Captain's Quarters -

Latest Gallup poll; take notice of how Paul's numbers have grown since his 9/11 blame America talk...

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598

Ok, he is a nut...but he is very sincere and, hey, that's worth so much today.

Maybe Ron and (barking mad) John McCain can team up and challenge the other candidates to a cage match.

Hmmmm, he's be a shoe in for the nomination if he ran as a DEM.

Keemo - you beat me to the punch!

Of course, the Truthers can always claim that the polls are a conspiracy by (pick one or more of the following) Zionists, neocons, chickenhawks, Christianists, or Richard Cheney.

Is it true that in 1992, "85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia were arrested"? If so, exactly how do Paul's comments about blacks show that he is "nuttier than Aunt Mabel's pecan pie"? Also, do you really believe that much more than 5% of blacks "support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"? Finally, with respect to treating youthful criminals as adults, do you really believe that "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs" should be treated the same as 13-year-old girls of Chinese heritage who are making all As in difficult schools and attending Sunday School each week?

In the end, Ron Paul's just another Democrat: a clueless anti-war moonbat flip-flopper who seems to think that the U.S. government is the source of our problems with Islamist terrorists.

Hell, he thinks the U.S. government is pretty much the source of all problems on Earth, the same U.S. government he wants to somehow be placed in charge of.

It'll be amusing to see how his supporters over at the moonbat sites justify his statements.

i really don't think ron is a racist - if he were he'd say it clearly and loud he's just too honest to lie, and stands up for his believings. and being a former libertarian there is just no chance he is a racist.

Generally I lean libertarian -- but I have no respect for the ostrich position on foreign affairs. As Paul's former chief of staff (IIRC) is willing to take him on in the primary, hopefully Paul will be retired by the next Congress.

Nationally the percentage of Black males who get in trouble with the law is high, I can believe that DC has a concentration of the problem and so has an extraordinarily high percentage, so I won't discount Ron Pauls' 85% prima facie. Nonetheless, he's a nut. Either he is one of, or is pandering to, the people who are in denial about the Islamofacist threat. While Isolationism has a long and honorable history in America, that ended with the attack on Perl Harbor. 9/11 should have driven the point home again.

And max, please explain how it follows that libertarians can't be bigoted on race or any other category. I don't see it.

What is truly scary, a number of some deeply misguided, believe Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Buchanan are voices for the real Conservative.

Couldn't be more wrong...

Isolationist, insecure, overtly nativist, peddling fear, are NOT Conservative.

Sorry to group them, but these three display a visible lack of understanding, about the power of the Free Market.

Some of the most vapid minds of the 'must be super-ultra-conservative or we won't vote crowd', actually believe these small minded dupes, are true Reagan Conservatives.

Completely wrong again.

This might be the most confused aspect of the modern 'extreme conservative', for the Gipper would be disgusted with this Isolationist Folly.

He believed in the competition of ideas, that all human beings could aspire to, not in closing the doors of the most powerful, most historic Democracy on Earth.

(As if the fight against the Soviet Union, for the freedom of others, isn't enough evidence for the followers of Ron Paul to get some clue he is not a Reagan Conservative).

I my book, something happened after 9-11, in which the challenges of the GWOT, have pushed some to become insecure, focusing on simpler, closer to home problems, as a form of escape from the complex threat facing the Free World.

I am not diminishing the problems with Immigration, just that the focus suddenly raised after 2004 was indeed strange.

It is no wonder the vapid minds of the Left Wing - Democrat Partisan would embrace Ron Paul, as they seem foolish to grab onto any nut, who will object to the Bush Administration and the Policies of GW.

Chavez, Chiraq, Putin, even various Radical Muslim Militants...

Really quite pathetic.

Reminding all, why the Modern Liberal should be strongly rebuked.

But real Conservatives should know better, than to entertain the self destructive nonsense of Ron Paul, but it seems many are also engaged in a mindless BDS.

From some of those who seemed quite reasonable in the past, I now see them grabbing onto baseless 'North American Union' conspiracy theories.

It is really bizarre.

As Buchanan continues to be exploited by the left in the biased MSM, one would think these Conservatives would see what he actually is, a joke.

And nothing more.

Wonder if the Ron Paul, Tancredo, Buchananites, endorse and support the winner of the GOP Nomination when it is all over...

Or if a number of these types, push to enable the likes of Hillary Clinton, as they did with Nancy Pelosi and the DNC prior to the NOV. 2006 election.

Aren't they tired of empowering the liberal democrat agenda?

Should be interesting.

I actually voted for Ron Paul for President many elections ago, and have once or twice commented since that it was the vote I felt best about.

I take it all back.

He's a loon - perfect for the Democratic nomination!

BTW, his supporters haven't stopped attacking polls.
http://amerpundit.com/archives/1046

Paul's comments on DC are nearly true, as for what I've read. Their mayor was a fine example.
As for the influence of AIPAC
"I've never seen a president --I don't care who he is-- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what's going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on." [See Washington Report 12/1999, p.124 quoting from Andrew Hurley's book, "One Nation Under Israel"].
- Admiral Thomas Moorer referring to Israel’s success in preventing any congressional investigation of its 1967 attack on a U.S. Naval ship, the USS Liberty

Foreign intervention is the largest source of tax money flowing to the people behind SIGs and PACs.

Live poor - vote rich.

i don't know about all this other stuff but as far as the debate goes ron paul was way more accurate than rudy.
as pat buchanan wrote yesterday; "...Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahideen were declaring war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of British-French imperial domination and humiliation. Almost all agree that, horrible as 9/11 was, it was not anarchic terror. It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political objective. What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9/11? Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate our freedom? Is it that simple? Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq. Does the man not have a point?"

Ron Paul nuttier than someone who thinks Al Quaeda hates us for our freedoms?

I think not.

Cap'n -
I suggest you stop wasting your breath about Ron Paul and the nuts supporting him. They just want attention - stop giving it to them. Ron Paul is irrelevant, and time is too precious. JMHO.

Rock on!

I will phrase the post a series of questions. Here we go: (No links in this post, as links cause the anti-spam filter to eat the posting, sadly) The sources are easily checked.

Question one: Do you believe that more than 5 percent of US blacks favor "support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action?" Yes or no? (And if no, what percentage - rememeber - the statement is supposed to be evidence of "nuttiness")

Question two: What share of black men do you believe had been arrested when Ron Paul made the statement? Hint: It was during a terribly-high crime period. Even during the much lower crime 2000:s the Bureau of justice statistics states that:

"Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males."

And that's the chance of going to state or federal prison! Why is a 85 percent ever-arrested rate in high-crime DC during the crack wars an estimate so unreasonable as to prove "nuttiness"? (I have been unable to track down the original source - suggestions gladly taken)

Question three: Why is it evidence of nuttiness to state that "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Again, according to the BoJS: "Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicides in 2002." As for rape, according the BoJS, 48.5 percent of all rapists were identified as black by their victims. 32.8 percent of all rapists were identified as white. (2005 figure)

I invite all commenters to qualify why these Ron Paul comments are to be considered "nutty".

Aren't the DC liberals finally getting frightened enough of the chaos they've created that they're lifting the disastrous gun ban? Was it last year that richy-rich whites were being slaughtered in their own Georgetown driveways?

Don't most wild-eyed libs think that it's Israel, not Palestine and jihadists, that cause the instability in the Mid East?

If Republicans are willing to vote in (twice!) a big government, faux-conservative, what makes you think that anti-war, anti-Israel Democrats who've had their butts handed to them by their ghetto neighbors wouldn't vote for Ron Paul?

The only way to claim that Ron Paul isn't a true conservative is to simultaneously claim:

1. The only conservative issue in 2007 is the war. Period, end of sentence.

2. All the other issues that are supposedly "conservative" - taxes, spending, regulation, the nanny state - aren't actually conservative at all and don't matter.

I think the only way #1 and #2 can be true is if you take out the word "conservative" and put in the word "Republican".

Is the war the only Republican issue at this point? Is that what you're saying? Are you finally admitting that having the best record in Congress on taxes and spending doesn't matter, and that all that matters is the war? Great, thanks for the clarification.

11 years ago?

*rolls eyes*

Lame post.

Say hello to President Hillary. The Republican assault on its own base is in full bloom.

I disagree with his opinion on 9/11, but as has been said it's no more ludicrous than believing they hate us "for our freedom". But Republicans are going out of their way to tar Ron Paul as someone who blames America first and it's nonsense. I expect this from the Democrats. No need to debate issues, just label someone as an "X" and be done with them.

Why is Ron Paul a good candidate? He won't pull a Bush and sellout the entire conservative movement (Medicare, energy, Miers, campaign finance, spending, NCLB...) on something like immigration, taxes, or campaign finance (McCain), guns (Romney, Guliani), or life (Guliani), for starters. It's mindless BDS when liberals hate a guy who has enacted most of their agenda and destroyed, with the help of Congress, the goodwill of the conservative movement. But they only like Paul for his position on Iraq. I doubt they'll agree with his position on taxes and spending.

As a practical matter, I think he's shot himself in the foot by not taking the opportunity of all the free media attention to explain his position. He's a bad politician, even if most of his ideas are good, and that's reason enough not to support him. Nonetheless, the attacks on him leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm sorry to say, it does fit a party whose main message in 2006 was, "Dems are worse." I frequently hear the same argument made for 2008 ("President Hillary! Booga Booga!"). Expect a similar result.

To those who are disillusioned by this: consider the source. The smear machine shifts into high gear.

Uhmm, what? Liberals, traditionally, have been vehemently against any sort of race-based comments whether they be true, plausible, or false.

I think you should own up to the fact that you don't know what being a "conservative" is, anymore. Neither do you understand what conservativeness has been in the past, and what it claims to be now.

The viewpoints expressed in your article are so folded in on themselves and are so self-contradicting (in light of the events of the past 8 years) that I wonder if you know your own head from your ass.

What happened to taking tough stances and not pulling punches? What happened to common sense?

Aren't the DC liberals finally getting frightened enough of the chaos they've created that they're lifting the disastrous gun ban?

Not quite. DC's infamous gun ban may well go away, but no thanks to DC liberals, or DC anything except maybe the DC Circuit (which is part of the federal judiciary, not the government of DC).

Ron Paul is the best candidate to come along for the Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Among all the candidates he is closest to Reagan's vision. I have been a long time Repblican but I have never been so alienated from my GOP friends gioven their mindless support of the Iraq War. So mindless that they are overlooking a man that is just about a perfect conservative on domestic issues. Immigration, taxes, spending, big government, the economy. Ron Paul is light years ahead of the other candidates on these issues.

One can disagree with any candidates opinions, but I prefer a little Paul moonbattery against the cultivated PC positions of the rest of the contenders-- isn't elevated mexican illegals to sacred cow status in itself racist?

Read the constitution. Which candidate will follow the rules this country was founded upon? To scorn Paul for wanting international isolationism is to scorn Jefferson. Like libs, you can't pick bits of the constitution to follow and ignore. The demonization of Paul shows the GOP has turned into a partisan organization that won't allow deviation from the party line. We've become democrats, and the last 8 years have proven this.

That Gallup poll is bogus too. Does anyone really beleive that Duncan Hunter has less than .5% support? Or Rudy "sanctuary city" Giuliani is the front-runner? What a crock. If Rudy really is the front-runner then this party and this country are truly lost. Furthemore, Ron Paul is mostly unknown but he has raised his profile in the last debate, a debate that took place AFTER this poll.

I remember a time before the republican party was taken over by the zealots who now claim to be the "real " conservatives, harkening back to a deluded alzheimers moment as, "the good ole days", and in the midst of their delusion are attacking the messenger.

Modus et Regis

Wow - lots of people who only show up to shill for loony Ron Paul, who has absolutely zero chance of getting the Republican nomination.

From the posts I've read, I imagine a Paul rally as being something similar to an Amway Convention.

Only with creepier, less well-dressed attendees.

Just curious, is the Ron Paul Kool-Aid grape-flavored, or Sunshine punch?

I disagree with Paul about international engagement. That said, anyone who thinks that pro-gun-rights, pro-life, pro-federalism, pro-small-government isolationsts are less conservative than anti-gun-rights, pro-abortion, big-government internationalists needs to have their head examined.

In any other environment than post 9-11, Rudy Guiliani wouldn't have a prayer of getting the GOP nomination.

We can argue in good faith about the rightness or wrongness of various approaches to international relations and jihadism. But to claim that one is conservative and the other is not is low-quality jingoism, and is frankly far below the high quality of material I have long experienced on this site.

I see you guys have gone to the Giuliani school of debate. Throw out a quick zinger even though it is stupid and has no basis in fact.

If Ron Paul does poorly in the primaries it will be clear to me that the Republican party is no longer a party that cares about small government, sovereignty, and freedom. It will instead have finally crystallized into an "invade the world - invite the world" big government supporting globalist monstrosity that will fully deserve it's painful death. It will have handed power to Hillary Clinton and the disgusting Dems because of the failure to present an alternative.

You just made me want to vote for Ron Paul even more. Thanks.

It's not surprising that Andrew Sullivan has picked up Rep. Paul's mantle. I think you have to understand that Sullivan these days basically embraces anybody and anything that's critical of GWB, the current Republican Party, the conservative establishment, etc.

That's just about the only price of admission into Andrew's good graces anymore. Nothing else really matters.

You know your ship is in Davy Jones' locker if you are a Republican and Andrew Sullivan takes your side.

Or is possible that a self-pitying, humorless, perpetual nag can double Paul's numbers and push him over the 0.5% mark?

If you notice that gallup poll has a margin of error of +/- 5% !

Less than 500 people were polled.

Gee, Jim, is it too much to ask that someone who carries the ideals of limited government, serious national security, and protection of individual liberty not be a flaming nutjob who panders to 9-11 Truther kooks.

The Republican Party is dead to me. But that doesn't mean I'm going to desperately latch onto a flaming whackjob.

"“If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us; but if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.” -- George W. Bush.

Obviously George W. Bush is an isolationist truther that blames America for 9/11. Wait, what?

OK then double his vote totals! Nahh, lets be more than fair, triple them. How come these Paulites could not get off the public library computer long enough to answer Gallup's phone call. Not even 1 out of 500 surveyed? Pitiful, and I think the poll was before his comments too.

Actually, I like him more now. America needs more people that are willing to be politically incorrect. We spend too much time tip-toe-ing around what we really think. That simply doesn't serve progress.

Well since Ron Paul is NOT a flaming nutjob but a very well informed, reasonable man with integrity I don't know what you are talking about.

How is he a "flaming nutjob"?

What do you have against merely talking to some of the 9/11 truth folks. they are American citizens after all. He doesn't buy into all their arguments or even probably most of them. He is simply willing to talk to them. I don't have a problem with that. He thinks an investigation should be opened. What's the big deal? I say it takes guts and a refusal to play the typical political game of guilt by association so favored by Stalinists of all kinds.

And frankly, what's worse? Pandering to Hispanic supremacist and black supremacist groups like La Raza and the NAACP or merely talking to the Alex Jones types? I'll take Ron Paul any day over another Jorge Bush pro-Mexican, anti-constitution candidate.

"Wow - lots of people who only show up to shill for loony Ron Paul, who has absolutely zero chance of getting the Republican nomination." -- NoDonkey

As Cap'n has been schooling us: Politics is about compromise, and a good compromise is one nobody likes.

So please quit being a hardliner and be mature about this. If not for me, do it for the Cap'n.

Ron Paul's racist comments are very revealing. I think if people knew his stands on race, abortion and gays, he would not have nearly as much support.

But you got two things wrong.

1) Ron Paul has NEVER EVER advocated a "Blame America" policy. Acknowledging that our actions oversees have consequences is just common sense. Understand your enemy's motivations is the only way to defeat them. Being entirely ignorant of your enemy doesn't seem to work too well as our experiment in Iraq has proven.

2) Because someone stands against Israeli doesn't make them an anti-Semite. That type of logic just cuts off any real debate. The Israeli government uses our tax money to commit crimes against humanity and we're supposed to turn the other way because the majority of the nation belongs to an historically oppressed religious group?

"and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

Jesse Jackson approves.

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody White and feel relieved.” -- Jesse Jackson

You're the Looney, and your comic is unfunny.

Invited the 9/11 attack? Let's see if we can't call you on some of your bullshit, pal. Try reading the transcript from the debate:
> MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?
>
> REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.
>
> Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
>
> Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.
>
> And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.
>
> MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?
>
> REP. PAUL: What changed?
>
> MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.
>
> REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
>
> We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
>
> MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
>
> REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
>
> MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
>
> And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
>
> MR. GOLER: Congressman?
>
> REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
>
> They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

"Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks."....

It's an attention grabber folks. You see, Paul already stated that he didn't make these quotes himself. So now the only way we can "safely" accuse him a second time for an agenda's sake is to now simply cite any stories from the past which claimed they were his words....even though he's denied it....

Wow folks. Ron Paul could be what we've been looking for. He tells you he didn't write the specific passages. Go to YouTube and search for Ron Paul to see what he has to say about issues IN HIS OWN WORDS. Maybe you'll learn something and we can finally solve real problems...REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ARE SELLING THIS COUNTRY DOWN THE RIVER.

If Ron Paul really had as much "common sense" as he supporters claim, he would have clarified his position when Giuliani gave him the chance and told the Truthers to go piss up a rope.

"he would have clarified his position when Giuliani gave him the chance" -- V the K

On the presumption that Giuliani even gave him a chance. Why do you think he should have been civil and patient to Giuliani when The Big G was so obviously ignorant of plain facts spoken plainly?

"and told the Truthers to go piss up a rope." -- V the K

And now you want him to be uncivil and unstatesmanlike and pull a McCain F-bomb out.

I don't care which argument you want to pick but please pick just one. High marks, though, for flip-flopping inside a single sentence; that takes true talent.

"They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" - Ron Paul

"YOU TAKE THAT BACK!" - Rudy Guiliani

V the K

How anyone can take Ron Paul's comments in response to Rudy's childish and intemperate outburst as not clarifying his position is being willfully ignorant.

Besides, by telling the "Truthers" to go piss up a rope it would have showed Ron Paul as buying the premise of his detractors. Ron Paul does not believe a government conspiracy caused 9/11 as Alex Jones does. He doesn't believe that 9/11 happened in a vacuum unlike the rest of the GOP nimrods. As if the muslims just woke up one day and said man those women have too many freedoms over there in America. How stupid is that? Well, that is Rudy's position as well as all the other candidates besides Paul. Who is the kook? Who ARE the kooks?

What Ron Paul said about black people is the plain truth. You can call it "racism" if you like, but it's simply a factual statement, based on evidence, and his conclusions from it. It doesn't make him any less American. It makes him a realist who's not afraid to speak his mind.

You find it offensive that he doesn't toady before the PC regime.

Who is the kook?
The guy with the 0 per cent in the Gallup poll.

Who ARE the kooks?

Those who flame anyone who criticize Ron Paul as a heretic and a sell-out. Those who think U.S. foreign policy was the primary or sole motivator of the 9-11 terrorists. And especially, those who think there were no 9-11 terrorists and the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

And reality is much more complex than the Ron Paulbats would have us think. Global Jihad is a complex collection of ambitions and ideologies, but at its core, it is the expansionist impulse of Islamists, and not American foreign policy, that is its prime mover. The Islamists did not bomb Bali because of U.S. foreign policy. The Islamists are not slaughtering schoolchildren in Thailand because of U.S. foreign policy. The Islamists are not blowing up trains in India because of U.S. foreign policy.

[Ron Paul] "doesn't believe that 9/11 happened in a vacuum unlike the rest of the GOP nimrods. "

Nobody on the right thinks that 9/11 happened in a vacuum. If you bother to read any non-Ron-Paul blogs, you will find we have talked a great deal about the death cult that is Islam and its bitter opposition to civilization, esp. its most successful society: the US. There was nothing sudden about that attack; it is the history of Islam.

You know what "we" did wrong?

We EXIST.

Keemo's snark has a chronology problem: the Gallup poll showing zero support for Ron Paul is from May 10-13, but the debate comments that got everyone riled up were made on May 15. Too soon to say what the impact will be.

"And reality is much more complex than the Ron Paulbats would have us think. "

This can't be true! They only hate us for our freedoms!

I don't disagree with you about your statements about Thailand and the rest. But you err greatly when you say that our long standing lack of reprisal had nothing to do with the matter of 9/11 specifically. See the USS Cole, WTC '93, and Somalia for a few examples of where the strong failed the humble; if humble is something you could say about Clinton foreign policy at all.

Buzzwords are nice and all but at least we both no that " the truth is rarely plain, and never simple." Or so a Wilde man once said.

I am no friend of Muslims and I understand the history. One only need to look at Charles Martel as an exemplar of one who understood trhe Muslim threat. However, Ron Paul is closer to Charles Martel than any of the other GOP candidates as well, forget Reagan (although Paul is closer to him as well). You see, Paul would has actually called for the deportation of visa overstayers. Paul has actually called for border enforcement and no amnesty. Paul voted for the border fence. Paul would be much more likely to remove the Islamic threat from our country. He's not like George Bush who invades a muslim country and then leaves the border wide open for them to come in and kill us. George Bush is either total and complete moron in waging a war or he actually hopes that Americans will be killed. How about the candidates? Well Rudy made a sanctuary city out of New York. McCain seems to be for removing the border entirely. And Romney is a political hack who makes decisions solely on political calculation. Witness his "crackdown" on illegal immigrants in his last month as governor . What a phony. Yeah, some terror warriors these guys. Give me a break.

I am no friend of Muslims and I understand the history. One only need to look at Charles Martel as an exemplar of one who understood trhe Muslim threat. However, Ron Paul is closer to Charles Martel than any of the other GOP candidates as well, forget Reagan (although Paul is closer to him as well). You see, Paul would has actually called for the deportation of visa overstayers. Paul has actually called for border enforcement and no amnesty. Paul voted for the border fence. Paul would be much more likely to remove the Islamic threat from our country. He's not like George Bush who invades a muslim country and then leaves the border wide open for them to come in and kill us. George Bush is either total and complete moron in waging a war or he actually hopes that Americans will be killed. How about the candidates? Well Rudy made a sanctuary city out of New York. McCain seems to be for removing the border entirely. And Romney is a political hack who makes decisions solely on political calculation. Witness his "crackdown" on illegal immigrants in his last month as governor . What a phony. Yeah, some terror warriors these guys. Give me a break.

you err greatly when you say that our long standing lack of reprisal had nothing to do with the matter of 9/11 specifically.

Except that I never said that. And, in fact, I do believe that the weakness in U.S. foreign policy toward Jihadists goes back far earlier than Clinton. Jimmy Carter's weak response to the Iranian act of war (hostage-taking) and Reagan's failure to avenge the bombing of the Marine barracks were contributing factors.

And, I agree with Jim West's assessments of Bush and the GOP candidates. I just don't think Ron Paul is the answer.

If you're trying to claim that the Israeli lobby ISN'T powerful or that the Israeli government doesn't do its best to stifle criticism, that's just absurd. The U.S. donates more to our "friend" Israel (with friends like that, who needs enemies?) than any other country by far. How does stating any of that make him "nutty"?

Ron Paul has come out to address this very article in question (the only thing people have been able to smear on him) and he says that it was written by a ghost writer, that he never asserts personal opinion in his writing, and that he's truly sorry for anyone who's offended.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205

He took the rap for his ghostwriter so as not to confuse the people during a campaign run, but has since disavowed those comments.

"Except that I never said that."

Correct, you couched in terms of "primary or sole motivator" Neverthless you understood the point so I imagine you'll forgive me my license.

Now certainly Carter bungled it with the Embassy and Reagan with the Barracks, not to forget Bush the Elder stopping at the city gates; but Bin Laden directly credited our lack of reprisal in the instances I mentioned for being able to convince his fellow-travelers that we were, indeed, paper tigers. I think that well warrants as a 'primary' cause for 9/11.

Personally, I agree with you about the GOP field at the moment. I like Paul but he's not a messiah to me. If, by force majeure, he gets the nod I might bother voting this next election if for nothing more than the concept being more than toilet paper and vain hope.

Otherwise, and if she's up, I'll vote for a third term for Bill Clinton. Because I believe Claire Wolfe is probably correct: (Quoted her yesterday also, I believe)

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Selfishly, I'd rather have a collapse resolved while I still have my health with me. Which will start failing in earnest about the time the Boomer's become wholly dependent on state funded care that won't, by that time, exist regardless.

"concept being more "

"concept of the Constitution being more", rather. Foiled by homophones, and a lack of coffee so far.

This is exactly the kind of so called reporting that has divided the country for years. Don't listen to this garbage. Ron Paul speaks for himself. The Shaptons and Jessie Jacksons have
lost credibility. So with this kind of message to the trash heap. Using the media of all types to further an agenda of hatred. You should be ashamed but people who write these kinds of lies are racist themselves or wouldn't find such pleasure in printing it. LOL

This is exactly the kind of so called reporting that has divided the country for years. Don't listen to this garbage. Ron Paul speaks for himself. The Shaptons and Jessie Jacksons have
lost credibility. So with this kind of message to the trash heap. Using the media of all types to further an agenda of hatred. You should be ashamed but people who write these kinds of lies are racist themselves or wouldn't find such pleasure in printing it. LOL

Ah, excuse me, like present day America, I've always had this awkward and embarrassing skin blemish. It hasn't been an issue before but now that I have an official status as guardian of the gate that only you can open, I have to be concerned with public appearances. Some appear or choose to be tall and handsome, some choose to talk in similes and engage intelligent people in their nonsensical paradiddle, yet others live in the outskirts of the electrical field, far from your frame of reference. For those who wish to grow tomatoes or spin tall tales of evildoers and abstract concepts such as “liberty”, a fertile field is provided with the cautionary tale of the frog and the scorpion. Some would sup with any demonic presence if it increases wealth (and adversely, alleged respect, or so I’ve heard) and others would share a pot of beans with a man on the street or buy you a bottle of wine as you float down the gutter. And of course a lot of people just whine. There is still a time when the shine of a street light shimmers like jewels of reality in the muddy waters of a curbside gutter filled with celebrity whores and flapping of jaws.

Filth is something that some would use to distinguish one from another. There is also the keen edge of a razor. Then again there is the filthy razor’s edge that divides us all. Us all? Only a few. But amongst the best of us, those that keep a firm grip even though this half-assed roller coaster threatens to pitch our keesters into the darkness, there is a well oiled machine that ticks out the tempo of existence. A Sartreian existence that extinguishes the flame of soiled porcelain ewers (the media) whose portraiture of a fin de sicile wears too much turquoise eye makeup and too little serge. A cosmetic compass directs our energies toward a slick America, smooth as elephant snot or some primary essence that is not unlike the tallow of fatted calves, given some tight hosiery and a push up bra.

Such is the question of the cosmos. Something that Carl Sagan would ponder after many a toke on the Betelgeuse pipe, thoroughly packed and tamped with Brillo Pads and igneous rocks. I deal out a Tarot hand of deadly Knave's swords and Medusa mendacity; there betwixt the nether naves of ecclesiastical perversity and the blandishments of insurance underwriters; there we find the uber toad.

I am barely in touch and somewhat bored with what you folks call reality. The razor-blade banister awaits my flaccid buns as I slide into the present colored confusion. How else can I say it.....peanut butter is sticky, but butter is slick.

Make of it what you will

"The U.S. donates more to our "friend" Israel (with friends like that, who needs enemies?)"

Why are you so focused on the evil Israeli "lobby". Yes it exists. Do you really think Israel is the only country with lobbyists in the US?

Walk down Massachusetts Ave. in DC and you'll find embassies from every country in the world. Do you think they are here to play lawn croquet?

Egypt gets $2 billion per year in foreign aid, Israel maybe $3 billion, 75% of which they spend in the US. Trade between the US and Israel amounts to $26 billion per year. Egypt, by contrast, produces pretty much nothing besides lunatic Islamists.

Israeli Intelligence operations greatly benefit the US.

So is Ron Paul one of those pols who would knee our allies in the groin, while they lick the boots of our enemies? We have a party for people like that already, it's known as the Democrat Party. Ron Paul should feel free to take a walk on the left side, he'll fit in quite well.

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

I like that quote. I am also leaning toward not voting, or possibly voting for Hilldog. I'm just gonna send big checks to the NRA next year. It will probably make a bigger difference than voting anyway.

"I am also leaning toward not voting, or possibly voting for Hilldog."

On this Memorial Day remember that brave men and women gave their lives, so that you may vote for the worst possible candidate, just because no one nominated whatever lunatic candidate you've fallen in love with.

ugh, this again? Please do some research before posting. Everyone and their mom knows the aid responsible for this was fired shortly after. Check your sources.

ugh, this again? Please do some research before posting. Everyone and their mom knows the aid responsible for this was fired shortly after. Check your sources.

I don't know about you guys but I'm scared of those terrorists.

Why are we wasting our time debating stupid stuff like "what role does foreign policy have on 9/11 attacks"?

Get one of those media front runners into the Oval Office !

I'm not in love with any candidate, lunatic or otherwise. That's the point.

"Why are you so focused on the evil Israeli "lobby". Yes it exists. Do you really think Israel is the only country with lobbyists in the US? "

I'll hazard a guess. I won't say they are necessarily evil but you can't deny there influence over Middle East policy. this influence is the reason for a focus, and rightly so, on AIPAC. I would think they probably have a bit more influence than Asian American Students Association for example. Relatively speaking they are also very different than most lobbying groups simply becasue of their size. I think AARP is the only one larger. I think that merits some consideration of how a lobbying group whose mission it is to benefit a foreign nation is affecting foreign policy decisions. Don't you ?

"Walk down Massachusetts Ave. in DC and you'll find embassies from every country in the world. Do you think they are here to play lawn croquet?"

This is irrelevant, embassies and lobbying groups are different. Israel has a diplomatic corp based out of their emnbassy like everyone else. As a dilomatic corp they have to jump through many more hoops to get access to our elected officials. Not so with AIPAC, a LOBBYING group, not an embassy.

"Egypt gets $2 billion per year in foreign aid, Israel maybe $3 billion, 75% of which they spend in the US. Trade between the US and Israel amounts to $26 billion per year. Egypt, by contrast, produces pretty much nothing besides lunatic Islamists."

The difference being that Israel gets it's sum up front (an exception to all other countries receiving aid who get it doled out over four quarters) and with no strings attached (other countries have to report what they are using the money for). Israel does not have to report what they are using the money for. I see your point about Egypt. Personally, I would cut off al foreign aid, Israel included. And if they are spending 75% of the money here, what are they spending it on? Is it goods? Why don't we just deliver them the goods at cost then? It would save us and them money. Well, it is possible they use this money to influence our political process. Do you agree that this would be undue influence by a foreign
nation?

"Israeli Intelligence operations greatly benefit the US."

I fail to see how a foreign power spying on us and stealing secrets helps us. And Israeli intellignece oiperations are done to benefit one nation. that nation being Israel, not the US.

"So is Ron Paul one of those pols who would knee our allies in the groin, while they lick the boots of our enemies? We have a party for people like that already, it's known as the Democrat Party. Ron Paul should feel free to take a walk on the left side, he'll fit in quite well."

Israel in not really an ally. They don't provide us much ohter than a warm feeling that we are "standing by a friend". That's not enough. Ron Paul would do what is best for America first unlike most other pols who when it comes to the Middle East look at what is good for Israel first.

"What Ron Paul said about black people is the plain truth."

And herein lays the problem. It's not that Ron Paul is a barking nutcase, it's that so much of the big L libertarian base is too. Let them speak long enough and you'd find out all sorts of useful things, like how McVeigh was framed, and Lincoln and FDR were war criminals, and what a terrible injustice the Civil War was, and how all them darkies were better off and happier as slaves (...actually had a Libertarian tell me that, and no, he wasn't joking). The blame America talk doesn't just apply to 9/11, for a lot of them folks it goes back to the Civil War, and has been a long stream of federal outrages since the government had the temerity to hold the Union togather and stop the south from subsidizing their products with unpaid labor.

Even if what Ron Paul said was demonstrably true, how much of the criminal activity he talks about is in direct response to one of libertarianism's other windmills to tilt at, The War on Drugs? How much of the violence, murder, and mayhem are directly tracable to the ridicuous profitablity that the government has injected into the illicit economy? But rather than tie the criminal activity to a logical cause, like one of the failed policies he'd like to repeal, he (and darn near every one of his supporters) tie it to skin color, and are happy with that as an answer. So whether or not Ron Paul is or isn't a racist, you now know that large swaths of his supporters are, and proudly so, in defiance of their own logic. You can complain about PC this and that, but when someone says "Members of X are usually criminals..." that's pretty much the definition of racist; and when you don't see something wrong with the statement, maybe you should look in a mirror.

And this is the man that we're supposed to want as leader of the free world.

"What Ron Paul said about black people is the plain truth."

And herein lays the problem. It's not that Ron Paul is a barking nutcase, it's that so much of the big L libertarian base is too. Let them speak long enough and you'd find out all sorts of useful things, like how McVeigh was framed, and Lincoln and FDR were war criminals, and what a terrible injustice the Civil War was, and how all them darkies were better off and happier as slaves (...actually had a Libertarian tell me that, and no, he wasn't joking). The blame America talk doesn't just apply to 9/11, for a lot of them folks it goes back to the Civil War, and has been a long stream of federal outrages since the government had the temerity to hold the Union togather and stop the south from subsidizing their products with unpaid labor.

Even if what Ron Paul said was demonstrably true, how much of the criminal activity he talks about is in direct response to one of libertarianism's other windmills to tilt at, The War on Drugs? How much of the violence, murder, and mayhem are directly tracable to the ridicuous profitablity that the government has injected into the illicit economy? But rather than tie the criminal activity to a logical cause, like one of the failed policies he'd like to repeal, he (and darn near every one of his supporters) tie it to skin color, and are happy with that as an answer. So whether or not Ron Paul is or isn't a racist, you now know that large swaths of his supporters are, and proudly so, in defiance of their own logic. You can complain about PC this and that, but when someone says "Members of X are usually criminals..." that's pretty much the definition of racist; and when you don't see something wrong with the statement, maybe you should look in a mirror.

And this is the man that we're supposed to want as leader of the free world.

My my.

Well, put Ron Paul's supporters alongside the LaRouche-ies. Nothing quite like watching self-inflicted epistemological rape pursued with such gusto..

Non-interventionism does not equal isolationism does not equal non-defense.

Meanwhile the real Republicans have made sure that the oil companies have secured binding contracts to drain Iraqi oil fields to fill their pockets for the next 20 years and Dick cheneys Halliburton is still 'developing infrastructure' in iraq at the cost of the taxpayer to fill the corporations pockets, our inflation is increasing, our jobs are now piddly service industry sectors, we support international torture, suspension of habeous corpus, invasion of private citizen privacy, politization of the justice dept, avoid taking care of our own cities destroyed by neglect and natural disaster because we are "real conservatives"

Ron Paul and his assertion that Islamic Extremists who declare fatwa because of our occupation of over 140 countries in fringes on their sovereignty are absurd . those that think we need to have smaller government and and more individual rights are nutjobs. Any one who tries to return this country the thoughts of Ben Franklin and thomas Jefferson, by heeding their warnings are just isolationists.

After all if I type a bunch of paragraphs calling someone something I cant prove then maybe i can get everyone to believe it, I dont need fact or answers to operate as long as I can baselessly discredit someone else you . I am a true Patriot and Republican conservative because I say so, just ask George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Junyo, that's a fair point.

What I have found about Libertarians generally is that their ideology too often trumps anything. Many Libertarians champion drug legalization as a panacea to all of society's problems. When I point out that it is more like an exchange of one set of problems for a different set, I get denounced as a Fascist. When I express concern over the effects of drugs on children (as a foster parent, I've seen what happens to the children of drug-addled parents), I'm denounced as a nanny-statist.

Someone, like me, who is small 'L' libertarian, who believes that individual freedom ought to be leavened with respect for others and social responsibility, just isn't pure enough. And, I never want to be.

He may be a nut, but so is every other GOP candidate. Double Guantanamo? Don't believe in evolution? Global Warming a myth? Corporates can police themselves with respect to the environment? Please. Those are all likes, and republicans eat that crap up day in and day out. So Ron Paul wrote some racist remarks. I'm guessing he's only saying what the majority of the GOP is thinking already. This is a party that supported Strom Thurmond until he was worm dirt. For almost 30 years after he did a 24 hour filibuster against civil rights.

In GOP America, racism isn't a problem. You just have to seem genuinely optimistic about the future and support the white troops.

"but when someone says "Members of X are usually criminals..." that's pretty much the definition of racist; " -- junyo

So when Braman (2002) calculated that the lifetime expectancy of a black male going to jail or prison during their lifetime, in DC, was 75%... that must mean math is racist. Interesting. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and find out more about this racist math.

All I know about you is that you believe the following 3 things are racists that hate blacks:

1) Math
2) Jesse Jackson
3) The ghost writer that penned the words you're outraged about.

Oh wait, you're calling Paul a racist because a staffer he fired wrote something distasteful. You'd be better served and have an honest argument if you questioned his choice of acquaintances and employees, as others here have done, than to continue to parade your lack of understanding around the room.

PS: You can also legitimately argue that crimes for which they were convicted shouldn't be crimes; but they are at this point regardless.

So whether or not Ron Paul is or isn't a racist, you now know that large swaths of his supporters are, and proudly so

I agree almost everyone who supports Ron Paul is a drug abusing, isolationist, racist, bin laden loving fool.

Idon't need to actually prove what I say or have any basis of fact, I just say whatever comes into my post 9/11 american dad head. After all I represent the only true partriotism and thats one that toes Republican party line!

You know the GOP is in trouble when it's unthinking followers have to resort to leftist smears like "racist" to try and denigrate a political opponent. It's also a sign that the modern GOP has truly become a party of the left.

I'll continue to stand with the right and sanity, party or no.

V The K:
Here's another interesting take on Ron Paul:
http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-republicans-and-hidden-support.html

If big L libertarianism ever gave the slightest room for pragmatism, or for the thought that the theoretical model doesn't always work really well in meatspace, it would be a much more viable political alternative. Unfortunately, dogmatism is inherent to the beast, and thus will keep the practical ones voting Republican, the dumb ones voting Democrat and the insane ones voting Libertarian.

"I won't say they are necessarily evil but you can't deny there influence over Middle East policy."

What ME policy do they have undue influence over?

You might have an argument with others on this site who believe the Saudis/big oil run everything. Are the Saudis in cahoots with the Israelis?

Actually, I think Israel is pretty much right about everything in the ME. Most countries in the ME are run by teetering, criminal despots who are state sponsors of terrorism. I'll take Israel over any other country in the ME.

"Relatively speaking they are also very different than most lobbying groups simply because of their size. I think AARP is the only one larger."

"Relatively" or absolutely? What exactly do you mean? Larger than any other nations? Not to be a pest, but do you have a link to back that up? I wouldn't be surprised, actually. They have more at stake than any other country. It is frightening to think what would have happened had Israel lost the Six Days war to the Muslim insects.

"I fail to see how a foreign power spying on us and stealing secrets helps us. And Israeli intellignece oiperations are done to benefit one nation. that nation being Israel, not the US."

We've developed numerous weapons system in conjunction with the Israelis. Israel is the one reliable intelligence source in the ME, or do you think the Jordanians and the Egyptians are of any assistance at all?

"Ron Paul would do what is best for America"

Certain Americans, perhaps.

He may be a nut, but so is every other GOP candidate. Double Guantanamo? Don't believe in evolution? Global Warming a myth? Corporates can police themselves with respect to the environment? Please. Those are all likes, and republicans eat that crap up day in and day out. So Ron Paul wrote some racist remarks. I'm guessing he's only saying what the majority of the GOP is thinking already. This is a party that supported Strom Thurmond until he was worm dirt. For almost 30 years after he did a 24 hour filibuster against civil rights.

In GOP America, racism isn't a problem. You just have to seem genuinely optimistic about the future and support the white troops.

"What I have found about Libertarians generally is that their ideology too often trumps anything." -- V in K

Hear, hear. Though, I suppose, that's endemic of all political cliques.

"This is a party that supported Strom Thurmond until he was worm dirt." -- CW

So, like junyo, reading up about who wrote what escapes you; you further show your credentials by neglecting the Honorable Robert C. Byrd currently serving in the Senate.

But thanks for demonstrating my point to V in K so handsomely.

I'll take Israel over any other country in the ME.

Wow dude, thats really brave stance your taking there, do you also take Israel over the US itself, I mean their political lobby has been know to get us dragged into all sorts of conflict in the ME, not that thats currently a problem or anything.

And if you speak out as an american you are labeled an Anti- Semite on the level of a hitler, just ask General Wesley Clark after they dragged him through the mud for saying "New York Money People" had to much influence over our government when it cam to establishing policy in the ME. If your so pro -israeli , go over there and join the military.

"Most countries in the ME are run by teetering, criminal despots who are state sponsors of terrorism. I'll take Israel over any other country in the ME." -- NoDonkey

I agree, but Israel is certainly not excluded. Need I remind you of the Lavon Affair, whose surviving members were awarded state medals in 2005 for their part in the failed effort at terrorism against American and British targets in Egypt?

I'd think a state so derisive of terrorism, state sponsored or otherwise, would not have had such a tin ear as to issue those awards so soon on the heals of the latest terrorist attack on Americans.

As was said, Israel is a sovereign nation and is mature enough to look out for its own interests regardless of how deep you think they are in our pockets. They are not a client state.

NoDonkey:
"What ME policy do they have undue influence over? "

I'll assume you are being serious. Our ME policy towards Israel.

"You might have an argument with others on this site who believe the Saudis/big oil run everything. Are the Saudis in cahoots with the Israelis?"
I don't believe so no. I don't buy the oil argument either. The oil companies would have been much better off doing business with Saddam.

"Actually, I think Israel is pretty much right about everything in the ME. Most countries in the ME are run by teetering, criminal despots who are state sponsors of terrorism. I'll take Israel over any other country in the ME. "

I'll take NONE of them. I would treat them as other nation-states with interests occasionally intersecting with ours. I would trade and do business but stay out of their politics.

""Relatively" or absolutely? What exactly do you mean? Larger than any other nations?
Not to be a pest, but do you have a link to back that up?"
Of course they are larger than any other nations lobbying group. The US tilt towards their Foreign policy POV is telling.
Here is an article for you though. It's a pdf.
http://www.lauraboyd.net/bosetsu/pub/docs/Can_American_Jews_unplug_the_Israel_lobby.pdf

"We've developed numerous weapons system in conjunction with the Israelis. Israel is the one reliable intelligence source in the ME, or do you think the Jordanians and the Egyptians are of any assistance at all? "

If the price of collaboration is a stab in the gut I'll do without the collaboration. And I don't want help from any other nation. We've done just fine for 200+ years on our own and we have mostly avoided the "entangling alliances" up until now.

You know, for a party that want's to prove you're not racist, you inept at actually doing so.

No, not the mean math, just you. It should be trivial to actual prove your point, if true. Census data, incarceration records. etc. I've not read much Braman, could you give a citation? Is it Donald Braman the man who coauthored a study on risk perception where he theorized that "'white male effect" explained the risk preception disparities in populations and that "these men are more likely to hold certain anti-egalitarian and individualistic attitudes than members of the general population"? That Braman?

"Idon't need to actually prove what I say or have any basis of fact"
I have as evidence and points of fact the contents of this thread and the viewpoints expressed herein. I gave Paul the benefit of the doubt, but I don't believe most of his supporters left room for doubt.

Let me ask Paul supporters a genuine question; in your view, is it even possible for a white person to be a racist, or has the bashlash come so full circle that nothing can be said other than by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, that rises to the level of racism?

No dude its totally impossible for anyone who supports ron paul to be a racist, after all our way is the only way and if your not with us then your for the terrorists.

See also:

Ron Paul Campaign: Key California Republican Group Endorses Ron Paul
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-campaign-key-california.html

Joe Klein in TIME - How Rudy Won the Second Debate
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/joe-klein-in-time-how-rudy-won-second.html

Ron Paul’s supporters busted gaming Digg
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/blog-ron-pauls-supporters-busted-gaming.html

"No, not the mean math, just you."

"is it even possible for a white person to be a racist,"

What bigoted comments! Not only do make unseemly insinuations about my political affiliations, but my race also. Tell me, was it my 'literacy'? Be careful that you don't become what you pretend to denounce so loudly.

As for Donald Braman: The same; a lot of interesting stuff from that man. 'Families and Incarceration' is the paper you would be after where you can see racist maths displayed in their vulgar glory. (Chapter 2, IIRC)

Let me ask Paul supporters a genuine question; in your view, is it even possible for a white person to be a racist

I've read and heard a lot of stupid things this week but this takes the cake, the question itself is racist.

Get a clue, I wouldn't expect someone of who asks this type of question to ever understand the true meanings of conservatism and what Ron Paul stands for.

Jim West,

Doing a little research, I found that the American-Israel PAC (AIPAC) was rated by the National Journal (who surveyed Congressman) as the second most powerful lobby in the United States (behind the AARP and maybe the NRA).

So what? AIPAC is comprised of Americans. If you don't like it, you can join another lobby group or work to elect Ron Paul, etc. to represent you. All fine.

Personally, I like what AIPAC is doing and now that I know about them, perhaps I may join.

I understand the attraction of "guard the coasts and deliver the mail". It's just not possible any longer.

After your claim... "after his [Paul's] statement in the last debate that claimed that American foreign policy invited the 9/11 attacks"... your honesty becomes dubious. He never made any such statement.

This is just another attmpt to smear Paul.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/7587/high%20alert.asp?wid=134&nid=7587

He clearly did not write that garbage. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Wow... post about Ron Paul and the ignorance just bursts forth.

For example, Jim West wrote about AIPAC that:

Relatively speaking they are also very different than most lobbying groups simply becasue of their size. I think AARP is the only one larger.

In reality, AIPAC spends about one million annually lobbying.

It is far from topping the list of lobbying spending. And it makes no donations to federal candidates.

But if the facts get in the way of suggesting that the US government is in thrall to to the eeeeeevil Zionazis, I guess we can ignore them.

BTW, if Paul is such a staunch supporter of the Constitution, why did he put out a newsletter advocating that the age of adulthood for criminal prosecution be lowered just for blacks? I'm asking what the official nutbag spin is on that.

"So what? AIPAC is comprised of Americans. If you don't like it, you can join another lobby group or work to elect Ron Paul, etc. to represent you. All fine. "

I believe that Americans are not as aware of the influence of AIPAC as they should be. I think that it is possible that they are tilting our foreign policy to the benfit of a foreign nation over the interests of the United States. I agree with the rest of your statement and that's what I am doing. I try to educate people every chance that I get. I care about this country and worry about the path it is taking.

"Personally, I like what AIPAC is doing and now that I know about them, perhaps I may join."

That's fine and your right but at least you now know about their overarching influence whereas before perhaps you did not.

"I understand the attraction of "guard the coasts and deliver the mail". It's just not possible any longer."

I don't know what this means. If you are trying to rub this off on Ron Paul I'll tell you this is not his stance. In regards to Iraq his main point is not whether it was right or wrong but that the Congress should have declared war. He still may have voted against but at least the president would have had rock solid constitutional authorization and there would ahve been a bit more conscientiousness in sending our men to war.

Of course I believe in guarding the coasts and delivering the mail but that is not the totality of my political philosophy.

Karl,

Money does not necessarily determine the amount influence. There are other factors involved in AIPAC's influence. For example, a member of the Israeli Lobby, Paul Wolfowitz, bringing up Iraq in a meeting immiediately after 9/11. Having the ear of the powerful is much more valuable than simply having money. I think the influence of the Israeli lobby is shrinking, but that is because people are now talking about it. Many times that is simply all it takes and it is the reason for the first amendment.

This just out today:

Ron Paul rocket to take off in 5...4...3...2...

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party. "The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."
In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:
Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:
· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.
His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:
· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.
"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

"I'm asking what the official nutbag spin is on that." -- Karl

I was all set to mock you cruelly for floating that canard again... But you may simply not have read the thread fully and I certainly can't fault you that our Hosts policy of corrections seems to have as much integrity as that of the broadsheets. But do go read for yourself.

Although these statements may have been made in one of Paul's past newsletters, whether straight from his mind or from the ideas of his political aides, they are far outweighed by the good that his current agenda would yield. The current political platform Paul endorses does not discriminate any particular racial/ethnic group. His policy will benefit EVERYONE...if billions are saved by reducing the scope of the US military [we are currently occupying over half of the nations in the world...we are first in military spending ($532 billion), followed by the UK in a distant second ($66 billion)], that would allow much more money to be pumped into vital infrastructure programs such as healthcare, education, welfare, etc, etc. Truly, no American should be opposed to such policy.

Wow.
I'm with Karl.
Conspiracy theorists, anti-semites, isolationists, oh, and look, there's the ever sarcastic Students for an Orwelian Society.

Ron Paul fly paper.

I always regret visiting this blog. Lie-filled posts like this one are the reason. The chorus of circle-jerking idiots is the other. buh-bye

Anti-semites! I knew that would come out. This is so tired. As the article I posted pointed out a majority of Jewish people do not like the influence AIPAC has over American politics.

I guess that makes the majority of Jews anti-semites.
The scary thing is that this last sentence would pass as logical in today's neo-conned GOP.

This is quiet possibly the stupidest article i have ever read. And as for the majority of the replies, dont just take what this idiot says on face value, do your own research, and you will see how obviously manipulated and selectivly quoted this article is.

Seriously, this type of stuff is why I didn't go into journalism. It literally made me sick.

@ roberto: yeah, i think that if a 13 y/o chinese girl commits a crime, she shoule be treated and tried tried the same as a 13 y/o black male who's committed the same crime. you see, Roberto, here -- in an American court -- we try the CRIME, not the perpetrator's race, gender or background. At least that's what we claim.

@ lightwave: what? do you believe that the islamic terrorists are coming after us "because they hate our freedom" ??!?! -gah! i would have sworn it was because of our support of israel and our overinvolvement-for-profit in the middle east. but hey, that's just what the terrorists say, and we all know the way to get what you want is to lie about your motivation. freedom beware!! evacuate the netherlands!!!!!

I like how you put the denial of the allegations at the very end. Nice way to neoCON your readers. The fact is, he writes more than probably any other congressperson or politician and puts it on his website. Anyone who knows his views knows that he is the biggest champion of the individual, the opposite of racism. He has called racism a "collectivist mindset."

And, he didn't say that America invited 9/11.

So congratulations, you're now wrong on all counts!

I knew a hit piece article would be the first thing to come up when Blog Googling the name "Ron Paul". Isolationist, Conspiracy Theorist, Liberal, Libertarian, invited, Anti-Semite, hidden messages, etc.

I didnt think one blogger could use every key attack work in one article, congratulations on the hit piece. Keep cranking out the lies, Americans are too stupid to research the truth about Ron Paul.

Black people are about 13% of the population.
And yet, according to the FBI's website:

Black juveniles comprised 49.8 percent of all
juveniles arrested in 2005 for violent crime.

3,380 white people were arrested for murder;
3,500 black people were arrested for murder

I don't care for Ron Paul and wouldn't vote for
him for president. But c'mon.

He's right about black people.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/

I should mention I don't think that
black people should be subjected
to special laws. But they need to
follow existing laws.

And, yes, we must be careful
to ensure we are realistic
about race without hating others.

i would have sworn it was because of our support of israel and our overinvolvement-for-profit in the middle east. but hey, that's just what the terrorists say, and we all know the way to get what you want is to lie about your motivation.

Actually, like most good propagandists throughout history, "the terrorists" say a lot of different and often contradictory things about their motivations knowing that people will cherry pick whatever validates their biases and dismiss the rest as either unserious or intentional attempt at deception.

Frankly, we (Americans) haven't dissapointed them in that regard. When they say "We will not stop until Islam rules the world" the righties say "Aha! We knew it. It's really all about Islam" and the lefties roll their eyes at the credulity of the right. When they say "We object to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the American support for corrupt tyrants" the lefties say "Aha! We knew it. It's really all about politics and economics" and the righties roll their eyes and wonder how the left can be so gullable.

Captain's Quarters: I've got to tell you, you're a bit of a moron. From the opening salvo in this article, in which you paint the foreign relations notion of blowback as outdated and isolationist, your whole argument is a mishmash of half-truths, ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals.

Captain's Quarters: I've got to tell you, you're a bit of a moron. From the opening salvo in this article, in which you paint the foreign relations notion of blowback as outdated and isolationist, your whole argument is a mishmash of half-truths, ad hominem attacks and emotional appeals.

Ask yourself: which Republican candidate, other than Ron Paul, believe in Constitutional limits on the size and scope of our federal government?

You can't name any Republican in the race, except Ron Paul, that believe all federal gun laws are UNconstitutional -- exactly like the 2nd demands, "shall not be infringe". Yet, you think Mr. Bush, (who said he would vote to continue the assault weapons ban), is closer to Conservative values??? And let's face it, all other Republican's currently in the race are making Bush look good.

The Republican front-runner for prez has a long history of banning the private possession of firearms of his constituents. He now claims the opposite and is the front-runner... this tells me exactly what the party stands for... nothing.

And it ain't like it's a new thing happening in the party. Look at the bait-and-switch "Contract with America". Or the Homeland Security boondoggle. National ID. Security is NOT safe.

Now, more than ever; a politician's view on citizens' right to keep and bear arms is the MOST IMPORTANT issue. Hell, go read some history books. Making sure to keep a gun in your hands, (not to mention your children's), should be the only issue.

I wonder if this site got anywhere near as much traffic before the owners decided to attack Ron Paul.

I would not be surprised if the eyes on this page has doubled or more, just because of RP.

Maybe the owners of this site should be thanking RP for attracting all this traffic and interest, instead of spreading libel about him.

CE,

Looks like you got all (100) Ron Paul followers to post comments on this thread.

I wonder which blog sent them here?

Now we are hear , were not gonna leave. No longer is this site gonna be an idiot mill. I personally am going to dedicate myself to exposing the daily fallacies of this contemptible blog.

Is Ron Paul nuttier than Giuliani and his rampant profiteering from 9/11 and his complicity in covering up the toxic dust scandal as well as his flagrant disregard for firefighter's remains that were ordered to be "scooped and dumped" in a landfill after fellow firefighters were threatened with arrest if they tried to interrupt the ground zero clean up procedure?

I THINK NOT!!!

Is Ron Paul nuttier than Giuliani and his rampant profiteering from 9/11 and his complicity in covering up the toxic dust scandal as well as his flagrant disregard for firefighter's remains that were ordered to be "scooped and dumped" in a landfill after fellow firefighters were threatened with arrest if they tried to interrupt the ground zero clean up procedure?

I THINK NOT!!!

I don't wish to criticize Ron Paul's conservative credentials. He may well have the best collection of beliefs and values contained in a single declared candidate for the Republican nomination.

Unfortunately, if common sense was pig iron, he wouldn't have enough to forge a fish hook.

Wow such a nice polarizing blog that keeps America in a 50/50 battle for opinions while all of our rights get stripped. How Sun Tzu of you :)

Hiya Cap'n

I did not find your site from a blog. I found it looking up Ron Paul news on goog. I am one person writing one response. You have a right to your opinion. But I think you are sadly mistaken. Dr Paul is the only candidate who is not a flip-flopper. His positions have been consistently conservative. The flip-floppers are the ones who are moonbeams - that is, Flip-Flopper Hillary, Flip-Flopper Romney, Flip-Flopper Guiliani, Flip-Flopper Osama ....

Ward Ciac

Just my two cents.

I've worked with newsletters and newspaper publications before and I've watched in horror as my words and statements were edited or modified to "fit", "conserve space", or "appeal to our target audience." I've even had cartoons I've drawn be edited by other individuals to fit their own needs- had a character's skin color changed, certain panels removed or backgrounds cropped. That's crazy, but that's how it works when you have a team of people working on the same publication and no clear cut standards.

I think Ron Paul deserves applause for admitting that he can't defend against such an accusation, since it was his newsletter, with his name on it. That doesn't mean that Ron Paul is racist. In fact, because his explanation is so realistic, (not a very well fabricated lie, if it was one, right?) I'd be more inclined to believe it.

Ron Paul's name was on those articles, but they were written and embellished by his staff countless times. I would understand that he might possibly be too busy to publish his own newsletter himself, aside from one or two articles written by himself. But it was HIS staff and Ron Paul knows it would be a cop-out to say, "but that wasn't me!" So he honestly, true to his character, stated what happened and that it does not excuse the errors. I'd have to say it's ten times better than what happens when other polticians are questioned for their actions and we get a "I don't know- I don't remember."

This is why men like Ron Paul don't make it in politics. Because they are forced to sell-out early to save their own poltical hide.

Anyway, I respect your opinion and your right to blog about any and everything you'd like to, but I think conservatives are terrified of losing this election and see Ron Paul as a threat- not for winning the primary, of course- but for taking steam from one of the more popular candidates, resulting in a democratic win.

That's why Ron Paul said that if he lost the primary he wouldn't go on to run as an indepedent. He knows that his party already hates him enough. I like him because his allgience doesn't sway. And he is not a "flip-flopper." I feel Democrats and Republicians are all flip-floppers anyway.

Ron Paul is honestly so unlike a politician that I think he threatens the entire Republican party with his criticisms. I think most Americans, at this point in time, are so dis-hearted with the SYSTEM, not just the poltical parties. If you think about it, our poltical system atracts the worst types of men and women. The battle gets so embroiled at the upper levels that the American people don't know what the hell is going on. I guess that's where the media comes in and "straightens it out" for us.

Thank god for the Internet.

Interesting blog and comments. Like others here, I found the blog to be an untruthful hit piece, based on a discredited article from 15 years ago. The comments include the normal mix of people that attack Dr. Paul as a nutcase, moron, or moonbat. But they don't offer anything other than namecalling and ridicule.

I have been reading and listening to Ron Paul, and I like what I see. A true supporter of small government policies, based on the constitution. If you would like to see for yourself, instead of reading these untruthful hit pieces, I strongly recommend the following site: //www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Feel free to disagree with Ron Paul and his supporters, but do so with facts, as opposed to diatribes and hate-filled blather. And if you truly feel the Ron Paul is bad for America, who do YOU want? Guiliani? Clinton? Obama? McCain?

MarkCinPhx,

Thanks for the link to the writings and thoughts of Ron Paul. It has helped me to learn more about him.

It is funny...I originally read about him through a similar hit piece as this one and until that time I never really knew who he was. Now I do and I am liking him more everyday.

I am slowly waking up to the dangers of my own party which is a mixed blessing at times, but definitely an important intellectual and emotional journey to take.

For all who call themselves real conservatives, you would do well to read the writings and thoughts of Ron Paul over the last 10 years at the link MarkCinPhx provided:

www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

Ed, I blame you. I quote this post in a little toss away story on my blog and I'm beset with the Ron Paul lunatic fringe.

What is scary about these folks is they are ideologues, as fanatical as any addled brained communist ever was, but they just don't see it. Real conservatism stands against ideologues of ALL stripes, left or right. What is timeless about Edmund Burke isn't the specific problems he had with the revolutionaries in France but with their general disregard for the shared common understanding of the political/social world and the imposition of a cold ideological vision in the foolish belief that anything man can construct can be the be all and end all of moral/political development.

Paul offers himself as a panacea, when he isn't even an useful idiot.

MSN I NIIPET
MSN