Ron Paul

Ron Paul: 'Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars'

Not a party man.

|

Are there any prominent Republicans who aren't particularly happy to see the GOP do well tonight? Why, yes:

And speaking a bit more broadly:

Advertisement

NEXT: Developing: Bill Haslam Re-Elected Governor of Tennessee

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. Man, Ron Paul’s twitter intern is fired up!

  2. To be fair, it was probably inevitable anyways.

  3. He forgot this one:

    Now we can look forward to driving off the fiscal cliff at 95 miles per hour instead of 98!

  4. I just hope his next tweets aren’t about the Trilateral Commission plotting with the Bilderburgers at Bohemian Grove.

    1. Because we all know that the Trilaterals and Bilderburgers get together just so they can trade their grandmothers recipies and would never use their power to drive policies

  5. Yeah Ron. The only thing standing in the way of Obama invading the Middle East is Harry Reid. Does Paul have Alzheimer’s ?

    1. He’s a bit over the top for declaring it a certainty, but he’s right that it probably increases the chances just because Graham and McCain will have more power and a bigger pulpit. It’s also an area that they can “compromise” on with Barry.

  6. Ron Paul: “Republican control of the Senate = expanded neocon wars”

    I got a clue for you, Paul: Democrat control of the Senate = expanded wars, too.

    1. But they’ll be progressive wars! Those tend to be more frequent and smaller, at least in terms of media coverage.

  7. Sigh. Ron’s heart is in the right place. I really hope he’s wrong. For the Republicans’ sake and for the country’s sake.

    1. So say we all!

  8. Right, because the Senate is in charge of warmaking.

    1. Actually, Congress would be if we followed the Constitution. But we do not. So all we need for warmaking is Obama? phone and pen.

      1. ^this^ pretty much.

        1. Yep. I third this. How quickly we forget the Constitution in this post 9-11 world we live in. Does anyone remember a time before Bush the younger pissed on the constitution and Obama wiped his ass with it? *looks around and slowly raises hand*

    2. “Right, because the Senate is in charge of warmaking.”

      Obama abandoned his plan to directly attack Assad directly (in response to reports of chemical weapons attacks)–only, what, a year ago? …and that was mostly due to opposition in the Senate.

      It’s amazing how quickly we forget what happened–just a year ago.

      If Putin hadn’t saved Obama’s (political) ass by promising to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons for him, Obama would have made an even bigger fool of himself–by either winning approval for an unpopular action or by losing his bid for an authorization.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/…..t/2788597/

      Anyway, to whatever extent the Senate supports an expanded U.S. engagement in Syria, that support comes more reluctantly from Democrats. Some Republicans were talking about withholding support because the proposed authorization didn’t include putting boots on the ground–they were afraid Obama wouldn’t go far enough.

      1. Wait…attacking Syria was abandoned? What the hell are we currently doing? That opposition lasted all of a year. Yea, claim we are just attacking Assad. What I see is a plan and policy so confused, we barely know who we are fighting or who we support.

  9. Ron Paul: You found me beautiful once.

    Me: Honey, you got real ugly!

    1. If the Republicans can’t stop it with the warmongering, they can all go fuck themselves.

      The only reason I tolerate their overspending, medicare expanding, gay bashing, TARP supporting asses is because I hope they’ll actually repeal or severely reform ObamaCare and that they’ll support Rand Paul for President.

      It’ll be nice if they stymie Obama for a couple of years, but other than that, the Republicans can all go fuck themselves.

    2. +1 skeleton army.

      This is my BOOMSTICK!

      1. Stop camping, bitch!

  10. I have my reasons for voting Republican (mainly because I’m an antiwar Republican of the Old Right tradition). Frankly, I’m just looking for an opportunity to tell the Antiwar Left to get lost when they come crawling back. Duplicitous idiots.

    Say what you will about Republicans, but the consistently antiwar conservatives have been on-the-ball since the Bush years. Can’t say that about the Dems, who just turn the other way and whistle.

    1. *it comes crawling back

    2. “Say what you will about Republicans, but the consistently antiwar conservatives have been on-the-ball since the Bush years. Can’t say that about the Dems, who just turn the other way and whistle.”

      Good point.

  11. Republicans pretending to be libertarians in great abundance, here. So many that they include their own “wings” and perceive opportunities for differentiation. That’s the problem with being libertarian: being confused with authoritarians who benefit from superficial costume changes.

  12. Ron is right, the Republican controlled senate will approve of Obama’s wars on the middle east. Republican president, Republican senate, Republican house.

    Gee, why isn’t Ron Paul president right now? Stay the hell away from your son.

  13. What a night for Doherty to call in sick. Thanks for picking up the slack, Jesse.

    And after the Chris Kyle affair, Paul’s twitter account should be handled by a PR firm. Politicians, even deeply decent octogenarian ones, live by appearance.

  14. Well, Libya worked out great so I have high expectations for expanded intervention in Syria.

    1. No one even remembers Libya. That’s the sad thing.

      Muammar who?

      1. The most neglected news story of the decade has got to be the arms running we the US were doing to the Syrian self described “rebels” via Benghazi consulate. That resulted in the Benghazi murders, and of course some of the armaments are now with the ISIS guys, not just the anti Assad guys (who aren’t exactly Ben Franklinesque either).

        The fact that no one talks about this is a sign of how terbs our journalists have become.

        1. Wasn’t Rand Paul ridiculed when he asked that question? I remember every left wing outlet calling him a loon. We still don’t know for sure what was going on there.

  15. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $70 /hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her check was $13460 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.