The Shotgun Blog
« Liberal Senators call Flaherty’s bluff on Bill C-10 | Main | Japanese kidnap victims' relatives to the free world: Grow a spine »
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Ron Paul is worse than Obama
I am going to quote it entirely from Hot Air website. Regular Conservative can have a good laugh while isolationist libertarians can learn more about their clueless god:
"So this makes three things America’s Greatest Patriot has in common with Obama: They both oppose the war, they both lead their own cults, and neither one understands that Afghans aren’t Arabs. But never mind that. I’m sure I’ve asked this question before but I’m compelled to ask again. Does Ron Paul realize that he voted for the war in Afghanistan? We’re used to seeing pols repudiate their war votes, but at least when Hillary and Edwards do it they feel obliged to feign remorse and lament the error of their ways. Paul, by contrast, plows right on ahead with his lecture, seemingly oblivious that he himself is partly responsible for supposedly playing into Osama’s hands.
That’s at the end of the clip. The beginning of the clip is devoted to him wondering why we’re going around arresting terrorists in foreign countries. Yes, really. Watch the whole thing, though, as I think these few minutes come closer than anything else I’ve seen to explaining why so many conservatives conceptualize him as a leftist even though his policies are very far right. It’s not that he thinks the war is a mistake; so does George Will and so did William F. Buckley and their conservative credentials were fully in order the last time I checked. It’s that he can’t concede any sort of progress against the enemy, so dogmatically does he adhere to his isolationism. It’s no neocon fantasy that Iraq has been a disaster for Al Qaeda, unless the Guardian and people like David Ignatius (and jihadi propagandists?) now qualify as neocons. Apart from losing ground on the battlefield, they’re losing ground ideologically too, which belies not only Paul’s claim that they’re stronger than ever but that he understands the enemy better than the Republican mainstream, blinkered as it is by jingoism. He’s actually worse — considerably worse — than Obama is in this area. "
Posted by Winston on June 19, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5535f3df18833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul is worse than Obama:
Comments
Oh boy, Winston... you did it now. The Ronulan Freedom Train (tm) is in motion as we speak.
Lemme see if I can summarize their points first:
1. "Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He just wants to stop terrorists AFTER they kill Americans."
2. "At least Ron Paul doesn't want to fight wars for Israel... mumble mumble..." and then something about Jews controlling America.
3. "Ron Paul just wants to follow the Constitution, man. Except for that pesky 14th Amendment part."
4. "You obviously hate liberty and your feet smell bad."
5. "Ron Paul is the greatest man in the history of the world, and eventually he WILL prevail over you and your neo-con lackeys!"
I'm sure I've missed a few. We should make a game of this before the Freedom Train derails into the station :-)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-19 12:55:36 AM
More media propoganda..Ron Paul voted on the war based on lies that Bush spread. You think that Mccain is any better than Ron Paul, he is already currupt and is receiving contributions from the Rothschild family. Your just like every other person in the media, conforming to the thoughts that the media wants you to look at. Atleast when Ron Paul supporters talk about him they actually know his policy, can Mccain or Obama supporters say the same? No they cannot. Vote for Mccain or Obama and see a North American Union in the next two years.
Posted by: alex | 2008-06-19 12:57:20 AM
Ah, man, how could I forget the NAU stuff?
6. "You just think what the Jewish overlords want you to think. Now we're headed for the North American Union and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!"
Heh.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-19 1:01:21 AM
dumbass
Posted by: Dan | 2008-06-19 4:11:30 AM
Winston is an idiot, PUT HIM ON THE LIST.
Thanks!
Posted by: Hot hot female | 2008-06-19 4:46:30 AM
inane and uninformed article.
"gobble gobble gooble"....
Posted by: bluesky | 2008-06-19 5:37:27 AM
1) Winston, you're an idiot.
2) I guess time will reveal whether you, or we Ronulans are misinformed.
3) You'll still be an idiot.
Posted by: geminisoup | 2008-06-19 6:29:38 AM
RonPaul voted for the Afghanistan war as a rsult of 9/11 to go after Bin Laden, which was not done to effect.
He says this clearly. He voted correctly then and does not disavow it. He has been consistent and clear.
Posted by: Mayberry | 2008-06-19 6:51:49 AM
As a Canadian observing this current crisis in America, I am amazed at the amount of "journalistic fecal matter" that is continuously being spewed in an effort to continue to serve up a web of lies and deceit to the American public.
Although authors such as the one who penned this article which in essence is indeed another effort at discrediting your Dr. Paul are plentiful, I am comforted by the thought that the U.S. still has sufficient free thinkers to understand that the media cannot forever keep them ignorant of the issues that will shape their future.
We up north are looking forward to the day that The American People manage to wring their freedoms and liberties back from the forces that be and regain the respect that they once had as a nation, before the constitution was labeled "nothing but a god-damned piece of paper" by their very own president.
You will prevail, for your hearts are in the right place. You have simply been misled by the elite for too long.
Posted by: GentIsle | 2008-06-19 7:00:05 AM
You accuse Paul of not knowing the difference between Arabs and Afghanis -- and then link to an article which only shows Obama making that mistake. But you are the one that is confused on the issue: Ron Paul has never gone back on his vote to invade Afghanistan. He is against the continued occupation of that country and has been against the war in Iraq since the beginning.
He has been consistent on both of these issues and has never claimed to have been against the invasion of Afghanistan, only of Iraq.
Posted by: Isaac | 2008-06-19 7:25:31 AM
Ron who?
Posted by: Peabody | 2008-06-19 7:26:16 AM
P.S., I am not a Paultard. While I think Paul is better than the other options, I wasn't entirely with him on every issue. I'm a libertarian while Paul is an old-right republican. There are plenty of things to criticize Paul for which are legitimate, but this one is just plain misinformed.
Posted by: Isaac | 2008-06-19 7:27:16 AM
Um, DUH! Of course he voted for the war in Afghanistan - because that is where Bin Laden was hiding out and the Taliban were protecting him. Are all media people morons or, like so many others, do they simply have an agenda that they are willing to lie for to see accomplished? We played into Bin Laden's hands by attacking IRAQ. Man, get a clue.
Posted by: Sematary | 2008-06-19 7:30:58 AM
Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden and his cohorts and also introduced two bills in the House that would have streamlined the war effort against those who took part in planning the attacks:
The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (H.R. 3076) and The Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001 (H.R. 3074)
Unfortunately, these bills were ignored. They were deemed to be too "anachronistic" (and would have led to a very quick and clean campaign that would not have been as profitable for the defense establishment).
Posted by: Thomas Jefferson | 2008-06-19 7:47:40 AM
What planet are you from? Either you are really, really dumb, can't read or are just playing dumb. Either way it's just boring. I'm sorry I stumbled across this blog.
Posted by: Don | 2008-06-19 7:58:18 AM
Boy am I glad that Ron Paul will never be president, or anything for that matter. I'd sooner have Obama running things - at least he can learn from past mistakes.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 8:13:21 AM
Ron Paul wasnt for the war. Obama believe it or not is for the war. He uses a play on words when he talks to make it sound like hes against it. He said Iran is a major threat. You cant consider the country your at war with a major threat but still plan to just end the war. You will lose more money with Obama when he raises taxes to try and help the economy but it wont then your just stuck paying higher taxes. How are we suposs to fight "terrorist" (even though its impossible, you cant have a war with a way of thinking, its like a war on your imagination) when our own borders are wide open for them to walk in. We need sound money and fiscal responiblities. End the FED and the IRS. And forget universal healthcare. Get off your ass and get a job. And i know its hard to pay healthcare when you make barely enough money to pay for your house, but ending the war and ending many wasteful govt spending programs, and getting back to sound money will make healthcare affordable for anybody.
Posted by: Nick | 2008-06-19 8:15:10 AM
Terrible article, poorly written with no facts backing up accusations. F+, + For slight effort.
Posted by: Aaron | 2008-06-19 8:31:02 AM
Winston, concerning your distorted comments, I think you believe anyone involved in the political process that does not follow the party line is "in a cult". I sure hope your happy with McCain haha. The Constitution is more important than any person and I'll vote for the person who will uphold it the most. Anyways the Republican party is in shambles after it betrayed New Gingrich's vision of the contract with America in their over spending and war mongering. I suggest you be ready for a nationwide shock wave of Paul supporters running for public office and actually doing more than just vote. This is where the youth vote is coming from, people are not buying the neo-conservative philosophy anymore, so enjoy it while you can. You might want to take a quick visit Ron Paul's new Campaign For Liberty site that has over 50,000 Paul supporters signed up in the first week to get true conservatives elected. People who can spread democracy through diplomacy like Eisenhower as opposed to Patton (see hot head McCain, great on the battlefield but pathetic in public office) I voted for Bush twice, two times too many. Until we get someone like Ron Paul consider us "cult followers" not to follow the Republican party like lemmings anymore.
Posted by: Kevin | 2008-06-19 8:37:08 AM
I'd sooner have Obama running things
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 19-Jun-08 8:13:21 AM
Of course you would, he's black or partially black. You also hope his cabinet looks like the Detroit City Council.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-19 8:40:54 AM
>"I'd sooner have Obama running things"
Zebulon Pike | 19-Jun-08 8:13:21 AM
>"Of course you would, he's black or partially black. You also hope his cabinet looks like the Detroit City Council."
The Stig | 19-Jun-08 8:40:54 AM
From what I've read, here and on other blogs, the Paulbearers(tm) are supporting the Mocha Messiah(tm) to spite the Republicans.
Change(tm).
It's what all sociopathic malcontents want, just ask uber-Libertarian Timothy McVeigh.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 9:04:26 AM
Many people cannot tell the difference between Afghanis, Arabs, and the so-called Persians of Iran.
That is because they all appear to be a bunch of Angry rag-heads who love live-stock, Allah and killing. I haven't gotten close enough to know this for sure, but my guess is they all have bad breath too.
Ron Paul? Great entertainer.
Barry Obama? Dangerous entertainer.
Posted by: John V | 2008-06-19 9:23:38 AM
>"Many people cannot tell the difference between Afghanis, Arabs, and the so-called Persians of Iran."
John V | 19-Jun-08 9:23:38 AM
They all look like Sikhs to me.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 9:37:50 AM
Another idiot paultard blog that has no clue...
Very poor journalism.
Hot Air is not a serious site, it's a spoof.
Posted by: NH | 2008-06-19 9:40:53 AM
Ron Paul did vote to go after Osama! YES!!! and that was correct and good for him!!! IRAQ and IRAN is WRONG no OSAMA no LINK TO 9/11 !! Because a man is against torture of "terrorist" who have NOT been convicted of ANY CRIMES this is wrong? You sir you are a POS and that is not the way we as humans should act! EVERYONE deservese a fair trail no matter what. They tried the freaking NAZI's!! did they deserve one hell no but they got one. Because we are human and that is the right thing to do.
Posted by: Donven Fukinkil | 2008-06-19 9:47:54 AM
I had two neighbors that were farmers. Farmer John would trade some of his pig meat for feed with another neighbor. Farmer Rick would trade some of his beef with the mormon lady across the street for feed.
Then the mormon guy from down the road killed some of farmer Rick's cows so Farmer Rick went and burned the dude's house down. Then he went across the street and burned the mormon lady's house down. That'll teach those damned mormons.
Farmer John did nothing, just continued trading and prospering...he's such an isolationist.
Posted by: Bill Moore | 2008-06-19 10:12:26 AM
The sad part of this subject is that whatever the angle, freedom is being belittled and diminished by the cult of government worshippers. And, conservatives are the most rabid attackers. They remind me of the Soviets in the 1980's. They'll get the government they deserve, just as the Soviets or any other entity gets when it belittles freedom.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 10:46:30 AM
Whether I am an idiot or not is irrelevant. The idiot here is who has not learned that Afghans don't speak Arabic and the rest of it. Moreover, Ron Paul's supporters are vicious and worthless in their poor defense of that ignorant who pick-pocketed his naive supporters and is now living a better life. LOL
Posted by: winston | 2008-06-19 10:50:02 AM
Who cares which language they speak? Did you know that when the army went into Bosnia, they called the Mujahadeen (Afghanis)Arab Islamic Extremists (AIE)? Does that make the ermy dumb? It is totally irrelevant. The idiot here is one who gets bogged down in the minutia and can't see the big picture.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 11:01:37 AM
Ron Paul = this election's Pat Buchanan, with less charm.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 11:03:42 AM
WHAT? Come on, now. You know 9/11 was an inside job, no?
No more playing around.
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II | 2008-06-19 11:12:06 AM
wow, you're an idiot. he voted for Afghanistan b/c we were attacked by a group HQ'd inside Afghanistan, are you retarded?
Posted by: million | 2008-06-19 11:16:26 AM
Oh please not 9/11 Denial! Kyoto is more believable than that nonsense.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 11:18:48 AM
WHAT? Come on, now. You know 9/11 was an inside job, no?
No more playing around.
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II | 2008-06-19 11:28:45 AM
>"You know 9/11 was an inside job, no?"
Eloy Gonzalez II | 19-Jun-08 11:12:06 AM
Yeah, it was done by Arab Muslims from KSA and Yemen INSIDE the cockpits of America wide bodied jet airliners.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-19 11:31:05 AM
Looks like the Ronulan Freedom Train has finally arrived, but only after making a stop at the Asylum for the Mentally Ill.
Posted by: atric | 2008-06-19 11:33:16 AM
You need to get your facts straight. Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan because we were attacked by terrorists running their camps there. That military action was expressly authorized by the Constitution. He voted FOR tracking down Osama bin Laden.
What he did NOT vote for was war in Iraq - a country in which it has been PROVEN had nothing to do with 9/11 and a country that did not pose a direct threat to the U.S. He is also against going to war with Iran - another county that does not pose a direct threat to the U.S. Finally, he has voted against Congress essential ceding its war power to the executive branch - a clear violation of seperation of powers.
If Ron Paul were in charge, we'd have Osama bin Laden by now and we wouldn't be embroiled in a useless and endless war and our country wouldn't be on the brink of bankruptcy.
Posted by: Matt Brueckner | 2008-06-19 11:39:51 AM
9/11 was definitely an inside job. Fire can't melt steel, you know. Also, Ron Paul saw a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.
All aboard the Freedom Train (tm)!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-06-19 11:40:53 AM
"Does Ron Paul realize that he voted for the war in Afghanistan?"
Dr Paul voted to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 who happen to be in Afghanistan, NOT for regime change, occupation and nation building. Is that too difficult to grasp for the small minds here?
"It’s that he can’t concede any sort of progress against the enemy, so dogmatically does he adhere to his isolationism."
Wow, that's a lot of dumb packed into one sentence.
1. Who is the enemy? No WMD's, Saddam and his sons killed, Ba'ath Party toppled, Al Qaeda that wasn't there before the invasion, but since the influx the Iraqi's themselves have dessimated most of that hated group. 97% of insurgent attacks against US troops are Iraqi resistance to the occupation. Are native Iraqi's now the enemy? The ones Neo-Cons purportedly had to kill untold thousands to "liberate"?
2. If you think the War was a mistaken, sold on falsehoods, an enormous drain on the economy and that it incites more hatred and motivation for retribution, why would you care about progress against some undefined "enemy"?
3. Not wanting to bomb and kill is "NON-INTERVENTIONISM". Dr Paul wants to trade, travel and talk with EVERYONE including Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, et al.... Those who refuse dialog for bombs and sanctions are the true ISOLATIONISTS.
Posted by: Barney | 2008-06-19 11:42:48 AM
I retract my "Freedom Train" remark. I would better describe it as The Ronulan Freedom Short Bus".
My apologies to all.
Posted by: atric | 2008-06-19 11:57:30 AM
There is no conclusive proof of any "inside job" about 9/11 - only conjecture. It is a lie, pure and simple, equivalent to Holocaust denial or support for Kyoto.
But most American presidents have been blamed by their critics for starting wars.
Abolitionists and Whigs blamed James K. Polk for starting the Mexican War to support the expansion of slavery. Ironically, one of those critics was Abraham Lincoln, a Whig congressman from Illinois. His election to the presidency was often cited for starting the Civil War. Of course, they are wrong.
William McKinley was blamed for the Spanish-American War to expand American corporate interests in Latin American and Asia.
Woodrow Wilson infuriated his supporters from the 1916 election when he abandoned his pledge to keep the US out of the First World War. Charles Beard for example accused him of doing so to support the arms manufacturers.
Beard even accused Franklin Roosevelt of provoking the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. Go figure! Other criticized FDR for sending American troops to support British rule in India.
Truman was condemned for 'losing China' and for the Korean War. The same for Johnson and the Vietnam War.
Bush 41 was likewise condemned for Panama (there not without justification), and the First Gulf War. Even Clinton's attack on Serbia was criticized by many who said the whole thing was a plot to build a pipeline across the Balkans (Sound familiar???)
The difference between these and this alleged 9/11 plot is the latter has no basis whatsoever.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-06-19 11:58:05 AM
LOL stupid Romulans. They remind me of the oil policy isolationists who want to only get oil from here in the United States instead of buying it from all around the world.
They're all so un-American. Sure the oil policy might not be perfect but our leaders made their decisions and we need to stick by them.
You're either with us or against us.
Posted by: William Berg | 2008-06-19 12:10:01 PM
It doesn't get any simpler then that, William. Say hello to all the folks at Sunnyvale.
Posted by: alpha | 2008-06-19 12:22:49 PM
You're so clueless it's not even funny. Good luck in life.
Posted by: You're an idiot | 2008-06-19 12:55:51 PM
you idiot. he voted to go into afghanistan because we were attacked on 9/11! DUH.
Posted by: mlock | 2008-06-19 1:04:37 PM
"They remind me of the oil policy isolationists..."
Dr Paul is a free market capitalist. He is for getting oil wherever the market place dictates. Japan imports all its oil, they don't go invading and occupying oil producing countries. Neither do most net oil importing countries all over the world. They just buy it. It's a lot cheaper.
"... our leaders made their decisions and we need to stick by them."
Wow, a dictator's wet dream. If the Colonies were made of sh1t like this, you'd still be bowing to the Queen.
Posted by: Barney | 2008-06-19 1:07:27 PM
Winston, there's no need to be so self-righteous about your attack on Ron Paul. I knew you were a dumbass when you confused "non-interventionism" with "isolationism". Look up the difference on Wikipedia sometime.
Then look up the American Constitution - especially the part where it says habeas corpus (the Great Writ) is guaranteed except when the government makes a specific exception to it on grounds of public safety. Until then, alleged terrorists need to be treate innocent until proved guilty in a federal court.
No wonder the people can't get the truth. It's because journalists are so dumb.
Posted by: Pablo Escobar | 2008-06-19 1:19:43 PM
Oh, and by the way, al-Qaeda has gotten significantly stronger since the war on Iraq and Afghanistan (both undeclared and unconstitutional).
You could try asking Michael Scheur, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit if you don't believe me. Facts are troublesome things aren't they?
Posted by: Pablo Escobar | 2008-06-19 1:22:14 PM
I just can't understand why people go out of their way to belittle Dr. Paul and other people who agree with him on issues such as foreign and monetary policy. Do you think we should invade sovereign nations and topple the existing governments, even when there is no evidence that they did anything to harm the US? If you do think this is OK, does that mean that you would be OK with China invading the US and toppling our government?
What is wrong with the idea of not getting involved in other peoples' internal affairs?
Name something positive that the US government has done for its people in the last eight years that didn't directly involve taking money from one person and giving it to another.
The founding fathers generally agreed that a strong central government was a BAD idea. They strongly believed that governments were needed only to serve the people, to protect individual rights. The majority of them also believed that its better to lead by example than to get involved in some other countries struggles. Finally, they gave us a Constitution that says "the federal government can't do anything except for what is enumerated here and anything not enumerated here goes to the state and the people." And NO WHERE in the bill of rights or the Constitution is the word "democracy" used. We are a Republic, which is a government of LAWS.
I suggest that as an American you get off your rear-end and start paying attention to what is happening around you in this country. Perhaps try reading the Constitution and voting for people who actually walk the walk and talk the talk.
Posted by: rokdevil | 2008-06-19 1:27:40 PM
Oh, I hate the Ronulans. They come out with some crazy peace, freedom and prosperity agenda. They don't understand that I just want to cower in fear under my bed as I promote the idea that other people should go kill foreigners for me to alleviate my pre-pubescent anxiety. They don't understand that this is not about reason and logic. It is about my insecurity. Cowardice is a right given by the government. Fear global warming. Fear the brown people. Grow the government!!
Posted by: War Monger | 2008-06-19 1:37:26 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.