Well, I’ve got to say,
09/27/2011
Molotov Mitchell has for sure endorsed Ron Paul! I do like a LOT of what Ron Paul stands for, and would rather like to see his name on the ticket in either of the top 2 spots.
8 Comments
Comments are closed.
Sorry, I couldn’t vote for a man who thinks the enemy was justified in carrying out the Sept 11, 2001 attacks.
National Defense is the PRIMARY legitimate function of government, and the entire reason that the United States was created. There are good ways and bad ways to oversee this function; but Ron Paul’s is not one of these ways.
And a man who would watch his neighbor get beaten and killed while saying “See, you shouldn’t have pissed them off,” is not a man at all. Besides which, his having pissed me off by pissing all over the memory of those Americans who died that day, seems — by Paul’s own warped logic — to justify me beating him into a fucking coma should I ever have the misfortune of meeting him.
Someone who blames America for being attacked in an act of war has no business as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military …….. or as dogcatcher in my home town.
I had heard that he’d said that. Did a little research, and it was a misquote. Taken completely out of context in order to make him look bad. As I’ve said elsewhere, and a fair number of times lately, look for who the LSM has attacked the most. That will be the one to vote for.
Come on CM
This was the entire answer at a recent debate. What is out of context here?
He gave the same answer 4 years ago.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=6161
He re-iterates and buys al qaeda’s made for TV justification. A justification meant to fool the America hating left in to sympathy with his cause. Keep in mind al qaeda didn’t give a rats ass about the terrorsimians until he started to lose sympathy in the arab world. We were not occupying anyone’s land as we were in Saudi Arabia at the kings request to keep mad dog Hussein.in his kennel. Al qaeda was pissed because they are at war with the corrupts Saudi royals. Then when we removed the reason for our “occupation” of the holy land al qaeda cynically shifted rationals and made, with the help of our so called countrymen in the media, the liberation of 25 million people into a war crime. If al qaeda hadn’t jumped in to the void and tried to impose a sharia state in their likeness we could have just left couldn’t we. This is chutzpah on the order of a guy who murders his parents and wants leniency because he is an orphan.
His false premise that we were there on a whim and not reacting to overt acts by the muslims themselves makes him dangerously delusional. The idea that we can be isolationist is a pipe dream. Even if we just engage in trade they will link the trade to “support’ of the ruling regime which was another rational trotted out by al qaeda and the credulous interlocutors on the anti American left.
He never considers that what the muslims do drives what our policy towards them should be. They act like assholes we treat them like assholes. They want control of that region so they can have a base for the new caliphate. It would not matter whether we evacuate tomorrow, and abandon Israel the day after tomorrow and stop buying mid-eastern oil the next day. Al qaeda and it’s adjuncts are here to impose sharia law no more, no less. The fact that Mr Paul doesn’t get this shows an even shallower grasp on foreign policy than our buddy the Hermanator except that Paul has been in the Federal government on and off for the last 30 years.
Now you know I agree with some of the Paulite foreign policy. Turn the UN into low rent housing. But the idea that we do not derive a benefit from keeping the peace by our historically benign hegemony(we patrol the shipping lanes to keep commerce flowing)is myopic. I agree that not every conflict in the world rises to the level of us giving more than lip service to it-Libya being a prime example but there are times when the disruption does affect out interests at these time we should act. The duty to protect is nonsense, the duty to protect vital national interests is one of the foremost duties of the President. The idea our interest stop at the waters edge is a parochialism we can’t afford in dangerous world.
History has shown that when America is strong and confident the world is a better place when we receded behind our oceans the world is a much more foreboding place.
Sorry to be at odds on this but said what he said.
CM,
Just so you know, I too heard that he had said similar things but had not heard a quote from his mouth until the debate that FX graciously excerpted here. I believe none of what I hear, and half of what I see, UNLESS I hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. It wasn’t until that debate (the one before last, I think) that I went from being suspicious of Ron Paul’s foreign policy to knowing that he IS a “blame America first”-er.
Likewise, as you know, I was suspicious of Rick Perry on illegal immigration. I held off final judgement on the matter until what he said at the most recent debate. Pretty much settled matters for me to hear him say that he was in favor of using U.S. citizen taxes to fund the education of MEXICAN citizens (and at in-state rates largely paid for by higher out-of-state rates). His denigration of anyone who disagreed with him as “having no heart” was just icing on the cake.
Ron Paul’s perfectly clear statement at the prior debate was the cherry-on-top for eliminating him from my consideration.
I STILL agree with a large percentage of what he wants domestically. But, at this point that’s irrelevant. His other views are so anathema that I would never support him.
When rumor, innuendo, and suspicion become observable fact, well …. that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
…. now I’m hungry for some reason.
Okay, I had heard that he was misquoted, and an explanation was given that “well, that’s not how he meant it”. Now that I’ve heard it direct, I know that you are correct. Just like with Perry, Ron Paul done fucked up. A lot of his stuff I like, but this is unforgivable. Scratch him from the possibles. My theory of war is this: Flatten the nation we’re fighting. IF anybody crawls out of the rubble afterward, tell them in no uncertain terms “Don’t make us come back”, and leave. Don’t rebuild them better than they were in the first place. In fact, take enough of what remains of them to pay for what we spent, be it art, gold, oil, whatever. Wipe them out, and police up enough shit to pay for the trouble we took and money we spent to do it.
CM
Now that’s a foreign policy I can get behind.
CM Blake Secretary of State.
We need to have a clear and unequivocal policy. This unfortunately is difficult in a world where the choices are often not between good and bad but between bad and worse(thanks VDH).
The best we can really do is support those who openly support us. This does not mean like with some of the assholes we backed that we turn a blind eye to their depredations but that we nudge them along to a more tolerant and pluralistic society. This worked well in both the Philippines and in South Korea as we supported the local tyrant until we were able to ensure a peaceful and democratic outcome.
Those in our government should not be embarrassed to sing from the hymnal of free markets and free people. The current regime doesn’t engage in this because they do not believe in it. Too many in elite circles have bought the notion that any support we give to indigenous freedom movements are discredited in the eyes of the world.
This is self fulfilling cynical bullshit as the people who deprecate our advocacy of freedom are the ones who work to undermine it here and everywhere else people wish to throw off the yokes of oppression. Certainly the people under the jackboot of totalitarian thugs don’t feel our brand is tarnished by leftist slanders
From the article:
We don’t need to intervene militarily. We have the moral authority to influence events because many are not exposed to the obvious cynicism espoused by the professional provocateurs as exemplified by the current usurper and his fifth columnists in his diplomacy shop.
The big problem with a President is not that he is so powerful domestically – he is not – but that he represents the US abroad.
Bill Clinton was a buffoon, the current occupant is even worse, and we won’t even get started with Jimmeh “Never Met A Terrorist I Didn’t Like” Carter.
Ron Paul’s domestic ideas are a good reason to keep him in Congress, his foreign relations ideas are a good reason to keep him as far from the Oval Office as possible.
And nations around the world, PARTICULARLY those who wish us harm, are laughing their asses off in our general direction.