copeland.

    1. Since we don’t have a draft and they are in no danger of going to any war unless they choose to join up, no it couldn’t be that.

      1. Yeah because an 18 year old really knows what they are in for when they sign up. It’s only anecdotal evidence but my cousin who signed up after 9/11 came back emotionally and physically (purple hear) scarred and may never recover.

        I think dismissing the argument because there is no draft is preposterous.

        1. The problem is that the vast, vast majority of young men do not sign up. His support among active duty military (which he overstates a bit, but I forgive him) would be a better fact to use for that argument.

          1. What Tulpa said. If you want to make this argument, use his support among the military not college students.

        2. I wish your cousin well. He knew that some major military shit-kicking was imminent and he signed up and didn’t know what he was in for? Maybe the answer is to not allow 18 year olds decision making ability and not assign them responsibility for their decisions for say, another four or five years

          1. Our society has already been doing this. College graduates are routinely referred to as kids when they are 22, 23. It’s human nature to make bad decisions when you are young. You can’t change societal structure to change that.

            1. My last sentence was sarc.

          2. He was responsible for his decision but just because he signed up doesn’t make the fact that “young men do most of the dying and suffering” any less true.

            With a non-interventionist foreign policy young men could sign up to defend the country without having their blood squandered.

        3. Yeah because an 18 year old really knows what they are in for when they sign up.

          Really? Getting into the military is a mystery to people? I doubt that. 18-year-olds are stupid in general, but that’s no reason to infantilize them and marginalize their choice.

          1. Particularly when they’re signing up during a putative war.

            The people who signed up in 2000 could plausibly say they didn’t know what they were getting into (though they should have known).

            1. Slightly OT: Today I saw a Purple Heart license plate that read “1GOTME”. I loled.

              1. I’ve referred to mine on occasion as an Iraqi Marksmanship Badge.

      2. Give us a few more useless wars and watch volunteerism dry up like Texas riverbeds.

        There’s a reason so many vets had to do repeat tours and its not because America’s been experiencing a boom in new recruits.

    2. young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

      Which is why they write articles titled “Why Ron Paul’s Critics Are So Dumb”.

  8. she concludes that young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

    Ah the old “you don’t understand the nuance of our complex central planning ideas”. I”m surprised she didn’t throw out a reference to the “grownups”.

    Got it.

    1. The slate comments are right on cue.

      Paul supporters just don’t have the brains to understand the intricate nuance of bombing Libya, and arresting millions of black youth over drugs, and of debauching the treasure. It’s just nauseating.

      1. pretty standard liberal stuff. Why waste time debating the merits of an opponent’s argument when it’s so much easier to dismiss them as stupid.

    2. As opposed to what? How women don’t like things simple and want to complicate every thing. I call sexist.

      Just read the article apparently Ron Paul’s philosophy is both intellectual and simplistic at the same time.

    3. The whole “its complicated” excuse is used by a whole range of people, to despots oppressing countries, to people who want to break up their relationships, to school children who did not finish their homework. It all boils down to not having the courage or integrity to tell the truth as it really is.

      1. It’s also not having the courage or integrity to accept the truth as it really is. The Kos Kiddies are doing wrenching backflips to tell themselves that Obama is completely different from and better than Bush despite Obama’s continuation of all of Bush’s policies that the Kos Kiddies once told themselves they hated. Now I’m seeing Kos Kiddies speaking in favor of “kinetic military action” against Iran.

    4. And this is why anything on Slate post-Jack Shaffer is absolutely fucking useless.

  9. Uhg, I’m not sure about Cruz but Dewhurst makes me want to vomit.

  10. “When the Christians are booing someone for invoking a Christian concept like the Golden Rule to preserve foreign intervention, well, we’re in trouble.”

    I agree with Paul on applying the Golden Rule, but I think the interventionists have a quite logical interpretation of how to apply the same rule. The way they see it, we’re protecting ourselves and the world against terrorists, just like we want other countries to protect us.

    And Paul’s ideas are certainly controversial – not only among Christians. A Jewish crowd would probably yield a few boos.

    And he got several rounds of cheering too, including on foreign policy. So why not say that “these Christians sound so sensible!”

    1. The crowd was mixed. The standing ovation for Gingrich and his rant against “food stamp” Obama was nausiating though.

    2. The way they see it, we’re protecting ourselves and the world against terrorists, just like we want other countries to protect us.

      But I bet the interventionists don’t want other countries sticking their noses in when we are busy on one of our little foreign adventures.

      As far as I can tell, the Golden Rule is a wash when it comes to foreign affairs. Let’s say we’re trying to overthrow the government of Syria, and Iran comes along and tries to prevent that, while the Brits also come along and supports overthrow. Under the Golden Rule, Iran is treating the government of Syria the way it would want to be treated (that is, being supported against foreign interference), and the Brits are treating us the way they would want to be treated (that is, getting support in pursuing their foreign policy goals). Iran and the Brits are doing totally opposite things, yet both complying with the Golden Rule.

      1. American exceptionalism is a complete crock. We do not know what is best for the world any more than any other country does. We know whats best for ourselves, but thats hardly representative. It takes self deception then to make the argument that whats good for us is good for everyone.

        Of course admitting this makes “us” sad, so we don’t, which means we “must” keep fighting to make the world look like us.

      2. Under the Golden Rule, Iran is treating the government of Syria the way it would want to be treated (that is, being supported against foreign interference), and the Brits are treating us the way they would want to be treated (that is, getting support in pursuing their foreign policy goals).

        I don’t think that’s correct.

        The Golden Rule is just another way of saying that you want your actions to establish a maxim.

        If the British try to topple the government of Syria by force, the maxim of that action is “If you don’t approve of another government, it’s OK to topple it by force”.

        That would mean that it would be OK for any state that didn’t like Britain to topple Britain’s government by force.

        The Golden Rule for Britain would be, “If you don’t want other states to topple your government, don’t topple the government of other states.”

        1. If the British try to topple the government of Syria by force, the maxim of that action is “If you don’t approve of another government, it’s OK to topple it by force”.

          No it is the Maxim that “if a government is killing its own citizens by the thousands, it is okay for a foreign power to intervene and stop them”.

          By your maxim, the British intervening in Syria is no different than them throwing out the government of Germany because they don’t approve of it.

          I don’t know why you refuse to admit there is any difference in governments. The government of Syria is a lot different and a lot worse than the government of Canada. For that reason invading Syria is not the same as invading Canada. They are in no way morally equivalent. But you seem to think they are.

          1. If the British try to topple the government of Syria by force, the maxim of that action is “If you don’t approve of another government, it’s OK to topple it by force”.

            No it is the Maxim that “if a government is killing its own citizens by the thousands, it is okay for a foreign power to intervene and stop them”.

            And, once again, we see the Golden Rule supporting both sides of a foreign policy dispute.

            1. Yes. It is not that simple on either side.

          2. Germany initiated force against Britain (or British allies). That changes things.

        2. Correct. It isnt Britians attitude towards the USA (supporting us) but towards Syria.

          When applied to foreign affairs, the golden rule is basically the Non-aggression principle.

    3. The way they see it, we’re protecting ourselves and the world against terrorists, just like we want other countries to protect us.

      So what you’re saying is, if the Iranians said, “X, Y and Z are terrorists because we say they are!” and sent commando teams into neighborhoods in Brooklyn to murder X, Y, and Z, or used drone bases in Mexico to drone attack any building in Texas where they thought supporters of X, Y and Z were hiding, Americans would say, “Wow, thanks a lot for protecting us against terrorism, guys”?

      1. They would define terrorism differently than you do.

        I’m not agreeing with the booers, but casually dismissing them as idiotic Christians ignores the fact that Paul’s position is pretty strong medicine. Republican primary voters aren’t used to hearing politicians talk about American sins vis-a-vis other countries. Some people in the audience probably thought it was moral equivalence.

        Given all this, I was impressed by the cheers Paul got on FP and domestic issues.

  11. I think that ad is pretty good. As attack ads go, it isnt very dirty, but hits the key points.

  12. Libby Copeland writing in the women’s section of Slate wonders why young men seem to dig Ron Paul so much. Without actually addressing whether his ideas make moral or political or practical sense, she concludes that young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

    Smug elitism much?

    1. Jesus. The smug stupidity, does it give comfort?

      1. It must. The “teh men are stupid” meme seems really popular in our culture nowadays.

        1. White straight guys are the last people you can attack and have no one jump to their defense.

          1. And atheists, of course. Woe unto thee if you’re both.

            1. And Southerners.

              1. White male southern atheists are really screwed, huh?

                1. It’s legally treason to fall into that category.

    2. As if the conclusion she just drew wasn’t infinitely more simplistic than anything else I’ve heard in the last month.

    3. Funny she should say that given Keynesian policy treats society like it is ran by a simple set of gears while Austrians embraces heterogeneous complexity.

  13. The women’s section of “Slate”?

    WTF?

    1. Its redundant, I know.

  14. she concludes that young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.

    Phew, I bet she felt better after figuring that out.

  15. It’s unfortunate that there may be people calling random numbers, masquerading as be Paul supporters and yelling at those on the other end of the phone, merely to piss them off.

    1. [so they won’t vote for him]*

  16. OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY BYE BYE!!!! in with the Old Ways- True Ways , to be New Again/ ;-))
    The Constitution

    I was a warmonger,voted straight Republican party ticket for 41 yrs! Eyes opened Now!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    Got My Vote!!! Dr. Paul 2012;-))

  17. Brian, from your post “…she concludes that young men like Paul’s ideas because they are black and white and simplistic and make the young men feel smart.”

    I didn’t really get the sense Copeland was saying that at all. I feel like that was taken a slightly out of context. Her article also reads,

    …”his supporters are the ones who’ve educated themselves enough to know only their revered Dr. Paul has the aforementioned “answer.””

    You are correct, however, that she does not address the moral, political, or practical rationales of Paul’s positions (though I don’t think that was the point anyway).

  18. Ron Paul is a good man but he has done his own flip flopping. He use to be for the death penalty and now he is not.
    He is 76 years old!!!!!! He has to go home frequently to rest because he is 76 years old!!!!! One bad cold or broken hip and he will not bounce back because he is 76 years old!!!!!

    1. He can add Johnson or his son Rand as his running mate, so if anything serious happens to him, they’ll be given the authority to over-ride congress as well. And if Paul has a bad cold on the first day of office they can just bring the papers to end the federal drug war and close bases to his bedside and he’ll sign them there. A lot of bad legislation can be done away with in the early days.

  19. The only thing evil needs is for good to stand around and do nothing, and being a nice guy is just that, standing around and doing nothing.

  20. I am seeking the right man who can give me a real love, so I joined in the Seekcasual*com.(user name winklin)It’s the first and best club for man and woman finding their intimate encounters. Well, you do not have to be lonely ,for you can meet the Mr. or Miss. Right there,

  21. sikhcasual*com is the place for NRIs and native desi’s to get it on!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.