Let us bury the man with dignity, for he is dead.

He was better as a transvestite singer.

But all the internet polls say Paul got a bounce.

/LOL

HAHA yeah I saw that with Romney...Giuliani stole that thunder though!

That look that Giuliani gave to ron paul was hands down the best look I've ever seen. I expected a still photo of *the look* to be plastered all over the news. It was priceless.

Anyone see Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore challenging him to a debate?
Check it!:
[Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

Christian conservatives pledge support for '08 Thompson bid

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
May 14, 2007

Several leading Christian conservatives say they will rally to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who they expect to announce "in a matter of weeks" that he will seek the Republican nomination for president next year.

"It's not 'if' but 'when,' he will announce," one Protestant evangelical leader says of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering for position in the 2008 race.

A prominent Roman Catholic social conservative says the three Republicans who have raised the most money and have led the polls -- former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- fall short of social conservatives' expectations, but Mr. Thompson doesn't. "He's right on the issues ... He's better than all of the above."

[Link: washtimes.com...]

I was watching as it happened. It was pretty cool. Also, I noticed that Ron Paul had several supporters calling talk radio hosts today to help "clarify" and support his positions.

This is what Rudy had to say at his town-hall meeting in Atlanta today on the issue of terrorism (my summary):

The candidates are divided by two different philosophies, Guiliani said, that of the Republicans and that of the Democrats. And depending on which party we choose, that will determine the direction of the country for the next ten years at least. He then described what he sees as the two overriding issues. The first is how we deal with terrorism. Guiliani said “my approach is offence.” He learnt that lesson from September 11, but also from a study of the history of the twentieth century. One must take the offensive against terrorists “and bullies.” If you show weakness, they will taken advantage of it. The first example he gave of this was Nazism. If we had intervened earlier to prevent the rise of Hitler it would have cost lives, certainly, but many lives would have been saved. Millions of people who died might still be alive had we acted sooner. Another example was Communism. How many could have been saved had we acted earlier to prevent the spread of Communism. While he recognized the leadership of Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II in the fight against Communism, again he stressed that had we acted earlier much suffering could have been averted.

On the issue of terrorism, we didn’t deal with it early enough. He was quick to say that he wasn’t blaming any one president or administration. Earlier administrations were focused on other issues, in particular the Cold War and its aftermath in Europe. Still, history offered a clear warning. “We watched while Europe accommodated terrorism.” After the Munich massacre of 1972 the Germans arrested and then released the terrorists. The Germans were afraid of the repercussions, but this only emboldened the terrorists. Germany tried to negotiate, and after subsequent terrorist actions offered “a weak response.” Meanwhile “the terrorists built up momentum.” He asked if we remembered Leon Klinghoffer who was pushed off the ship in his wheelchair “because he was Jewish.” The Italian government let the terrorists go. In the 1990s the terrorists struck on our shores. The first attack was not in 2001, no, the first major attack was the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. “We didn’t see it as an act of war,” he said, but as a criminal matter -- that was a critical mistake. And we have to learn from those mistakes.

The attacks on American troops in Saudi Arabia and on the U.S.S. Cole, showed we hadn’t learned. In the first case we only offered a “modest response,” in the second case there was “no reaction.” “That’s being in denial,” Guiliani said, “that’s not picking up on the threat.” “I understand terrorism,” he said. “If you show weakness you get repeated attacks.” This is why we must be on the offensive.

The attack on Ft. Dix reminded us that they are still out there. And he was very clear on the nature of the threat. The people who attacked Fr. Dix were “Islamic terrorists.” And while they were not directed from overseas they were “inspired by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists” abroad.

To face the threat we “need the Patriot Act, we need electronic surveillance.” We need to be militarily strong and we cannot simply withdraw from Iraq. He then said that the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq “was the most irresponsible act” Congress could have taken. This met with sustained applause. He continued: “If you give the enemy a schedule of retreat, would you want your son or daughter to be among the last 20 to leave?” What we do in Iraq has significance for the region as a whole, and he hinted at possible actions against Iran and Syria.

More ...

#5 Backstaber
LOL. Very good

Here is the punch-line, where he refers to Paul:

He concluded by saying the Republicans are much more willing to be on the offensive with terrorists. He referred back to Democratic debates, noting that the words “Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism” were never spoken by the candidates. “The words couldn’t even come out of their mouths,” he said. But with the Republicans it was different, and all the Republicans could say those words and identify the enemy. Here, though, he could not resist a little poke at Ron Paul -- all the Republicans could identify the enemy, even though “there is one who couldn’t understand it.” Regardless, we “have to stop being romantic” in our political sentiments “and start being realistic” in our approach to Islamic terrorism.

Rudy blinks when he gets mad.

The Republican Party is the party of grownups.

RuPaul is not a grownup.

The look on Rudy's face...he was livid! He looked like he wanted to do more than verbally b*tchslap Ron Paul, and I wouldn't have blamed him if he'd done so.

Paul is an idiot terrorist appeaser.

Ron’s message that we got what we deserved on 9/11 is offensive.

Paul is showing his ignorance of the true goal and rationale of the jihadists.

Not that he was a viable candidate anyways, but he should get out of the race.

AirAmerica idiots were supporting him on the radio today, which provided additional confirmation that he is a moron.

Speaking of morons, this anti-America/anti-Israel/anti-British blogger [Nadia] who has been criticized for her racism vows she will not stop blogging.

Paul and Nadia show that ignorance and racism still exist in the greatest country in the world.

5 Backstaber 5/16/2007 3:35:30 pm PDT

Anyone see Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore challenging him to a debate?

Yes, hilarious! And now moore is squealing like a stuck pig that he won't get no Thompson lovin :) .

"Those Jews in Germany during WW2 really needed to take into consideration why the Nazis said they planned the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question", and reevaluate their hand in Germany's defeat in WW1 and their effect on Germany's economy!"

/Ron Paul circa 1940.

OT

But the largest adjustments are coming on the religious left. For decades it has preached multiculturalism, but now, on further acquaintance, it doesn't seem to like other cultures very much. Episcopal leaders complain of the threat of "foreign prelates," echoing anti-Catholic rhetoric of the 19th century. An activist at one Episcopal meeting urged the African bishops to "go back to the jungle where you came from." Not since Victorians hunted tigers on elephants has the condescension been this raw.

History is filled with uncomfortable turnabouts, and we are witnessing one of them. Serious missionary work began in Nigeria in 1842, conducted by a Church Mission Society dedicated to promoting "the knowledge of the Gospel among the heathen." In 2007, the Nigerian outreach to America officially began, on the fertile mission fields of Northern Virginia. And the natives here are restless.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

#5 backstabber

Oh that is GREAT ! LOL!

Ironic how Paul mentioned blowback.

Ron Paul just doesn't understand the nature of the threat. He's almost one of them.

That was great.

Rudy Mayoral press conferences were also usually full of this kind of directness. The press never knew what to make of it other than to rake him over the coals.

Mitt Romney Wins Big Time!
The Republican Announced Candidate line-up makes the DhimmyCrats look weak, ineffective, and boring beyond comprehension.
But wait - there's more - wait til Fred is IN!

Ron Paul seems to be of the opinion that if a kid would only try to see where the bully is comming from and show some understand of the bullys perspective then the bully will no longer want to steal your lunch money.

19 JWF

Yep. It's all over his face today.

Who's Ron Paul?

"The Negros should ask themselves what they did to invite all those lynchings. If they're going to look at white women they shoulds expect some blowback"

/Ron Paul circa 1925

I'd like to see a video of Huckabee's hilarious comment about Edwards.

I was in the other room posting on LGF and missed it.

The DNC has posted this announcement today :

DNC SANCTIONED DEBATES:

July 23, 2007: YouTube/Google and CNN* in Charleston, SC

August 19, 2007: ABC in Des Moines, IA

September 26, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Hanover, NH

October 30, 2007: NBC News/MSNBC** in Philadelphia, PA

November 15, 2007: CNN* in Las Vegas, NV

December 10, 2007: CBS in Los Angeles, CA

*Debate will be simulcast on CNN en Espanol.
**Telemundo will re-broadcast both debates.

Plan accordingly :)

#25 Noam Sayin' 5/16/2007 3:45:15 pm PDT

Who's Ron Paul?

A transvestite from SoHo

23 Black George Bush,

Ron Paul seems to be of the opinion that if a kid would only try to see where the bully is comming from and show some understand of the bullys perspective then the bully will no longer want to steal your lunch money.

Not quite, Ron Paul is of the opinion the we are the bully.

#19 JammieWearingFool 5/16/2007 3:42:34 pm PDT

Ironic how Paul mentioned blowback.

"Blowback" is the CIA buzzword du jour. Guys like ex-CIA Michael Scheuer, CBS's terrorism "expert", say the same crap when they aren't blaming Israel or Neocons for all the nation's problems. You wonder why the CIA couldn't stop 9/11, look no further.

#26 Ringo the Gringo

Awesome! Keep going. ;)

How can anyone say they "know" why we are attacked by terrorists? There are a multitude of reasons, from irrational hatred to irrational delusions to rational feelings of inadequacy. 1400 years of Islamist rule over a billion people has produced little to nothing of lasting value.

RuPaul is talking out of his hat, rationalizing why the terrorists attacked. Rudy says forthrightly "irrelevant why we were attacked; critical that we recognize we were attacked & that we must strongly respond."

How on earth is cowering in Texas going to convince terrorists that it's OK to lay down their arms?

#14 Insanity Police
~~~
"AirAmerica idiots were supporting him on the radio today, which provided additional confirmation that he is a moron."

That's hilarious.

(And how can you stand to listen to that? I tried to before, but...)

I hope they can muster a primary challenge.

# 6 mama winger

There's a semi-regular "Go Fred, Go !" thread, um, elsewhere.

But with all due respect to Charles and the rest of lizardom, by my calander, it's May 2007. I'm perfectly willing to let the ankle-biters fling crap and vanish before I start paying much attention. There's no such thing as a debate amongst 8 or more people - that's just posturing. Let the no-names drop out and I'll start into serious anlysis mode.

The Cartoon riots were "blowback" for the Mo'toons.
The Theo assassination was "blowback" for Submission .
Beheading Buddhists in Thailand is "blowback" for freedom of religion.
Martyr Mouse peaches Islamic world domination as "blowback" for the Moors being evicted from Spain in the 10th century.
etc, etc, etc,

Fred is running for President according to Hollywood. The reason? Sam Waterson on "Law & Order" is moving up to District Attorney on the show.
It must be true if Hollywood says so

Rudy smacks down an idiotarian today ...

The next question came from a woman who claimed to be “a Midwestern Republican” etc., but who struck me as a DNC plant. It really wasn’t a question but a vaguely incoherent rant about the war in Iraq. She described “the trouble [she’s] having now” with being a Republican. “I don’t see the justification for going into Iraq.” The highjackers were Saudis and Egyptians; “we know” that Saddam didn’t like Osama bin Laden, “terrorism has increased,” our troops are over there, not protecting us here, etc. She then said she had traveled to the Middle East and talked about how “nice the Arabs are,” how they “love America,” they just “hate our President” (I assume she was talking about Bush). They’re angry that we are occupying their lands and “exploiting them for their oil.” She then began by saying how we’d “twisted the concept of Jihad.” “Jihad is about fairness …”

Giuliani: “Jihad is about fairness?”

Moonbat: “Yes … “

Giuliani: “Respectfully, I disagree.” (applause)

Giuliani began talking about his feelings after 9/11. He was convinced that another attack was imminent, but it didn’t come. And it didn’t come because we went on the offensive. If we go on the offensive we give ourselves a better chance. He said he was convinced that had we not attacked Iraq, we would have been attacked again. She tried to reengage, but Giuliani said “I don’t think you understand the nature of the threat.” “They hate you” he said, speaking directly to her (note she was only about 8 feet from his face). “They hate you not because of the bad things in American, and there are certainly problems, but because of what’s good about America. … They hate you because we have freedom of religion … they want everyone to practice only one religion; their religion.” He then looked at the women in the audience. “They don’t want you to be at this college,” he said, and then emphatically pointed to the young women there. “They don’t want you here, and you, and you.” He then turned to the mother of one student and said “They wouldn’t let you wear [that outfit], because your arms are showing.”

OK, I'm done spamming ... (at least it's on topic)

I'm beginning to suspect Charles is a Rudy fan!

: )

Coulter on Falwell

Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell.

Actually, there was one small item I think Falwell got wrong regarding his statement after 9/11 that "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians -- who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle -- the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

First of all, I disagreed with that statement because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and "the Reverend" Barry Lynn.

Second, Falwell later stressed that he blamed the terrorists most of all, but I think that clarification was unnecessary. The necessary clarification was to note that God was at least protecting America enough not to allow the terrorists to strike when a Democrat was in the White House.

(If you still think it isn't Christ whom liberals hate, remember: They hate Falwell even more than they hate me.)

Yes, there's more. Proceed with caution.

Okay I found it:
Congress spends more money than John Edwards at a beauty shop.

Total pwnage! Go Rudy! (Why IS Paul running for the GOP nomination?)

20 MandyManners

I'm starting to think that the ron paul vote spammers are really the terrorists trying to tell us who they want to be the Republican nominee.

Of course they want a cut and runner...and someone who will want to talk to them the next time we are hit instead of hitting them where it hurts.

What is "Ron Paul" ?

a Transgender spineless Brukha-clad Women from ME.. relocated to West, and is unwilling to give her Mullah slaveness ...

#5 backstabber

Loved it, loved it, loved it!

It's nice to see someone with media cred land one upside the head of that fat fat-head.

# 34 Insert Clever Name Here

(And how can you stand to listen to that? I tried to before, but...)

I was just flipping through on my XM radio. The host (I don't know her name) was talking about the debate, so I stopped for a second.

I was like a gawker watching a car accident.

She said Paul was absolutely right. She also said that Fox was biased because it didn't ask Rudy a follow up question.

The host said that Rudy is actually weak on security because he set up the anti-terrorism officer in the Trade Center, and because 9/11 happened on his watch.

She also warned Republicans that if they voted for Rudy, 9/11 would happen again.

I was disgusted and appalled. I am definitely voting for Rudy now (in the primary and general election).

It's like the kid who hides in the closet when the house is burning down, hoping the protection of darkness will protect him from death.

Rudy calls it straight: the sole fact that we exist is reason for the Islamists to hate us, and bleating "sleep, sleep, sleep" isn't going to do squat.

"I'm sorry, Congessman Paul, the Democrat Presidential Debate is down the hall, third door from your left."

Ron Paul / Ward Churchill '08

For the first question, I was going "yeah... he's right."

Then the moderator asked him about 9/11 and I went "oh holy shit, this guy is bonkers."

Goddammit, and here I was hoping the guy would be a good candidate. Now I simply can't think of a single candidate in any party that I really WANT to vote for. I guess I could vote for Rudy, but I'm not enthusiastic about it.

Insanity Police:

The "whats-her-name" was probably Randy Rhodes. I was listening and it was hard to get any substance between the "I hate everything about Bush and Republicans" and Sex joke talk.

But Air America is right wing and tame compared to Pacific. Now there is a channel that is good for a nice angry laugh at the far-and future-left.

Ron Paul should be cleaning the bathrooms, and Newt should have had his podium.

#41 JammieWearingFool
Mr. Falwell has passed so there's no need for me to criticize him. Coulter, however, is a rabid lunatic. She really has some anger issues.

>> Lieberman / Paul 2008

Now, would it be fair to say that Ron Paul is an isolationist?

Using Ron's logic, shouldn't we be blowing Mexico off the map right now?

#36 Mike C

There's a semi-regular "Go Fred, Go !" thread, um, elsewhere.

There is ? Where ? And I have the feeling you'd like me to move ?

#52 WrathofG-d

The "whats-her-name" was probably Randy Rhodes.

Yup, it was Randy Rhodes.

She is a terrible person. I could not believe my ears. She has more Rudy insults on her website.

Moonbats...grrr

What happened to the rest of my post?

>> Lieberman / Paul 2008

#57 me - addendum

If I recall correctly, that is the first and only post I ever put up regarding Fred Thompson. I'm not sure what the issue is here.

it would be like a buffet; a little bit of everything, though none of it really good.

Glenn Beck just gave kudos to Fox News for doing an excellent job last night.

#54 Killgore,

Mr. Falwell has passed so there's no need for me to criticize him. Coulter, however, is a rabid lunatic. She really has some anger issues.

Don't know if Ann has some anger issues, but she's damn sure got the brains to back up her mouth. Never seen anyone win a debate with her yet.

Ron Paul is being disingenuous by stating the Republican Party was elected to end the war in Korea, as if to say that Eisenhower promised we'd surrender to the North Koreans and Chinese on January 21, 1953. Eisenhower was elected in 1952, in large part, because the nation was tired of 5 consecutive Democratic administrations. As to Korea, research has indicated the Eisenhower Administration secretly made it known to the ChiComs we would not hesitate to use atomic weapons if they didn't quit stalling at Panmunjom.

Moonbat of the day award:

Randy Rhodes

Today's American patriot award:

Close call but I gotta give it to John Bolton.

Silky Pony cashes in learning about the poor.

His biggest single source of earned income was his $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund for which he was a consultant last year.

Ka-ching.

#63 goodbye_natalie
She's too angry for my taste. Now that the news networks have changed for the "two maniacs yelling at each other" and her tasteless "faggot" comment, I'm glad to see less of her.

# 25 Noam Sayin'

Who's Ron Paul?

Congressman from Texas on the "R" side of the isle.

Ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. I must confess to voting for him back then. But then I must confess to being an active member of the LP-Mn back then as well.

Coming up on Glenn Beck:

More on last night's debate (he just finished interviewing Tancredo),
Paris Hilton (of course),
and Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore.

#54 Killgore

You ever read any of her books? She DEFINITELY tells it like it is,,, and is very funny too.

/I've got all of her books if you want one.

RuPaul, unfortunately, has blown himself out of the race with his "There is no Soviet domination of Poland" comment.

He's surely not naive. But perhaps he thinks that if he makes a mistake, it's far worse to admit it?

He should have said to Rudy, "No, America is great because she is good. I think that we should examine our reasons for war, and do war judiciously." And then stopped.

But instead he had to prove he was right.

As I've said elsewhere, I once had a wistful kindness for libertarians. They make quaint remarks about 60s - the 1760s. But a Congress and Presidency full of 'em would mean the collapse of the free world as we know it in about three days.

This is too funny.

Found at Malkin

On a Mission - Taking Away Al Gore's Carbon Credits...
We are on a mission to take away every one of Al Gore's meaningless carbon credits by simply providing carbon debits. Help us make this dream a reality by purchasing one of the packages below. Don't let Al Gore assuage his guilt with meaningless penance, heap it back on with carbon debits – every one of which we will let him know about.

# 38 Three Hundred

Fred is running for President according to Hollywood. The reason? Sam Waterson on "Law & Order" is moving up to District Attorney on the show.

The last time I watched a new episode of Law & Order it looked like Waterson was shaking as if he had Parkinson's Disease.

Giving red on red new meaning...
Hamas mistakenly kills 5 of own fighters

Hamas gunmen mistakenly ambushed on Wednesday a jeep carrying their own fighters, killing five of them, in the bloodiest day of Palestinian infighting since violence erupted in the Gaza Strip four days ago.

Heh.

#71 blackwater man
I've read enough of her other writings to know she's not for me.

#76 Killgore

Ahhh come on man, she's not that bad. (-:

Just think of Billary and say that again.

# 75 Killgore Trout

Giving red on red new meaning...
Hamas mistakenly kills 5 of own fighters

So they don't get their... (Les pauses to crunch some numbers...) 360 virgins?

Sorry if this is a repeat.

Has anyone see this MEMRI video yet?

Jews and Muslims Clash at the Doha Inter-Faith Dialogue Conference

#41 Jammie Wearing Fool
~~~
Thanks for that link to Anne Coulter. That was a good read.

killgore
I'm not a big Coulter fan either. She is bright I'll giver her that, but her style grates on me.

I am Ann Coulter.

What Ron Paul said had the dubious virtue of being recognizable as insane drivel.

When John McCain defended his "anti-torture" position, it was much more pernicious because reasonable people might be fooled into not recognizing it as insane drivel. To wit: McCain justifies his stance against "torture" -- that is, extremely intensive interrogation techniques -- because back in the Hanoi Hilton he used to comfort himself with the thought, "at least we wouldn't do these things to prisoners [paraphrasing]." I might point out that North Vietnam won the war, precisely because the rest of the world couldn't care less if they tortured Americans: the world views Americans as evil and anyone opposed to Americans as victims of unjust oppression.

McCain also said that the more one applies physical pain, the more the prisoner is willing to say what he thinks you want to hear. McCain is confusing what the Viet Cong wanted from him -- expressions of disloyalty to his country -- with what today's interrogators want from terrorist suspects: information about their organizations, techniques, and planned operations. Now, torturing John McCain might have persuaded him to lie about his opinion of America, but the information extracted from an al-Qaeda suspect under "torture" is objectively verifiable, and he can be punished for lying until he learns to tell the truth. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a perfect example: he truthfully revealed facts about al-Qaeda's organization, techniques and planned operations, but he remains totally loyal to al-Qaeda.

I wish someone had asked McCain whether he expected his care and concern for al-Qaeda suspects and enemy combatants would result in better treatment for the three American soldiers currently in enemy hands in Iraq.

Be very clear: McCain will sell out the Iraqis and our troops in a heartbeat if he thinks it will earn him "bipartisanship" or "international goodwill." He is right about one thing: Washington changed him, and now he is incapable of taking a truly principled stand in opposition to the Democrats or our European allies.

McCain will do whatever it takes to make sure McCain looks good on TV. It's all about getting media love. I think at this point even the French might suspect his duplicity.

John Derbyshire:

Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani punch-up about the motivation of the 9/11 attackers. Ron Paul put forward the “blowback” theory, which I first heard on or about Sept. 12, 2001, from Pat Buchanan, and which is perfectly plausible, though in my opinion an over-simplification. Rudy: “I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before.” For goodness sake, Rudy. Don’t you READ? The reality is, Rudy, that entire books have been written to promote the blowback theory. Have your staffers read some of them & write up abstracts for you. You NEVER HEARD of this theory? Gimme a break. I must say, though, that from a purely presentational point of view, Rudy’s unsuccessful clamoring for 30 seconds of response was Rudy-the-fighter at his instinctive best. That’s the Rudy I like, even on a point where I’m against him.

and:

Ron Paul was asked: “Are you running for the nomination in the wrong party?” I forget what he said, but the actual answer is “Yes.” Ron should be the candidate of the Constitution party. The Republican party is not a reliably conservative party. It is a slightly right-of-center party that American conservatives vote for grudgingly, because they believe that only the two big parties can ever win the presidency, and Republican administrations are very slightly more likely to very occasionally enact conservative measures than are Democratic administrations.

[Link: article.nationalreview.com...]

So there you have it gents.

#82 mama winger
That's ok, I'm a dumber and less articulate version of Christopher Hitchens.

#83 stuiec 5/16/2007 4:31:07 pm PDT

When John McCain defended his "anti-torture" position, it was much more pernicious because reasonable people might be fooled into not recognizing it as insane drivel.

The problem with McCain and the left is that they are still fighting the Viet Nam war. Both lived through it and learned nothing.

If Fred Thompson had been at the debate, he'd have just given Ron Paul a look to make him cry.

RUN FRED RUN!

I'm one of those who loves Anne Coulter, enjoys here columns, but admits that she "may have crossed the line" a few times.

(Does that make me milquetoast wishy washy?)

One never has to guess where Ann Coulter stands on a subject. It would be nice, once in my life , to be able to vote, for a person like that. ( I can dream.)

#86 Killgore

That's ok, I'm a dumber and less articulate version of Christopher Hitchens.

But I bet you smell nicer and have better teeth.

The only way that John McCain will be nominated or elected is if he decides to run as a half way sensible Democrat. Maybe the the Dems can bring him the rest of the way over. It wouldn't be much further anyway from where he is at now when one looks at his record, starting with the Keating 5.

79 NoSubmission

I watched it this morning- unreal.

But seriously, I am Ann Coulter. Don't you recognize me? I look just like my pictures, don't you think ?

Intelligence information collected by defense establishment indicates that Gaza terror groups have Soviet-made Grad missiles with 22-km range; defense officials warn that terror groups may target Ashkelon in response to Israeli offensive in Gaza

ynet

#94 mama winger

But seriously, I am Ann Coulter.

And you got deleted on the Falwell thread.

/naughty, naughty Ann!

I don't mind Ann Coulter, but I think P.J. O'Rourke is infinitely funnier and pretty dadgummed perceptive. My wife has used "Parliament of Whores" as an American Gov't textbook. I don't know if I'd try that with Coulter.

#79 NoSubmission

Looks more like attempts by those with an anti-Zionist agenda to hijack a conference on inter-faith relations. The (Arab) moderator looked none too pleased with the Palestinian delegate's talk of Zionist occupiers.

OT ,,, but >>

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted Wednesday to advance legislation cutting off money for the Iraq war, then refused to pledge to support the measure if it came to a vote, then said she would.

" I voted for the 84 billion, before I voted againts it'

The Dems ,, Taking you Back to the Future

((( Twilight Zone Theme playing in the background)))
[Link: www.breitbart.com...]

# 94 mama winger

It's the legs that give it away.

#96 Killian

And you got deleted on the Falwell thread.

I did ?!?! Wow ! I did not know that !

Rudy is the strongest candidate because of his executive experience. Normally, it should be a governor, but NYC is big and complicated enough that it comes close - plus the trial by fire of 9/11. Anyone able to imagine what NYC would have been like under the management of say, Ray Nagin that fateful day, that awful week?
Shudder. Shudder. SHUDDER! Anyone imagine how New Orleans would have made it through the hurricane had Giuliani been at the helm? A lot more people would be alive today.
That said, Rudy sure knows what a terrorist attack is, in all its horror. It's theoretical to everyone else in the race, GOP or Dem. He'd do the best job of protecting the country.
What's the rest that has to be known? Can he pick good people to his cabinet? etc. etc. Lots to find out. Since he was a prosecutor, working with law enforsement, does her really have much patience for the illegal mess we have now? Having been a strong supporter of the police, would Giuliani ignore the plight of border patrol agents?
Fox was better, but still, Leftie journalists ask only the questions they want to ask, not necessarily the questions the people want answered. (email questions have the illusion of being off the street, but are still cherry-picked by the same old journalists.)
McCain - he strangled the political process with McCain-Feigngold and if he had a conscience, he'd work the rest of his poltical career getting rid of that noxious act that enables George Soros's political manuvering.

#100 Lucius

It's the legs that give it away.

I still got it, baby.

/ but no one wants to see it ...

#91 mama winger
No, not really. But I think I might be able to match him drink for drink.

#87 jrdroll

When McCain was under physical torture in Hanoi, he knew it for what it was and resisted it heroically.

When McCain joined the U.S. Senate, he didn't realize that the Democrats being nice to him and appealing for bipartisanship were engaged in a form of brainwashing far more effective than the Viet Cong used. He now values bipartisanship for its own sake, as a tool to force bad policy on the country and not as a means for finding common ground to adopt good policy.

Rudy governed a diverse population of 8 million.

Mitt governed a diverse population of 6.5 million.

Ron Paul
Hillary
Edwards
Obama
McCain...
...none of them have ever governed anything in their entire pathetic lives. Where do they come off thinking that they can govern an entire country?

#101 mama winger
I've been avoiding that one for obvious reasons. Don't worry about the deletion. It happens to all of us.

OT - Powerline is reporting

It's over. House Republicans are proclaiming victory as Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have abandoned their effort to change the rules to allow their majority to operate with more stealth.

Read all of it and breathe a sigh of relief. When I read about this earlier today, I almost had "blood shooting out of my eyes."

To Ron Paul
"You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'" - Homer Simpson

McCain-Feinberg
McCain-Kennedy
Gang of 13

Enough said

#102 wanumba
"Rudy is the strongest candidate because of his executive experience. Normally, it should be a governor"

Ummm,,, you just described Mitt Romney !

OT - Coming to a television near you.

Muslim theme show for CW, new edge for CBS

CW, the U.S. network formed by the merger of WB and UPN, is adding a comedy about a Pakistani Muslim teen who comes to live with a U.S. family as an exchange student to its fall lineup.

Aliens in America will be the first attempt by a U.S. network to draw laughs out of the Muslim experience in the U.S.

Working title 'Everybody Loves Achmed'.

OT: This is astonishing.

so that Democrats don't have to go on record for their votes on tax increases and other unpopular "back home" votes, Nancy Pelosi is screwing the entire country by changing a rule that has been in place since 1822.

[Link: www.redstate.com...]

#108 windybon 5/16/2007 4:50:38 pm PDT

OT - Powerline is reporting

It's over. House Republicans are proclaiming victory as Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have abandoned their effort to change the rules to allow their majority to operate with more stealth.

Read all of it and breathe a sigh of relief. When I read about this earlier today, I almost had "blood shooting out of my eyes."

The lust for power isn't pretty.

#107 Killgore

You mean I REALLY got deleted ? !

Ha! What did I do ? How funny !

Should I apologize to Charles ? I wish I knew what I said .

#106 DesertSage

their entire pathetic lives...

Boy you're mean (heh, Heh)...
Executive experience is a good point...

Prostitution insurance.

Heh.

Hat tip - Engineer

OT
GOP Caves on Border Security

#106, Desert Sage. A Guliani-Romney ticket would insure the survival of Western Civilization, at least for the next 16 years. Something that cannot be said for any other ticket (except for me and my Man, The Reverend Al, and I'm not so sure about Al these days).

#115 mama winger
I don't know, I bailed out on that thread after 30 comments.

#115 MAMA

I wish I knew what I said

MAMA's so poor, she can;t even pay attention !

((( sorry ,, that was cheap and gratuitous ,,, just like me ! )

#120 Killgore

Wow. I came in towards the end of the day. I didn't think I had put up anything inflammatory or rude, but obviously I must have crossed some sort of line. I feel terrible - wracking my brain here but I got nuthin.

# 106 Desert Sage
# 119 Gymnast

Would Mitt agree to second fiddle? And isn't the VP slot the tradition place to put people the party is trying to get rid of?

#90 missouri boy

One never has to guess where Ann Coulter stands on a subject. It would be nice, once in my life , to be able to vote, for a person like that. ( I can dream.)

Dream on (...VP Coulter in charge).

#121 satt

MAMA's so poor, she can;t even pay attention !

LOL! That's just about right, too ! :)

#122 mama winger
I just clicked your football (pardon me) and didn't see any deletions on that thread from you. You're safe.

#85 Capitalist: Good observation...

Derbyshire:

Ron Paul put forward the “blowback” theory, which I first heard on or about Sept. 12, 2001

Blowback = justifiable REVENGE, whether they articulate this, or not!

The "Blowback" Theory strives to rationalize AND justify attacks on America, Americans and American IDEALS, all while equivocating or rationalizing the ATTACKERS' lack of anything better with which to replace what they attack!

Here: '"Blowback" means America DESERVES ATTACK for having a high standard of material living, BECAUSE this is STOLEN FROM the POOR of the world!' (not created BY Americans, squeezed from American 'victims' of higher pay, better working conditions and finer health-care. Right!)

Ok, I've been ignoring the Republican game show until now. Largely waiting for the field to thin a bit.

But Ru-on Paul just got to me. Nothing pisses me off more than to hear somebody say that 9/11 was justified. That dude is toast.

Last night's debate threads were pretty good, but I am completely appalled by today's threads. I am utterly taken aback by the blind ignorant rage being directed at Ron Paul by many people here.

I could care less whether you agree with his positions on the issues or not. But please at least try to discuss them like adults, rather than hurling childish insults.

Ron Paul is and has been one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution in the entire U.S. government. If he believes a bill is unconstitutional, he votes against it. Period. No compromise.

Even though I don't live in Texas, I have in the past contributed to his campaigns. I haven't done that since 9/11, because I don't agree with him about the war on Islamofascism. Nevertheless, he is a man of principle and consistency. He was opposed to the Iraq invasion before it happened, believing it was a mistake. He still believes that. He actually introduced legislation for a formal declaration of war on Iraq because he believed that was necessary in order for us to go to war. Needless to say, it didn't pass.

Did you know that he routinely introduces legislation in every session of Congress to get us out of the UN? A lot of people here seem to think that's a good idea, myself included. Do I hear anyone giving him credit for putting his money where his mouth is? {crickets}

He has more genuinely conservative positions on more issues than most roomfuls of politicians.

Some of the comments I've read here today on several threads sound like they were written by fair-weather conservatives. People who say they believe in smaller government, until somebody proposes cancelling their favorite program.

So go ahead, keep on electing moderate Republicans. Just don't come crying to me in ten or twenty years when America has a PERMANENT leftist majority.

#126 Killgore

Yes - I just scanned the Falwell thread from where I came in and where I said goodnight. No deletions. WHOOSH that's a relief. I would hate to mess up Charles's blog.

#105 stuiec 5/16/2007 4:49:10 pm PDT

#87 jrdroll

When McCain was under physical torture in Hanoi, he knew it for what it was and resisted it heroically.

The problem is that Sen. McCain thinks that using torture for extracting info for publicity stunts such as the N. Viets did using the NYT is the same as what is being done now. He still lives with the leftists in 1968.

#126 Kilgore

"#122 mama winger
I just clicked your football ,,,"

Geee,,, I usually don't get to do that unless I buy them dinner AND roses !

ooopppss ,,, did i juts type that out loud !?!?!

Speaking of blowback, when is this country going to wakeup & ditch the CIA?

#130 Mama Winger
Hello Mama Winger. Hope that all is well.
/your legs are fine...

#132 satt

I love roses ! LOL!

Be careful with VP suggestions. Remember, the swing - middle decides the middle. I really believe that if the Dems nominate a woman or a black (or other minority), the GOPs need to do so also, as VP. There are plenty of good ones out there to choose from. It is about winning presidential politics, even if it's a bit jaded.

Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Lyn Swann come to mind, just for starters.

(Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Anne Coulter?)

DUH! PIMF!

The swing middle decides the election.

#134 Atman

Why, yes. Yes indeed. That is me, right there. Yep.

#129 rickl

I haven't done that since 9/11, because I don't agree with him about the war on Islamofascism. Nevertheless, he is a man of principle and consistency.

Well, good ol' Ron better get on board regarding that one in a big hurry. Not to save his candidacy, as that is already lost. More so to save the future generations of his family. Quite simple, if you ask me.

#129 rickl 5/16/2007 5:05:11 pm PDT

Last night's debate threads were pretty good, but I am completely appalled by today's threads.

I'm appalled by a "Presidential Candidate" who has Truther views.

From what I heard before listening to the above, I expected RP to be speaking like an alzheimer patient. I expected a nut, a fruitcake.

He sounded OK to me. I'm halfway through.

Jihadi's and their tools see America the way leftists hope it will become. Not to apologize for them but Jihadi's see ONLY LEFTIST, anything goes America (and even worse EUrope). Prior to now I have only heard of RP.

Democrats are communists, current Republicans are what Democrats were 40 years ago.

I want someone like Reagan, Thatcher, Howard and Blair. W has been a good, solid old Democrat which is why I like him.

Texans voted for RuPaul? You gotta be kidding me.

#139 Cartman

He is opposed to an interventionist foreign policy, which America has practiced since the Spanish-American War. The Founding Fathers were likewise opposed to an interventionist foreign policy.

He merely said that our actions have consequences. Why do some people get so emotional about that? Perhaps he struck a nerve?

/That said, I would like to hear his views about our wars against the Barbary pirates in the early 19th century.

The problem with Paul is that while he may be one of the Constitutions staunchest defenders he's wrong about the GWOT, period. Paul would be wonderful if we were still in 1907. But the world is too small and the weapons too dangerous for isolation.

Me thinks even George Washington would agree!

#136 Insert

The problem with that theory is that you won't swing any Left vote. They won't vote for a MINORITY Conservative ( see Micheal Steele and Herman Cain), and the Middle has been so innoculted by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton saying that the Rices the Wattss and the Swans aren't "real" blacks.

Reasons for the attack from a leading Middle East Scholar.

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

How so many can get it wrong is mind boggling. The left has done such a good job getting THEIR truth out there and I fear they will get the chance to be proven right or wrong.

Jonah Goldberg on NR takes the time and effort to provide a cogent rebuttal to Paul's absurd viewpoint on foreign policy.

First, Ron Paul anointed Osama bin Laden the authentic expression of the entire Middle East. “I’m suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” he declared. And: “We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody did it to us.”

So, in other words, Osama bin Laden & Co. get to determine the legitimacy of our policies because these terrorists are the truest expression of the will of the people? Isn’t this a bit like saying a farmer can’t clear a field if it might upset a rattlesnake?

But the Paulians want to look beyond this foreign policy gaffe - that reminds one of Gerry Ford claiming that Poland wasn't behind the Iron Curtain. They do so by citing his 'constitutional' positions regarding the Federal Government. One just cited his principled position that many conservatives can consider embracing of pulling the US out of the UN.

We can debate the points of whether or not it's better to ignore the UN or to continue to remain a part of it and try to fight it / refurbish it from within. But ultimately, that's a zero sum game.

Paul wanted a declaration of war against Iraq. Who co-sponsored that with him? Who has co-sponsored each of bills that called for the US to leave the UN? Which group in Congress (we know the groups / mindsets outside of Congress that are presently gravitating to him) are with him - include him - and seek / leverage his consul?

If a person cannot bridge across to others, gain others to help him further his cause - and help others further causes that support common interests - then that person isn't a leader and shouldn't be considered a leader or anything other than a fringe crank...attracting a small percentage of followers who think that the size of the Federal Government is potentially far more dangerous to us than those who try are trying to kill us now.

Well, call me a moonbat, but I happen to somewhat agree with Ron Paul... IMHO, we DON'T understand the culture and politics of the ME, we only want their oil at a reasonable price... And we, as a Nation, are not willing to fight a war to win... So where does this leave us?

Tightening immigration, securing the borders, and rounding up and deporting all the illegals already here should be our first priority.

How can we 'fix the world' if our own country is 'broken'?

Killgore,

#82 mama winger
That's ok, I'm a dumber and less articulate version of Christopher Hitchens.

Nah, that can't be true. I like you even though I think you're twisted. Hitchens is a dump.

You must have something he doesn't.

#140 jrdroll

I'm appalled by a "Presidential Candidate" who has Truther views.

Has he said that 9/11 was caused by the Bush Administration or Israel? If so, I missed that.

I was expecting something else after hearing about this debate before seeing it.

Giuliani's response was quick, I agree with him. RP was thoughtful and made his case quite well. RP explained his thinking very well. Giuliani did not earn points with me.

In 1979 we should have not permitted our hostages in Iran to be kept captive.

Our involvement in Gulf War 1 can be debated but I believe it was the right thing to do. Our involvement in Iraq since 911 was inevitable because our allies refused to contain Saddam.

The Failure of Containment.

I'm bothered that I was made to believe that Paul is a bumbling fool.

Refute his points. Sharpton, Gore, Murtha, Pelosi and Kerry are fools. RP might be a bonehead, but I did not get that from the clip above.

#123, Lucius. Where have you been for the last seven years, and arguably for the previous eight. Nobody is going to get elected this trip without some powerful backup.

#150 rickl

He tried hard to blame it on Clinton.

But, I don't care if Clinton did upset somebody, you don't behave that way on this planet.

#145 sattV4u2
~~~
The right won't steal away any comitted left votes. The only ones to gain are from the center. I submit that the 6 - 9 months leading up to the election the MSM will make the difference. (They always try(fake memos).)

They (MSM) will play up the DEMs for being modern, progressive, foreward thinkers. They'll assert (and suggest and snicker and pretend) that the GOP is and always will be a party of/for Rich Middle-aged White Straight Males. There is only one way to take that issue away from the drive-by media.

#151, abc123. Ron Paul is not a bumbling fool. He is nucking futz.

#154
Your post is 100% accurate, but STILL, even if repub ticket were BOTH female and/or minoritiesm, the MSN would discredit them as being Uncle Toms and tokens

#143 rickl

He is opposed to an interventionist foreign policy, which America has practiced since the Spanish-American War.

Well, using that logic, I suppose we should have ignored the rise of the Third Reich, eh? In the name of isolationism...

I just watched this for the first time, and was about to post a defence, since Giuliani's remark was a bit of a straw man arguement (Paul never said what Giuliani said he did), BUT then I heard Pauls reply, "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free" and just deleted my post. Wrong, Rep. Paul, wrong. Those are just two of the reasons they attack us (in addition to being pretty pissed that we had infidels posted in Arabia during Desert Storm, like Paul DID say...). Other "reasons" they hate us include being able to stop for a beer after work and watch some woman dance naked, and I'm not giving that one up.

#150 rickl

Has he said that 9/11 was caused by the Bush Administration or Israel? If so, I missed that.

Ron Paul Aligns With Rosie O'Donnell: US Government Will Phony Up New Gulf of Tonkin Incident To Contrive A War With Iran

Ron Paul, Bircheresque crank - His appearance on 9/11 Truther Alex Jones' program.

From Ace's commentary on the latter link:

Let's see:

1. He supports Dennis Kucinich's desire for a fresh, Truther-friendly investigation into the "cover up" of 9/11.

2. He goes on Truther radio shows.

3. He suggests, Trutherifically, that the US will phony up a fake attack by Iran on our troops (probably killing Americans, as we may have done on 9/11) in order to have a pretext to bomb the mullahs. So, you know, if Iran actually does fire on American warships, his supporters will know it's actually all a contrivance by the US government. (As was Iran's taking of British hostages, presumably. As was the Khobar Towers bombing, presumably.)

But he's not a Truther, oh no, and he's definitely not a conspiracy nutter or John Bircher crank. Nor is he some kind of Dogmatically Dopey Barroom Ideologue.

No, he's a Serious American Candidate with all sorts of Important Principles about Limited Constitutional Government and the Gold Standard and Suchlike Things.

Whatever. If I wanted a fruitcake candidate, I'd've supported Alan Freakin' Keyes in 2000 (or 1996, or 2002, or 2004, or any of the six thousand other times he's run haplessly for public office).

Actually Keyes isn't quite the crank as Paul - but both are unelectable...and hopefully Paul will learn that in his own district come 08.

# 140 jrdroll

I'm appalled by a "Presidential Candidate" who has Truther views.

I haven't played the full length of this video.

HT: The New Editor

#148 odinist

Well, call me a moonbat, but I happen to somewhat agree with Ron Paul... IMHO, we DON'T understand the culture and politics of the ME, we only want their oil at a reasonable price...

Moonbat.

# 152 Gymnast

Oh, I've been mostly changing dirty diapers ...

But seriously, you're right -- a strong VP like Cheney (singing: "moonbats quake at the sight ...") would be a great asset. No question on that point. MY question is whether Romney would be willing to accept such a role, especially if he would have a chance for making a run on his own. I can't tell with him. Rudy wouldn't do it, McCain probably would, most of the second-tier candidates would certainly be willing.

Above somebody posted other non-candidates as options, but if recent history is any measure, the standard tactic is to pool swing votes.

#154 Insert,, actually, I should have posted that the far left operatives would portray them as tokens and Uncle Toms, and the MSM would nod and cluck

Late to the conversation:

Ann Coulter is the Ted Rall of the right. In fact, she completely stole his "blame the 9-11 widows" schtick.

He should have sued her for plagiarism rather than libel (as he did).

To Gymnast,

He might be. Honestly I've never looked at him RP, before today.

The video above does not show me that he is even half as insane as Kucinich. Blogs I tend to trust showed RP as a fruitloop, a Kucinich. He may be.

I saw Giuliani in a negative way.

136- Insert Clever Name Here

Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Lyn Swann come to mind, just for starters.

(Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, Anne Coulter?)

Olympia SNOW? Surely you jest!

How about Lynn Cheney. I would vote for her any day.

#157 Cartman
Well, using that logic, I suppose we should have ignored the rise of the Third Reich, eh? In the name of isolationism...

Certainly, Britain and France should have paid more attention to their next-door neighbor than they did.

But they didn't, so Germany became our problem.

#54 Kilgore Trout

Perhaps you don't appreciate her sarcasm. I find her hilarious.

#157 Cartman

At the risk of sounding like Bigel, I don't get the impression that Britain and France were terribly upset about Nazi antisemitism.

#157 Cart and 167 Rick

And there is where R. Pauls theory fizzles. All thru the 1930's this country WAS isolationistic, and that STILL didn;'t prevent us from being attacked. Mr. Pauls theory that because we intervene in the ME is the root of the problem was disproved the day Pearl Harbor was attacked.

#162, Lucius. There is no doubt that there are at time only 2 serious candidates for the big prize and both Guliani and Romney want it. McCain wants it but he is already history the others are running for Veep. Thompson and Gingrich could mix some things up a bit but are nowhere near the stature of the two leading Republican candidates. Lots of time for things to change and you can bet that the MSM will do it's damnedest to shuffle the deck. The trouble with that is the only cards in the MSM deck are Democrat Jokers.

sattv4u2.

Yes.
Thank You.

#165, abc123. Kucinich is as least twice as nutz as Ron Paul. Dennis is crazy in ways that the APA has yet to invent terms for. Dennis' days as an outpatient are a testament to the general state of lunacy among his fellow party members.

#167 rickl

Certainly, Britain and France should have paid more attention to their next-door neighbor than they did.

But they didn't, so Germany became our problem.

And because they are now not paying as much attention to their houseguests as they should, it'll be our problem again, only that much more severe...

# 171 Gymnast

So in other words, you think Romney would accept the VP nod if Giuliani were to be the nominee?

#170 sattv4u2

With all due respect, that's not exactly right. We were intervening in Asia (correctly, I might add), by cutting off oil to Japan. We intervened commercially (i.e., trade) as opposed to militarily, but we intervened nonetheless...

#161 Cartman

Hey, it's true, other than oil and jihadis, what does the ME produce? I'm not saying that the War on Terror is wrong, I just think we should fix things at home before going after them...

/BTW- I'd vote for Loki before I'd vote for Ron Paul...

#97 Lucius Septimius

P.J. O'Rourke is the best. I was first exposed to his great wit in the 1970s when he wrote for the National Lampoon. He is by far the best satirist of the last 50 years. I, too, have read all his books.

#170 sattv4u2

And there is where R. Pauls theory fizzles. All thru the 1930's this country WAS isolationistic, and that STILL didn;'t prevent us from being attacked. Mr. Pauls theory that because we intervene in the ME is the root of the problem was disproved the day Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Ah! Do you think we always owned Hawaii, Wake Island, and the Philippines? We didn't. Yes, we were isolationist in the 30's, but those posessions were the result of our interventionist foreign policy from decades earlier, particularly in the Spanish-American War. That's the point Paul was trying to make. Our actions have consequences. Sometimes far down the line.

#175 Lucius, I would say that the odds today would be better than 0 and less than 50/50. Tommorrow after the primaries, that could change. I would have virtually no confidence in Guliani accepting the Veep slot on a ticket headed by Romney. A Romney headed ticket is open to a lot of scenerios, and a lot of "theater".

#174 christheprofesso

And because they are now not paying as much attention to their houseguests as they should, it'll be our problem again, only that much more severe...

Yep, I can see us intervening in Europe yet again, if only to keep France's nukes from falling into the wrong hands.

After WWI, the vast majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with European squabbles, which explains the isolationist movement in the 30's.

I used to reside in Tom Delay's congressional district in southeast Texas, just outside of Houston, but was jerrymandered into Ron Paul's a few years back during the Great Texas Redistricting Act.

For those of you who might not know, this is a totally safe Republican district, and no Democrat even bothered to run against Ron Paul in the last election.

However I really, really hope that a real Republican will run in the next primary. Ron Paul was kind of fun to have around for a while, but lately he has just become an embarrassment.

genius move, throw someone in the mix that sounds like a democrat to remind the audience what kind of mess we would be in if someone like that got into the white house. i'm sure as hell not going to sit out this vote.

#175, rickle. I think you generalize far beyond the entry level for historical competence usually found on this thread.

Just my 2 cents worth (don't have time to read upthread, I'm heading out the door again for the umpteenth time today :)

Ron Paul is a blankety-blanking idiot! What a moron!

And Rudy was totally right to call on him to recant his statement.

The point RuPaul was trying to make was, "I don't make mistakes, and my judgment is always right."

I'm if Chris Hitchens had a lovechild with Orianna Fallaci

/i wish

#182 Fast Eddie

I guess the difference is that a hard-core R is sorta marginalized by their party, where as the hardcore Ds control their party... Paul may be fruity, but he pales in comparison the Kucinich...

The Ron Paul Camerilla seems to be made up of a preponderance of left wing shitbirds that dont know what a Camerilla is.

179- ricki

your argument holds no water, considering the fact that Japan went on their own imperialistic adventures. As did most of the European nations. If past imperialism is going to be a legitimate excuse for sneak attacks on nations, then we will be continuously at war with everyone and they with each other.

#184 gymnast

Which comment do you refer to? #175 was not me.

Plus you misspelled my name.

#190 Stuck-in-CA

The point was that if we didn't alrealy control those various Pacific islands, then Japan's expansion wouldn't have directly affected us.

Maybe they would have eventually tried to attack the West Coast, but then they would have run up against what Yamamoto described as "a gun behind every blade of grass".

Rickl, Sorry about that, I was referring to your # 179 and I apologize for the misspelling of rickl.

#192, rickl. Your #192 further confirms your apparent lack of understanding of historical continuity.

#179

Follow the non-interventionist policy to it's logical extreme and expunge yourself from this mortal coil.

Charles should start a new non-interventionist policy for ideological aliens and kick them off his blog and tell them if they intervene, expect BLOWBACK.

JMO.

#188 christtheprofessor -- No argument with you about Kucinich, or any of the other Daffy Ducks the Democrats seem to attract.

I'm just annoyed because I used to have Tom Delay as my Congressperson, now I've got Ron Paul. Betcha you'd be out of sorts too.

#196 Fast Eddie

Ouch! That would royally chap my arse, as you suggest!...

btw it's chris the professor, (only one "t" -- I'm good, but not that good!)

#194 gymnast 5/16/2007 6:36:43 pm PDT
#192, rickl. Your #192 further confirms your apparent lack of understanding of historical continuity.

Well that settles it then. I bow to your obviously superior intellect.

In plain English, fuck you.

#198

I sense that a force greater than you is going to show you a door.

/me waves hands over the blog

192- ricki

Japan annexed Korea!

Take the time to hear what he has to say when Giuliani isn't interrupting him to take a cheap shot.

-jcr

#200 Stuck-in-CA
Japan annexed Korea!

But how was that our problem?

We cut off oil shipments to Japan in part because of their depradations in China. That was our right, and was the right thing to do. They then used that as a pretext to attack our Pacific island posessions.

But then again, if we had never taken possession of those Pacific Islands in the first place, those attacks wouldn't have happened.

Ron Paul proves that just a little intelligence can be a dangerous thing.

Listen...Ron Paul is an isolationist and appeaser. He has SOME good libertarian fiscal ideas...but that's about it. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win anything with Republicans. And the Dems already have their own loon in the embodiement of Kucinich.

Ricki

We cut off oil shipments to Japan in part because of their depradations in China. That was our right, and was the right thing to do. They then used that as a pretext to attack our Pacific island posessions.

well naturally that excuses their attack on Pearl Harbor according to Ron Paul (and you apparently.) I guess instead of engaging them in war, we should have apologized instead. Good policy!

Ron Paul is a truther and if you support him, you agree with him and Alex Jones that George W. Bush at best "allowed" the attacks to happen and at worst orchestrated the attacks.

In either case, you are all nuts and need to not believe everything you read on the internets or what our local nutcase extraordinaire, Alex Jones, says.

The truther movement is all a movement about selling BOOKS / MOVIES / ADs to idiots.

#205

Unless #179 is committed to determining who amongst the American populace is full blooded Native American and then returning the Americas to them and he starts his long swim back to whatever spawning ground his ancestors of yore claimed he is making an argument that, by his very presence here, is interventionist!

It's not because we're over there, it's becuase we're the infidels in the way of their caliphate dreams...

look up that word Ron, look up that word...

#205 Stuck-in-CA

well naturally that excuses their attack on Pearl Harbor according to Ron Paul (and you apparently.)

It doesn't excuse it, but it explains it. Since we already did control the Hawaiian Islands at that time, then it was an attack on us. But it could have been avoided if we hadn't taken posession of the Hawaiian Islands in the first place.

I guess instead of engaging them in war, we should have apologized instead. Good policy!

No, I said that we had every right to cut off our oil shipments to Japan, and in fact it was a moral imperative. To do otherwise would have made us complicit with their atrocities in China.

great, we have a republican pres candidate who has gone truther.

rudy g is the man. he is definitely separating himself from the pack.

Damn rickl you sure are a testy little idiotarian. Or are you a sexual intellectual as well as a historical idiot?

#206, I had never heard Ron Paul until I
watched the video. The moderator and Guiliani
both misrepresented his take on the causes of
9/11. His argument requires thought and organizing a chain of causality, and thus plays poorly on TV.

Watch it and listen.

You might not agree, but rather than name
calling,

follow the advice of #151 and
refute Ron Paul on the merits.

It is not trutherism to say that the US
government was generally aware of the
capabilities of Al Qaeda, that we had
a role in establishing those capacities
years earlier, and that they wanted to
perpetrate attacks in the US. Doesn't
mean we deserve it.

For example, there was the '93 World Trade
Center bombing to put us on notice.

Trutherism is suggesting invovlement
of the US government in the specifics
of the September '01 attack.

ocelot

#211 gymnast

As you don't seem capable of anything beyond cheap insults, I don't see any reason to continue any further debate with you.

GAZE

1931, the Mukden Incident.

When RP mentioned Iran in 1953 and the hostage taking in 1979. I had to search the internet for "Shaw of Iran" and read this,[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Yes the US had blowback by allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to return from France

But it could have been avoided if we hadn't taken posession of the Hawaiian Islands in the first place.

You forgot to whinge about the Phillipines as well - but ultimately it's no surprise with a position as intellectually (historically) bankrupt as your simplistic position.

So, the core of your premise is - if the US was not in the Phillipines or Hawaii when Japan moved against the resources of SE Asia, Borneo, and Indonesia - then there wouldn't have been an attack on the US and therefore no US involvement in the Second World War?

So, like Paul's concept for dealing with the ME - and the pre-emptive surrender to the jihadi's, you expected that the Pacific would just be a Japanese lake with no US fleet or military presence to protect trade? That the US between 1898 and 1918 would just cede the Pacific to Japan - or at least should have to avoid 'foreign entanglements'?

Japan would have attacked San Diego if the PacFleet didn't forward position to Pearl. Why? Because they didn't want the US Pac Fleet following Plan Orange when the Japanese moved against SE Asia...and the Phillipines - which sit astride that vital supply line.

Appeasement doesn't work. Period. Hiding one head's under covers should stop working when one is three. Ignoring the rest of the world doesn't demonstrate our moral superiority - but rather our moral bankruptcy.

1891, The Otsu Incident.

So let me get this straight, we in the West do not want to live under a islamofascist caliphate and that attitude upsets the muslim street to the point where we are to blame for their anger so they send people over here to kill us?

I think the blowback just hit the fan.

We seriously needs some politicians, military leaders and presidential candidates with nads of titanium in the mold of Lincoln or FDR or Churchill. Can someone dig up W.T. Sherman? All these candidates make me queasy

1939, the Nomanhan Incident.

If that's all the understanding that Ron Paul has of foreign events and the causes of 9/11, let us hope that last night's debate is the last we ever hear of him.

I think y'all are being overtly critical of Paul. If I hadnt watched the video myself Id be thinking Paul to be Howard Dean.

A little clarity always helps.

His comment on Iraq and 9/11 - preposterous. 10 years of bombing?! what!?

His comment on blowback -- perfectly sensible and conservative. However, in this context it does not apply, as Jihadis are not like IRA, are not like Basque, are not like LTTE, or any other terrorist organisation with rational negotiable goals. Jihadis act on theological imperative, justifying it with a mythology of their own creation. There is no role infidels play in this besides being infidels. Any number of reasons are concocted every day in the Jihadi mythology to justify their own aggression. Add Quran-down-the-toilet, add Danish cartoons, add the fake story of Al-Dura, or "destruction of Al aqsa mosque" (fake again). Any reason you can concoct will be added to the mythology.

Paul's comment on non-interventionism of Republicans and conservatives: Bang on target. Jacksonianism has ruled the Republican party for most of its existence thereby making its members oppose any and all adventures of neo-Wilsonianism like bring-democracy-to-the-people etc. You can disagree whether its the right position this time in Iraq, but factually he is right about that.

A little clarity, please folks!

#14

"Paul is an idiot terrorist appeaser."

Not true. Dr Paul didn't vote against the Iraq war resolusion to appease terrorists or Saddam, he voted against it because he felt the President should have made his case and asked for a formal declaration of war.

"Ron’s message that we got what we deserved on 9/11 is offensive."

He didn't say we deserved it. He's saying we have our fingers in alot of pies in the middle east and we should have seen this blowback coming.

"Paul is showing his ignorance of the true goal and rationale of the jihadists."

No doubt about that!

"Not that he was a viable candidate anyways, but he should get out of the race."

Don't hold your breath but he won't be a factor.

"AirAmerica idiots were supporting him on the radio today, which provided additional confirmation that he is a moron."

He's an OB/GYN. You don't get to become an MD by being an idiot. You may disagree with him(I certainly do) but that doesn't make him stupid. Leave the demonantion and denigration of people you disagree with to the moonbats.

"Speaking of morons, this anti-America/anti-Israel/anti-British blogger [Nadia] who has been criticized for her racism vows she will not stop blogging."

Does this suprise you?

"Paul and Nadia show that ignorance and racism still exist in the greatest country in the world."

Dr Paul is incorrect, but he is not ignorant and is no racist.

#129
FINALLY! Some REASONED criticism.
Thank you!

"I think y'all are being overtly critical of Paul. If I hadnt watched the video myself Id be thinking Paul to be Howard Dean."

Exactly the point I've been trying to make the past 2 days.

"A little clarity always helps."

AMEN to that brother!

#227

I believe your reasoning is flawed. It is possible for an intelligent person to simply be wrong. I believe Dr Paul is wrong and his opinion is flawed, but that doesn't make him an idiot.

As much as I liked what Guliani had to say, I still have a problem with audience reaction at these debates.

The audience should be admonished to keep quiet. If they start with the catcalling, the applauding (except at the beginning and end), they should be told to stop, and microphones picking up the noise should be turned off.

Or do the debates in a studio without an audience.

IMHO...