“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Ron Paul - A Decent Man and Human Being

164 comments:

  1. You're going to give poor ol' Bob a heart attack. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm going to bed before the esplozin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don’t worry, they won’t see this video on their favorite right-wing droid depot. It is too off the message de jour. The word from central command of the right wing elite that love military jargon but never quite had time to actually serve has spoken.

    Hannity, Levin, Medvev, Limgaugh, all veterans of verbosity, the merchants of smear have found the good doctor not up to muster, wanting, not up to their high standards of service, ( the service by others of course).

    Those that shirk war love to fly the colors. They thrill to the call of the pipes. They love the company of the troops but never as a member of a company did they ever troop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I never said Ron Paul wasn't necessarily a good hearted man, though I'm not so sure he is, just that when it comes to most of his political positions he's nuts.

    Probably a wonderful doctor.

    The only radio I listen to now is Midnight Truckers Radio. Least those boys got some humor.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Iranian president says his administration will do everything it can to save the national currency from plunging further out of control.

    The semi-official Mehr news agency is quoting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying this is possible with the "huge reserves" of hard currency that Iran has. The report offered no details.

    The rial hit a record low on Tuesday, with the U.S. dollar selling for 15,050 rials in foreign currency exchange offices.

    The dollar sold for about 10,500 rials last December and in 1979 — the year an Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi — it was 70 rials against the dollar.

    Iran has restricted cash withdrawals and allows banks to sell only $2,000 per year to each person traveling outside the country.
    AP

    ReplyDelete
  6. Talk the talk about the Constitution or actually do something about it. When you support Ron Paul, you don't only support the man. You support the idea - an idea whose time has come. If you have not donated recently, I call upon you to do it RIGHT NOW. Even if it's $1.00. www.ronpaul2012.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Agrees 100% with Ron Paul on Israel and Iran!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVORRHn7rg8

    ReplyDelete
  8. I listened to that video twice and never heard the word 'Iran'.

    We've never had troops in any big amount in Israel. What is this, what does it mean, this sending troops 'endlessly'?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  9. He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

    Former Paul staff Eric Dondero, himself a Jew.


    I doubt Mr. Netanyahu would agree with this Paul outlook, nowadays perhaps unspoken in Iowa.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ron Paul is right in one area - that the Lessons of Munich - that America must intervene not in our vital national interests but "Anywhere people are oppressed and Freedom! is needed and JFKesque, we will bear any burden, pay any price in blood and treasure, we owe it to them! - is a prescription for endless war.

    Now we have a process of guilt-tripping Americans into endless war..because we failed to mobilize in the midst of the Depression and invade Germany to "Save the Jews" we are now morally obligated to Save the Noble Iraqis, Afghans with 1.2 trillion in nation-building and 50,000 casualties...after we failed to save the Noble Rwandans..but did "atone" by having wars to save the Noble Bosnians and Kosovar Muslims. We are now debating how much we are morally obligated for new wars to save the noble Darfurans, noble Conglese, noble Iranians from themselves. We did have a nice little Libyan war...and we are throwing in Neocon fantasies of liberating Cuba and N Korea, helping the noble Somalis...the Zionist perspective, which conflates grovelling support of al things Israel wants with "DO as we say, or you are anti-Semitic!"

    Others have tried the same gambit.
    The Jewish Boshevik thinkers learned from the Jacobites, and created the class conflict model - in which the "dispossessed classes" could criticize the bourgeoisie..but criticism the other way was deemed worth a trip to the Gulag or firing squad.

    Blacks were fans of the tactic by the 60s - any criticism of dysfunctions of black society was termed "racist" and critics hounded and fired.
    Muslims then found the same laws Jews forced on nations barring "hate speech" and taboos on "white Christians" speaking ill of others in more informal PC strictures could be well-exploited by them in turn. It is bigoted and Islamophobic to criticize Muslims or Muslim nations.

    Now we have the Chinese. Belligerant and nationalistic - more and more they have taken to express outrage at any slighting of what China does as "racism against the Han People".

    Eventually, this stifling of criticism does not succeed. It first becomes a "truth everyone knows about but does not discuss in polite society" (who runs Hollywood)..then moves on to "yes, but" criticism. As in "Yes, I love black people, but their high illegitimacy,welfare parasitism, and high crime rate is a matter of concern.."

    "Of course Islam is the Religion of Peace and it is hard to find a more wonderful and magnificent group of people anywhere than the Ummah and their noble immigrants....BUT!!"

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ron Paul is right in one area - that the Lessons of Munich - that America must intervene not in our vital national interests but "Anywhere people are oppressed and Freedom! is needed and JFKesque, we will bear any burden, pay any price in blood and treasure, we owe it to them! - is a prescription for endless war.

    I'm either too tired or too unintelligent to discern the meaning of this statement.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  12. It simply means that if we keep trying to be the world's policeman (righter of all wrongs) we will stay at war, forever, Bob.

    We gotta take a break, and get our own house in order. This deal is going to bust us - hell, it already has.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What I find fascinating is that the Republicans, willingly, or not, are misunderstanding (or, pretending to) Paul's appeal.

    You ask the people of Iowa why they're supporting him, and they say, "Foreign Policy/Anti-War."

    If you ask the "official" repubs, they say, "domestic policy."

    This discordancy of thought cannot end well for the pubs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I heard Michael Medved expressing indignation with a caller and supporter of Ron Paul. Medved said that Ron Paul would not have attacked Germany to prevent the holocaust. Ron Paul just told the truth. Medved showed his ignorance and is trying to put a guilt trip on Ron Paul for telling the truth.

    The US did not want to get involved in WWII. There was little support for the US getting involved in a European war. It had only been twenty some years since the US fought the war to end all wars, WWI.

    The Japanese attacked the US Pacific fleet and one day later, Germany declared war. The US was dragged into the war. In 1939 the US had the 17th largest army in the world and had no tanks.

    At the height of the war, the US was consuming 40% of its GDP on the military. When the US finally landed at Normandy, the best German armies had been wrecked in Russia, making it easier for the US to gather enough strength to attack a bleeding Germany and that was no easy task.

    This attack on Ron Paul, claiming to show he is an anti-semite is really outrageous and needs to be challenged.

    To blame the US for not getting involved in rescuing the Jews is absurd. The US had its own battle to fight and those unfortunate victims of the Germans including the Russians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, French, and others had their own fights and problems.

    The intent here is to show Ron Paul as a critic and a hater of Israel and that anyone who supports Ron Paul as an anti-semite hater of Israel.

    Where were these critics while Pol Pot was murdering Cambodians by the hundreds of thousands? They certainly had knowledge that it was going on. The lesson of the holocaust in Germany was that it could happen to anyone at any time.

    It is unfair to Ron Paul and his supporters to have to answer such rubbish. Would it be fair to ask Israel how many battalions it sent to Cambodia?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I must be an anti-semite, and hater of Israel, then, because I am, absolutely, against going to war on the off-chance (very slim "off-chance," I believe) that Iran might commit suicide by firing a nuke at the Levant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would YOU fire a nuke at Israel if you thought there was very little chance that it would get through, and knew that it would mean the destruction of your country, family, and yourself before the day was done whether it got through or not?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The thing is, once a country such as Iran decides they want a nuke, the only, and I mean "only," way you can stop them is to invade them, defeat them, AND OCCUPY THEM.

    FOREVER.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Iraq would be as nothing compared to Occupying Iran.

    78 Million People, and an area roughly a third the size of the Contiguous 48?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I guess he figures their votes count just as much as anyone else's.

    At least he's been consistent in his beliefs. That makes him a minority of one.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As crazy as he is, and as unsavory as many of his supporters are, I'd vote for him against anyone that wouldn't swear to keep us out of war with Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That means, as of right now, I'd vote for him over all Republicans, and Obama, too.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Besides, just imagine having your crazy uncle as President for four years.

    Wotta trip :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. To me the craziest thing about the old coot is that nonsense about jury nullification.

    People don't seem to understand what that actually means, and I don't think he understands it either. It actually means you no longer have any real use for or need of a legislature.

    The law becomes what the jury says it is, not what some elected legislature says it is, from far away.

    He doesn't even want judges instructing the jurors.

    heh, jeez

    The man is, to take one from Rufus, "barking mad".

    I'm going to bed.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  24. barking mad = a two legged dog seeking a new horizon of howls

    b

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh yeah, he's mad as a hatter. For sure.

    But, he's the only sane one of the bunch when it comes to foreign policy, and the most important thing any President ever does - Take the country into War.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stupid stupid people...

    It aint about Israel or the Joos...

    It's about Iran and her behavior...

    US and NATO task forces in the Persian Gulf are on alert since US intelligence warned that Iranian marine commandos are preparing to sow mines in the strategic Strait of Hormuz. DEBKA: Tehran's threats to close Hormuz and its big Velayati 90 sea exercise indicate the form of its reprisals for the harsh sanctions scheduled next month for approval in Washington and Brussels for shearing 80 percent off Iran's state revenue. However, the US using mine countermeasures can reopen Hormuz within 24-48 hours.

    But you keep telling yourself it's Israel and the Joos.

    Stupid Stupid people.

    getting dumber by the hour....

    ReplyDelete
  27. sanity = Attack a country of 78 million because they may have a nuclear weapon.

    sanity = Run endless trillion dollar deficits.

    insanity = avoid needless wars.

    insanity = reduce government spending.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ron Paul 2012 said...
    sanity = Attack a country of 78 million because they may have a nuclear weapon.

    sanity = Run endless trillion dollar deficits.

    insanity = avoid needless wars.

    insanity = reduce government spending.



    Being a PUSSY....

    PUSSY = Listen to a nation of 78 million promise to destroy you and burn you to a cinder

    PUSSY = Not doing everything short of war to stop a nation of 78 million from taking over the middle east.

    PUSSY = Giving billions to jidahist nations in direct welfare.

    PUSSY = Buying oil from clit chopping, camel fucking anti western dictatorships...

    Yep America the Pussy....

    Just has the Jihadi President wanted...

    ReplyDelete
  29. And, I'll guarantee you, there goes an anonymi that has never stepped foot in a War Zone (not wearing a U.S. uniform, anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rufus II said...
    And, I'll guarantee you, there goes an anonymi that has never stepped foot in a War Zone (not wearing a U.S. uniform, anyway.)


    I have been in war zones and not in uniform...

    Just like Rat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Except I didnt murder civilians

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rufus loves Obama..

    Obama never wore an American uniform in battle

    ReplyDelete
  33. January, 20005. GWB inauguration speech paraphrased: "We will end tyranny in the world."

    I remember hearing that and thinking "Holy fucking shit. We are in trouble."

    I also found it deliciously ironic that the rhetoric of our Dear Leaders was embellished with the promises of "freedom" for the genital-mutilating, machete-wielding thumb suckers of the world, while domestically the same Dear Leaders built a surveillance / police apparatus that treats all citizens as suspected "terrorists."

    It's comforting to know that now the Executive branch can label you a terrorist and lock you up indefinitely with no access to counsel, trial or anything.

    If it works for the people we start wars with, it'll work well for us. I guess it's all about a culture exchange.

    Stay the Course.
    Secure the Homeland.
    War means Freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robert Reich predicts: Obama-Clinton 2012, Biden to State Department

    Romney: "Islam is not an inherently violent faith"

    Nancy Pelosi's daughter: 'My mom wants to leave Congress'..And there was much rejoicing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clinton: I didn’t have sex with that woman.

    Nixon: I am not a crook.

    Obama: I am not a Muslim.

    Paul: I am not a racist.

    ReplyDelete
  36. VA GOP will require a ‘Loyalty Oath’ to vote in primary. Ich bien ein Richmonder.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Paul: I am not a racist.

    Neither are Muslims:

    Christians just disappear as if by magic when Muzzies rule.

    "first they came for..."

    Hysterical rantings, nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bro D-Day - perhaps POTUS will not sign the NDAA.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Obama's approval among Latinos drops below 50%

    UN Lowers Flags To Half-Staff For Kim Jong-Il

    Michelle O: "McDonalds is givin out free coffee cuz of this awful Bush Recession. Hey-didya see me in my $2000 sun dress?"

    ReplyDelete
  40. "To blame the US for not getting involved in rescuing the Jews is absurd. The US had its own battle to fight and those unfortunate victims of the Germans including the Russians, Czechs, Poles, Dutch, French, and others had their own fights and problems."

    I heard a country called "Britain" was involved, also.

    Guess we would not have heard much from Hitch, if Paul had been POTUS.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Was "The Axis" in WWII aN hysterical delusion of GWB?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Looks like the Candyman is back.

    Funny shit.

    Does not want to commit his troop of blue shirts to the fight, but wants the rest of US to send our sons to fight Israel's battles.

    The hypocrisy is comical.

    As to the veracity of Israel's leadership, first they tell US.

    1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

    Then they tell US

    January 2011: When Meir Dagan steps down as director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, he says that
    Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015.
    "Israel should not hasten to attack Iran, doing so only when the sword is upon its neck," Mr. Dagan warned. Later he said that attacking Iran would be
    "a stupid idea.... The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible."


    So, if both these folks of the Israeli leadership are to be believed, the Iranians have been capable of developing a nuclear weapon, in three years, since 1992.

    They have yet to accomplish this task. Perhaps the fact is, as they say, that they are not trying to.

    Or they'd have one...
    ... if Bibi was telling the truth.

    If he was lying then, why believe him now?

    If he was telling the truth, then, so too have the Iranians, since.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ready to send your son, to the sandbox, doug?

    We can institute a draft, to cut the payroll cost for the combat arms of the Army.

    No need to pay the cannon fodder a "Living Wage".

    ReplyDelete
  44. The draftee cannon fodder -

    A 24 month tour
    12 months of training,
    then a 12 month combat deployment,
    then out they go,
    back to the streets of the USA.

    $100 a month plus room and board.

    No allowances for dependents,
    no deferments.

    Sanctions and Sabotage are Sufficient

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hispanic preferences for President
    68% for Obama
    28% for Romney

    Whether they approve of President Obama, or not, they are going to vote for him, rather than Mr Wall Street Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

    Joel Rosenberg used to have a blog on Blogger , about 2008, his shtick was that Ezekiel predicted that Iran would get a nuke in 2009. I went in there and stirred up a bunch of shit by simply being a skeptic, and Joel ended up closing his blog, just like Kudlow, because it was hurting book sales.

    ReplyDelete
  47. .

    I like a lot of Paul's proposed policies. Others are just wacky. But the man is consistent, a rare quality among the munchkins of OZ. Likewise he may be a nice guy.

    Some of the criticism of him lately could be the confusing of his libertarian views with racism when viewed through the eyes of those that see anyone who disagrees with them as being racist.

    That being said the man seems, to me, to have a skewed moral compass. His attitude, as expressed numerous times is "I choose not to criticize any of these groups that are supporting me. They support my positions but I don't necessarily support their positions." A little too pat. If he does it based on libertarian principles, you can see why libertarians have never gotten too far and likely won't in the future.

    Paul will never be president, but if he were it is unlikely he could do more damage to the country than the two current frontrunners.

    However, bottom line, to me it seems Paul is just one more dick amongst a city of dicks albeit a more likeable one.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. Quirk: However, bottom line, to me it seems Paul is just one more dick amongst a city of dicks albeit a more likeable one.

    Likeable dick is an oxymoron in my circles.

    American Idol Kelly Clarkson: “I Love Ron Paul”

    Gallup: 42% of Americans Describe Themselves Politically As “Conservative,” Only 19% “Liberal”

    ReplyDelete
  49. .

    Likeable dick is an oxymoron in my circles.


    Have you ever tried one?

    Back in the day, I would have merely considered you a challenge.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  50. 95. Mr X Teresita, if she is in fact a Pentagon employee, will either see her salary get cut, her pension devalued through inflation, or her health care denied.

    Average Federal gov’t salary 60% larger than average in private sector

    ReplyDelete
  51. The only real question with regards the Hispanics is turnout, in November.

    Team Obama got a large Hispanic turnout, in 2008. Whether they can replicate thos gross numbers, given the unpopularity of Mr Obama's policies on the border.

    The increase in deportations has shaken his support amongst the Hispanic base. But forced to make the choice, he still tops Wall Street Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Quirk: Have you ever tried one?

    The 80s were a free-for-all.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Federal employees should have their wages and benefits cut by 10% per year, until the Federal budget is balanced.

    Same with regards Social Security payments and Medicare payouts.

    The military budget should be cut by about 20%, for procurements.
    50% in payroll and benefits.
    A draft re-instituted.

    Military retiree benefits not paid until the retiree reaches Social Security benefit age.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Those reductions in spending, on a year over year basis, not from the "baseline budgeting" numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  55. .

    We need you in D.C., rat.


    You would fit in with all the other dicks there.


    :)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  56. Not much chance of that, Q.

    The Senior citizens, here in AZ, will never vote to cut their own Federal welfare payments.

    They'll just vote for cuts to the "other" guys.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think that was my point. The US was not entering the war until the US was dragged into the war. When the US did enter the war, the goal was to defeat the enemy and win the war. It was not using assets to provide humanitarian support to anyone. The US supported Britain because the US needed a base to launch an attack against the Germans. The US bombed allied cities when it was in the interest of killing Germans. The goal was simple, destroy the enemy. Win the war. Come home. It was every man or woman for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Even in Syria, the truth is becoming known, with the Arab League monitoring the situation, up close and personal.

    Tha anti-Assad claims, proving to be without substance, at this point in time. The Arab League, now accused of being "collaborators".

    The Arab League, will soon be labeled anti-Semite, or not agreeing with the Zionist talking points on Syria, at least those expressed here at the EB.


    (Xinhua) -- Arab League (AL) observers visited Thursday a number of neighborhoods in several provinces of Syria and met with many people there, as some opposition parties accused members of the AL mission of collaborating ...

    ReplyDelete
  59. .

    Cutting costs is a great idea.

    And I am in favor of a draft despite reasons supporting an all volunteer army. However, your plan to institute a draft so that you can have cheep slave labor doesn't make sense.

    As far as cutting personnel, that may have some value. In fact either the WaPo or the NYT had a story in the past day or two indicating the Pentagon is in the process of cutting back on Generals and Admirals.

    As for cutting pay and benefits for civilian personell, that would need to be done an individual basis although they could look into what the private industry has done in terms of dual-leval wage structures. (A tough way to go given civil service rules and union clout.)

    However, the biggest savings should be on procurement, that is where the corruption lies (or inefficieny, or stupidity if you like). There is a story in today's WaPo or the NYT (can't remember which) about the F-35 fiasco and the F-22 that proceeded it.

    Twenty years to develop a weapons system, over that time the costs double, the numbers decrease, and you are left with a system that costs millions in maintenance each year.

    When a general orders a system, does he really give a shit how much it costs?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  60. Makes perfect sense, Q, from a historical perspective.

    When the country is at war, the government often drafted soldiers.

    But not at low "net" wages.
    I was surprised.

    Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, April 24, 1944

    By Malvern Hall Tillitt

    Annual "net earned income" of the lowest-paid man in America's armed forces, if single, is more than that of the $3,600-a-year single man in civilian employment. And annual pay of $3,600 is more than the yearly earnings of many tellers in banks or bookkeepers in mercantile establishments or employees in investment houses or pharmacists or engineers in radio operation. It is twice the average pay received by employees of insurance concerns or public utilities or real estate companies. Indeed, Federal income-tax reports show that more than 90 percent of incomes earned by single persons throughout the United States fall below $3,600.
    ...
    Let's consider the case of the single man and start with proof of the opening statement. The lowest pay in the Army is the $50 a month; or $600 a year, received by the buck private, while in service within the bounds of the United States. The man may have given up a $3,600-a-year civilian job on entering military service. And, from the figures alone, he may apparently be taking a loss of $3,000 a year.

    On reduction of earnings to "net income," the comparison goes into reverse. This fact traces mainly to the major items of subsistence which are provided for men and noncommissioned officers in military service but for which the civilian must pay out of his pocket. In addition, civilians have much higher income taxes to reckon with.

    Army-Navy Pay Tops Most Civilians' Unmarried Private's Income Equivalent to $3,600 Salary, 1944

    It's not slave labor, it's service to country. Serving the National Interests of the United States.

    Or we stay out of further wars that are not worthy of the sacrifice to the public purse.

    ReplyDelete
  61. We could, since we are at war, one supposedly comparable to WWII, we can replicate the tax rate of 1944.

    A bottom rate of 23% on income under $2,000 per year.
    A top rate of 94% on income over $200,000.

    The chart does not give the mid income rates, but one can imagine what they'd be.

    Either a low paid draftee combat arms contingent, or raise taxes to rates that are historically reasonable for a war footing.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  63. .

    You conflate two things, paying for miltary personell and the need for them.

    I share your believe that we should cutting back on our overall footprint in the world. And obviously there is waste at the top and any move to cut generals and admirals is a good thing. However, for the poor schmucks putting their life on the line they should be paid.

    As far as GI pay versus civilian pay, you might want to come up with something a little more recent than 1944. Although these days with people actually losing ground on a net basis who is to know.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  64. Maintain the current structure on incomes up to $200,000 per year.

    Then a surtax of 94% on income over $200,000. To pay for the war.
    Deductions only applicable to the $200,000 base.

    A modified WWII program.

    The National Interest would quickly shift, the foreign adventures coming to a screeching halt.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 1944 works best, as that is the war that the adventures in the sand box are being compared to, on this very thread.

    Comparing the Axis of Evil to the Axis Powers of WWII.

    Iran = Germany
    North Korea = Japan
    Iraq = Italy

    The comparisons are ripe fodder for Comedy Central.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The US is facing a decision point, with regards our global military footprint.

    Roll it back
    Or step up and pay cash for it.

    Raise taxes
    Or mint some coin.

    ReplyDelete
  67. We are moving into Round 2 of the payroll tax holiday political battle.

    Forty some days and counting, aye?

    Knowing in your heart the holiday will be extended.
    The battle will settle upon how to "pay for" this.

    With those across the board, but military spending foremost, cuts coming as a result in the debt ceiling battle of last August.
    With another phase of that fight coming, too.

    As we roll to the election.

    While I doubt that Mr Romney will embrace a hardline on the debt ceiling battle, not one that would be in line with that of Eric Cantor, in the first round.

    Will the GOP frosh of the House fall in?

    Will Mr Cantor?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Any one who delivers babies is a decent human being.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Senator John "Maverick" McCain has publicly promised that those military budget cuts, provided for by the failure of the "Super Committee" to come to a piece of legislation, will not occur.

    Where do the Republican candidates for President stand on that?

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think what will happen is Obammie will promise, right through Nov whatever, that Iran won't be allowed to have a nuke, and, then, after the election he will give Bibi a great big, old, slobbery "fuck you."

    ReplyDelete
  71. Any one who delivers babies is a decent human being.

    :)

    And, the Nazi gynecologist?



    Paul, however, is a conviction politician who would roll back counterterrorism policies that have kept America safe since 9/11. He opposed the raid that killed bin Laden and the action against Awlaki. Given his views on “blowback,” Paul would abandon America’s military presence and engagement in the rest of the world. He wouldn’t do anything to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, effectively giving them a green light to accelerate their program while he’s president. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as America’s withdrawal from world affairs would be a signal to any tyrant or would be tyrant that it’s open season.

    Here's A Man Who After Careful Thinking Would Back Obama Before He'd Back Paul If That Were His Only Choice

    b

    ReplyDelete
  72. "He opposed the raid that killed bin Laden"

    That's really really damning.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  73. Well, Doctor Paul is no NAZI.

    Just someone who articulates the position of "Real" Republicans.

    Bring the troops home.

    It's over, over there.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I didn't say he was, I said that everyone who delivers babies may not be decent human beings.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  75. At some point you Have to face facts. We're running Trillion Dollar Deficits, year after year.

    We have gotten away with a lot due to our "Reserve Currency," and Strong Military; but, even we can't get away with this forever.

    ReplyDelete
  76. We could look at it this way, with regards the military payroll.

    In 1944, income was $3,600 a year and a private got $600 plus room and board.

    In 2010, average income for young adult, high school grads, 20-29 yrs old, $30,000 a year.

    So, to maintain the ratio a private in the military today, if the nation was on a war footing, similar to that of WWII ...
    Right around $5,500.

    About $475 pr month.
    While in 2011 the military actually pays a private $1,491 per month.

    Three times the money of their WWII counterpart.

    ReplyDelete
  77. With a standing army of over a million men, little wonder then that we've busted the bank.

    Paying privates three times their worth, as valued in WWII.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The World War II draft operated from 1940 until 1947 when its legislative authorization expired without further extension by Congress. During this time, more than 11 million men had been inducted into military service.

    So, if the Axis of Evil is the equivalent of the Axis Powers of WWII, we should have drafted soldiers, paying them about $100 a week, rather than enlisting folks at $350 per week.

    When you're talkin' a million men, it makes a difference.

    But then, there'd have been public outcry, at the length of the War on the Axis of Evil.

    Rather than pay the true price of the Sandbox Wars, we put in on our Charlie Chi-com credit card.

    It's time to pay the piper,
    or come on home.

    ReplyDelete
  79. George W Bush refused to authorize a raid to kill Osama.

    Fearing to large a footprint and extended US exposure at Tora Bora.

    Is George W Bush damned, tambien?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Even after George W Bush refused to authorize the raid to kill Osama, boobie supported him, in 2004 election.

    Seems damnation for inaction, that is only for those boobie opposes, not for those he praises.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Demand for gasoline running 5.6% Below this 4 wk period last year, but Price is 7% Above price from last year.

    Demand is so low in Europe that the Eurozone's largest refiner, Petroplus (5 refineries, I think,) is on the verge of bankruptcy. As of yesterday, they couldn't afford to buy oil to refine.

    ReplyDelete
  82. That Mr Obama is made of sterner stuff than either Doctor Paul or George W Bush, well ...

    That's probably considered damning, too.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Deuce,

    Your early comment about the devaluing rial...

    Watching the local news last night. Finance spot came on. The euro has dropped so low against the Aussie dollar that the finance dude said, 'Pretty soon you'll be able to buy a Mercedes for the same price as a Hyundai'.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Romney said he’s in Iowa now, and that’s all that should matter to voters.

    “The best thing I can do is show [voters] that I’m going to be here,” he said, reminding the crowd that he has launched a bus tour across the state.

    The Romney campaign released a schedule late Thursday showing that the candidate indeed plans to stay in Iowa until the Jan. 3 caucuses, apart from two brief stops in New Hampshire over the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Deuce said...

    "I think that was my point. The US was not entering the war until the US was dragged into the war. When the US did enter the war, the goal was to defeat the enemy and win the war. It was not using assets to provide humanitarian support to anyone. "

    ---

    How does proving Medved wrong make Dr. Demento right?

    ie, isn't Paul against our entry into WWII regardless of the cause?

    ---

    I could be wrong about that, of course, I don't spend much time following crazy, racist, old-timers.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I could believe Kain never had sex outside his marriage before I could believe Paul had no idea what was in HIS Newsletter for 10 years.
    Reverend Wright, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  87. I agree with Doug.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  88. And, I like the term Dr. Demento.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  89. Actually, Ron Paul said that he would do the exact same thing FDR, and the other politicians of the day, did. Stay out of it until we were attacked.

    FDR, and the kidz, knew all about the slave labor/extermination camps, but didn't want to be seen as "going to war for the Jews."

    ReplyDelete
  90. Many people profit off of political causes, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. But Gingrich has exploited conservatism, because he has profited not by advancing the cause, but by harming it.

    He made money as a consultant and lobbyist trying to convince conservatives to support subsidies for housing, prescription drugs and ethanol. And this year, he has profited by temporarily convincing millions of conservatives that he's the right man to beat Obama.

    There's a popular saying about causes that "start as a mass movement, become a business, and end up a racket." With Gingrich, a movement that changed American politics in 1994 has evolved into a Tiffany-studded, jet-setting lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  91. He did and he didn't depending on the day and place.

    Just like he did and didn't promote his RACIST Newsletter.

    Why is THAT deemed OK by the August Moralizers of the Bar?

    ReplyDelete
  92. It is exactly like Reverend Wright, doug.

    Those that support the Doc, they don't care.

    Those that care, they already don't support him.

    It is waste of time to harp on it, as it was with regards Reverend Wright.

    Is what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Because, doug, support for the Doctor is based upon his foreign policy and his desire to audit the Federal Reserve.

    More the foreign policy than the Federal Reserve stance, I do believe.

    No one cares about the race.
    As Mr Cain said, we're beyond that, now.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The argument, against the Doctor, has to be based upon the need for continued military interventions around the whirled.

    Needing to convince 25% or so of the GOP caucus goers in Iowa that they and their country will be good to go by starting a war with Iran.

    Or continuing on in Afpakistan.

    And this talking about his 1990's pamphlets will not get that done.

    Those of the GOP that support bringing the troops home, will not rally to Mr Romney, regardless of the race baiting.

    Romney will lose in November, without the Librarians in the tent.

    Paul/Johnson 2012 will draw about 5% of the general vote, if the GOP does not play it correctly.

    Then Obama wins.
    Which he's going o, regardless.

    Better for US to vote your conscience and lose than vote for warmongers and be amongst the winners.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Learned that from George W Bush.

    Joy to the Whirled!

    ReplyDelete
  96. desert rat said...
    It is exactly like Reverend Wright, doug.

    Those that support the Doc, they don't care.

    Those that care, they already don't support him.

    It is waste of time to harp on it, as it was with regards Reverend Wright.

    ---

    Do YOU support the Doc?

    ReplyDelete
  97. John McCain refused to touch Reverend Wright with a ten foot pole.

    Fired someone for saying Hussein, or some such as I recall.

    History cannot be denied.
    Running against the Rev was
    Verbotten.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Doug wrote -

    " I don't spend much time following crazy, racist, old-timers."

    You talking about Paul or rat?

    ReplyDelete
  99. You know you are addicted to following the Rat, anon.

    I do it from time to time, as suits my pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Rufus II said...
    Actually, Ron Paul said that he would do the exact same thing FDR, and the other politicians of the day, did. Stay out of it until we were attacked.

    FDR, and the kidz, knew all about the slave labor/extermination camps, but didn't want to be seen as "going to war for the Jews."




    Yep Rufus... dont sweat it America NEVER went to war for the jews...

    That's why almost 7 MILLION were turned into ash...

    and another MILLION were ethnically cleansed from the arab world.

    Dont you worry! Ron Paul would CONTINUE the American policy of allow genocide against the Jews of the world as it has in the past.

    That should make you happy.

    But dont expect the Jews of the world to go quietly into the night and if that upsets your apple cart well then tuff cookies...

    America successfully allowed the murder of almost 7 million jews, liberating camps at the END OF THE WAR, after the nazis were defeated

    Not to mention the exclusion of Jewish refugees into America, before, during and after the ww2.

    No the reality is clear, America has not supported the right for Jews to live without fear of genocide.

    It's ok, just sad that the reality (and expectation) of this great nation is now becoming no more than just another nation of the world with no spine, principles or values....

    /off sarc.

    Thank all that is holy that the members of the Paul clan and this blog are NOT representative of the actual people of the USA, but rather a group of whack a doodles...

    ReplyDelete
  101. I support bringing the troops home.

    I'd have supported Gary Johnson, but he got frozen out.

    So, at Primary time, if Johnson is not on ballot, I'll vote for the Doctor.

    Rather than Mr Perry, who said he'd deploy US troops to Mexico.
    Rather than Romney, Gingrich or Santorum, sabre rattlers, all.

    In the General election, I'll vote for the Librarian, little matter his name.

    Would never vote for Wall Street Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  102. So, like the "Good" Doctor, supporting racists is A-OK.

    ...depending on circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I am sure the MSM will NEVER bring up Paul's newsletters in the General Election.

    I am also sure Elvis is alive.

    ReplyDelete
  104. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  105. "o" will be celebrating Mr Obama's reelection.

    Chicken hawks going home to roost.

    ReplyDelete
  106. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I don't care about the race issues, doug, not nearly as much as I do about war.

    War is the issue that motivates the vote, not race relations.

    That race based quota thing, that was filled, last go-round.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I don't think Dr. Demento will be trying a third party run, cause it would harm the prospects of his illustrious son down the walk a ways.

    Everybody would be blaming him for 4 more years of zero.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  109. In MY country, I'll speak out against racism. What people in other countries do, I could care less.

    Why all the people of Europe hate the Jews I don't know. Nor do I care. It's none of my damned business. I don't love Jews. I don't hate Jews. I've never, to be honest, given a good goddamn about who was a Jew, and who wasn't. It's just something that never interested me.

    I'm, also, not concerned that the future President of the United States might be a closet racist. We've had many, and I do mean "many," racist presidents. Probably More, than Not. It didn't matter.

    The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what is acceptable, race-wise, in the United States, and they've made their rulings (all of which I agree with, btw.)

    There is only one area in which the President is damned near omnipotent; and that is in deciding whether, or not, to get the country involved in a War. And, until some other Republican can convince me that he is as anti-war as Paul, Rupaul is my man.

    First Principles, First.

    ReplyDelete
  110. We'll get four more years, even if the Doc don't run.

    Romney does not have the gumption to beat Obama.

    No more than George W had the balls to pull the trigger on Osama, when they had him cornered, at Tora Bora.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Right now, the chickenhawks are Praying that Iran will give them some excuse in the Straits of Hormuz.

    If Iran doesn't take the bait, you might want to keep an eye out for a "Tonkin Gulf" type incident.


    Of course, it's problematic as to whether they could get Obama to go along with it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. But there is one major aspect of the newsletters, no less disturbing than their racist content, that has always been present in Paul’s rhetoric, in every forum: a penchant for conspiracy theories.


    In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the “treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic
    dictators that pull the strings in our country.” Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded,“there’s pretty good evidence that those who are
    involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true.”

    Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various “Rockefeller Trilateralists.” The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.


    and

    Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, in an item for the Ron Paul Survival Report titled, “10 Militia Commandments,” he offered advice to militia members, including that they, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

    Ron Paul Is A Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist

    b

    ReplyDelete
  113. We'll get four more years, even if the Doc don't run.

    Romney does not have the gumption to beat Obama.





    SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 45% OBAMA 39%...


    b

    ReplyDelete
  114. Romney might be able to win even if Demento does run.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  115. For the first time in more than six decades, the United States is exporting more gasoline and diesel than it imports. first time since Truman.

    ReplyDelete
  116. The Doctor believes in the Boners.

    He's not blinded by political correctness, at least with regards to the realities of power in Washington DC.

    Anther plus.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Gotta go State by State, boobie.

    That's how the vote is counted.

    Like George W Bush, Obama can win with a minority of the popular vote, if it's in the "right" places.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Karl Rove, crapper, has Obama losing in a landslide, the Republicans taking the Senate, and losing a few seats in the House, but still the majority.

    You wouldn't care or dare to question the Architect would you, crapper?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  119. From Real Clear Poilitics


    Rasmussen Reports

    Obama (D) 44
    Romney (R) 41
    Obama (D) +3.0


    That's reality, boobie, in a real national poll. By the fellow that does the "best" work, historically.

    ReplyDelete
  120. That fellow is a direct mail maven.

    Good luck if believing in Karl is your touchstone.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Mr R is a tad confused, as his verbiage says ...

    A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May. Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points.

    A generic Republican does better than any of the "real" candidates.

    And Obama has not even barely started campaigning. While Mr Romney's been at it for a year.

    ReplyDelete
  122. But the Tea Party and Occupy people are just tired of it all. And they would like to see changes.

    And if the conditions get much worse, the demonstrations on the streets could get much worse, too. And that’s what we have to be aware of.

    But fortunately we still live in a free enough society where they can speak out. If they violate property rights, if anybody violates property rights, they do it at risk.


    - Paul

    ReplyDelete
  123. While the fella that left Mrs Bachmann's campaign for that of Doc Paul says ...

    Asked why he chose Paul over Romney, Sorenson said of the former Massachusetts governor: "I think he's terrible for this country. I think he's terrible for the caucus process."

    He continued, "Mitt Romney hasn't [come] to my town," and added that Romney's record is one of a "big-spending liberal." Sorenson then went further, bashing Romney as a "frugal socialist."

    But pressed to answer how he could switch to a candidate so different on national security than the rest of the field, he said, "I don't agree with every candidate on ever issue -- we differ on some opinions."

    He elaborated that he couldn't think of anything on which he agreed with Romney and added, "I don't trust him."

    As for Romney's differences with Paul on foreign policy, and in particular their approaches to Israel, Sorenson said, "That's not a big issue for me."


    Folks pick and choose what is important, to them.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Mr Rasmussen may be losing his touch, as his numbers don't match his words.

    Who knows, but that RCP average has Obama up, over Romney, by 1.6%, today.

    But still, it's a State by State race. The National polls just fodder for discussion, not a window on reality.

    ReplyDelete
  125. And, it usually has "something" to do with their wallets. :)

    ReplyDelete
  126. RCP has the Dems ahead, in the generic Congressional election.

    Which is fodder for discussion, too.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Folks follow the Media.
    Paul would lose in 50 of the 57 states.

    ReplyDelete
  128. CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear?

    ...

    PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned... his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn't edit the whole letter, and things got put in.

    ...

    CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they're gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.

    PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven't had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "Right now, the chickenhawks are Praying that Iran will give them some excuse in the Straits of Hormuz."

    "Of course, it's problematic as to whether they could get Obama to go along with it."

    Help us ignorant folks out Mr. Rufus. Administration officials and military folks talking on that glowing screen and the internets are chickenhawks and they're trying to snooker President Obama. They don't actually represent his administration?

    ReplyDelete
  130. The chickenhawks tricked W too.

    ReplyDelete
  131. The big number

    Right track - Wrong track

    is 25 - 75

    Question is whether the folk come to believe that war and the debt involved in financing it, if that led to the economy collapsing.

    Then, of course, how the next nine months play out.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Rufus just a few days ago you said there wasn't a competent republican worth voting for and this would be the first time voting for a democrat.

    Well, something on those lines. Just wondering why the sudden change of heart.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Ah, Rufus will come through. Same as last election, he spouts off, then secures northern Mississippi for the Republicans.

    Pay it no mind....

    b

    ReplyDelete
  134. Mississippi?

    What do you call a good looking woman in Mississippi?

    A visitor.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Maybe he likes the way Michelle looks in $2,000 muumuus.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  136. Then which candidate has the "best" proposal to "fix" things.

    In all of the 57 States.

    Replay of the Tonkin Gulf incident, it does not take that many folk to create something out of nothing.

    Another conspiracy theory that proved to be a real conspiracy.
    According to Mr McNamara, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Obama's path back to the White House


    The Obama campaign likes to start with the states that John Kerry won in the 2004 election, on the theory that these rock-solid blue states are a lock for the Democratic nominee. Building on the 251 electoral votes that Kerry received, the Obama campaign believes that it can win a second term if any of the following strategies pans out.

    ReplyDelete
  138. It’s Obama’s number that is more significant in these early head-to-head matchups. Republicans are still vigorously contesting a primary, which means Republicans haven’t united behind a candidate in the way Democrats are already lined up behind Obama. These head to head matchups will only truly be on an equal basis after the nomination has been wrapped up by someone, whether that’s Romney or another Republican candidate. An incumbent who can’t break 40% in a poll, especially at this stage of the race, is an incumbent in deep, deep trouble.

    The internals of this poll show how. Obama is losing independents 45/29, while party loyalty on both sides is pretty stable; Romney gets 79/8 among Republicans, while Obama gets 80/11 among Democrats. Obama carries the under-$20K demographic and the two demographics above $75K, but only within the margin of error, while Romney wins the three middle-class income demos, two by double digits. But the big eye-opener is Romney’s six-point lead among women [see update II], which would be the kiss of death indeed in a general election for any Democrat, Obama included.


    The Women, My Wife Included, Like Romney

    Must be that suave, rich, competent look...

    b

    ReplyDelete
  139. Even those who loathe Karl Rove’s every word may be hard-pressed to dispute his pre-Christmas summation of the Republican circus so far: “the most unpredictable, rapidly shifting, and often downright inexplicable primary race I’ve ever witnessed.”
    ...
    In the standard analysis of the race, which the embattled GOP Establishment is eager to believe, the rapid ascent and implosion of each wacky presidential contender is seen mainly as a passing judgment on Mitt Romney, the android who just can’t close the deal and improve his unyielding 25 percent average in polls of the Republican electorate. The Old Guard professes to have no worries. That steady 25 percent has been good enough to induce much of the press to portray Romney as the “presumed” (if not the “commanding”) front-runner ever since Beltway handicappers like Mark Halperin of Time and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post labeled him as such early in 2010.
    ...
    this narrative is built on a patently illogical assumption: that a 25 percent minority is the trunk wagging the Republican elephant. What makes anyone seriously assume that the 75 percent will accommodate itself to that etiolated 25 percent rather than force the reverse? That lopsided majority of the GOP is so angry at the status quo that it has been driven to embrace, however fleetingly, some of the most manifestly unqualified, not to mention flakiest, presidential contenders in American history. The 75 percent is determined to take a walk on the wild side. This is less about rejecting Mitt—who’s just too bland a figure to inspire much extreme emotion con or pro—than it is about fervently wanting something else.
    ...
    At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Romney won its influential presidential straw poll three years in a row until Ron Paul ended that streak in 2010, then beat him again this year. Both times Paul’s victories were dismissed by the GOP Establishment (CPAC’s organizers included) as aberrations—fleeting coups staged by hustling young cadres of fringe maniacs. But Paul’s triumphs were no aberration; he was a bellwether of the right’s new revolution. His zeal to dismantle Washington is now mainstream for the firebrand 75 percent. These days a Republican candidate who wants to send multiple departments of the federal government to the guillotine only risks a backlash when he can’t remember the condemned agencies’ names.
    Romney, a moderate reformer who emphasizes eliminating programs, not departments, is such an outlier next to this wrecking crew that he could be in the Obama Cabinet.


    A view from the "other" side, by Frank Rich.
    It seems a reasonable appraisal.

    ReplyDelete
  140. In a time of economic woe, it’s a gift to run against a chilly venture-capital tycoon who, in Mike Huckabee’s undying characterization from the 2008 GOP primary campaign, looks like “the guy who laid you off.”
    If a candidate can attract only a quarter of his own party after essentially four years of campaigning, where is the groundswell going to come from next November?

    ReplyDelete



  141. . What Republican aristocrats in denial like Karl Rove can’t bring themselves to recognize is that “the most unpredictable, rapidly shifting, and often downright inexplicable primary race” they’ve ever seen is not just a conservative revolution but one that has them in its sights.

    ReplyDelete
  142. where is the groundswell going to come from next November?

    From the ABO (anybody but Obama) crowd.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  143. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  144. They'll stay home, boobie.

    Rather than vote for a liberal Mormon.

    The distaste for Obama is not so great that folks will swallow a poison pill.

    Or they will go and vote for someone that mirrors their own views and fears. The new America Elect candidate or the Librarians.

    Karl is going to be left out in the cold. Along with the whole Bush Establishment GOP machine.

    Watch and learn.
    It's Entertainment, to be sure.

    They elites have totally lost touch with the base. The T-Party only a small indication of the greater discontent.

    Wall Street Romney will follow "Maverick" McCain, crashing and burning, before take off.

    ReplyDelete
  145. On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it “Neo-Conned!”

    ...

    The worst of Ron Paul’s diatribe is his total sliming of all those he calls neocons. He says that, among other crazy and dangerous beliefs they (and therefore I):

    * accept the notion that the ends justify the means;

    * express no opposition to the welfare state;

    * believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it;

    ...

    The heart of Paul’s attack on me is this paragraph:

    In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.”


    - Ledeen

    ReplyDelete
  146. I guess the Obama administration got tricked by those chicken hawks again.

    <a href = '">"a hedge against Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf"</a>

    "The administration has pursued a policy of supplying advanced weapons systems to friendly Arab states to keep Iran’s regional ambitions in check."

    ReplyDelete
  147. We saw in the Iran/Iraq War that Iran doesn't do Offensive ground operations very well at all.

    We saw in the First Gulf War that Saudi Arabia doesn't do Anything well.

    If either of those countries managed to hurt the other it would be a pure accident of the highest order.

    Selling Saudi Arabia F-15's is somewhat akin to selling my ex-wife brain surgery tools.

    ReplyDelete
  148. PrezBO: Me and Mechelle thank the American people for the $4 Million Hawaiian Vacation!

    HO HO HO!

    Isn't INSOLVENCY a BITCH?

    HO HO HO!

    ReplyDelete
  149. However, there are a Lot of people (countries) in the MENA that would love to see the U.S. at war with Iran.

    There are probably a few that have tried to figure out how to sink an American ship, for example, and blame it on Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Optimism about the nation's path varies with views of the economy's direction. Those who say things have looked better in the past month are generally optimistic (79 percent), while just half of those who say things are getting worse feel positive about what 2012 holds for the country.

    ...

    The partisan divide in impressions of 2011 persists in the outlook for 2012, with Democrats more optimistic than either Republicans or independents. But expectations for next year's presidential contest appear not to be a factor.

    Most partisans on both sides foresee victory for their side in the November 2012 presidential election: Three-quarters of Democrats say they think President Barack Obama will win re-election; three-quarters of Republicans say he will not.

    ReplyDelete
  151. .

    The Women, My Wife Included, Like Romney

    Must be that suave, rich, competent look...



    My wife says, looks aside, Romney is a smarmy dolt who lacks common sense. My wife will be voting. I wonder how many of the women in the poll will.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  152. Wimmin will make a fool out of you every time.

    Gramps Rufus

    ReplyDelete
  153. JUST IN ---


    Dr. Demento Says Sanctions Are An Act Of War

    Guess sanctions, and sabotage too, which must also be 'an act of war', won't work for Dr. Demento.

    He says there is no evidence Iran has enriched any uranium anyways.

    What we worry?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  154. In 2008 Doc Demento endorsed .... crazy Cynthia McKinney for Congress.

    Figures....

    b

    ReplyDelete
  155. Inspired by Ayn Rand (Ron named his son, the future senator, Rand Paul)

    Ah now I get it. A whole new light shines on the fascination with the Paul cult displayed here.

    To Get Ron Paul's Insanity You Have To Understand Libertarianism

    b

    ReplyDelete
  156. Well, the Doctor thinks that Sanctions and Sabotage are not needed.

    That's good to go.

    Sanctions and Sabotage are sufficient, if Iran is considered a threat. If the Doctor does not consider Iran a threat, well, then there'd be no need, for either

    When it comes to foreign intervention ...

    None is best
    Smaller footprint is preferable to the larger.

    Good to go.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Countries agreeing to not import Iranian oil, not an act of war.

    Those countries not allowing Iran to export oil, is an act of war.

    There is an line to walk, and not cross, in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Only Iran can save Iraq?

    First, it is clear that the American venture in Iraq has ended in abject failure at the cost of 4,500 American lives and between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi lives. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, nor was any link established between the Saddam Hussein regime and al Qaeda. Furthermore, as the events of the past few days demonstrate, the United States has been largely unsuccessful in establishing an inclusive, democratic order in Iraq, another objective touted by Washington to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    What the American invasion ended up doing was creating unprecedented sectarian strife and totally debilitating Iraqi capabilities, thus tilting the regional balance of power in the energy-rich Persian Gulf substantially in favor of Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  159. It should be the responsibility of the sabre rattlers to prove their case.

    As Bibi said in 1992, the Iranians were three to five years from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    As the retiring head of the Mossad said, in 2011, the Iranians were three to five years from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    There was no need to go to war with Iran, in 1992, no reason to go to war in 2012, either.

    The situation, in Iran, according to the Israelis that know, has remained static.

    There is no proof otherwise.
    None that justifies military intervention by the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  160. As Bibi said in 1992, the Iranians were three to five years from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    As the retiring head of the Mossad said, in 2011, the Iranians were three to five years from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    There was no need to go to war with Iran, in 1992, no reason to go to war in 2012, either.

    The situation, in Iran, according to the Israelis that know, has remained static.





    Where did you go to school? Dr Suess's school of logic and military analysis?

    You create an argument and it's conclusions like fingerpainting.

    Quite the checker player you got here at the Elephant Bar.

    ReplyDelete