Ron Paul is an Idiot
Ron Paul (R-Tx) is on O'Reilly right now, what a moron. He just brought up the past American history in the Mid-East and he apparently wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. He is enamored of the "we supported Sadam" argument without realizing that he is suggesting that we leave Iran alone, thus essentially supporting that tyrannical dictatorship. Thanks Ron. Good idea, let's support dictators to make some people feel comfortable. The man is a loon who is the wrong party.
Labels: Ron Paul
posted by El Rider at 7:06 PM
9 Comments:
you couldn't count all the dictators we support with both hands.
Ron Paul is in the right party its the warmongers that are in the wrong party. Historicaly, the Republican Party has been the party of peace. WWI, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War all started with Democrates in office. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War and the Vietnam War. It was Republicans that opposed Clinton's War in Kosival(sp). It was Governor Bush that ran for President promising no nation building, now he seems to want to build new nations across the middle east at the point of a gun and at the cost of our treasury and the blood of our sons and daughters.
It was Rep. Paul that tried to explain to O'Reilly that our current problems with Bin Laden and with Iran were both the creation of a short sided foreign policy. But O'Reilly refused to listen, instead of learning from history he would rather repeat its mistakes.
Once again, Mr. Paul used boilerplate liberal talking points that refuse to acknowledge that our current strategy is different from the failed policies of the past, in Paul's argument anything done by the US would have negative consequences. Additionally it also refuses to acknowledge that both taking action and doing nothing have consequences. The argument is weak. It also relies on the US and other free nations staying weak and being under some level of siege. The idea that our current policies, or any US policy for that matter is the cause of mid-east tyranny is downright sophomoric; no offense to the world's sophomores. Republicans stood for freedom during the middle of the 19th century and Mr. Paul's refusal to help others under tyranny is not very much different than the Copperhead Democrats (look it up) of Lincoln's time who were willing to trade slavery for some "peace" that would not be theirs without settling the question for chattel slavery. Mr. Paul is in the wrong party.
to tthomp,
I was commenting on what Ron Paul said, whether he knew it or not he made that argument, plain and simple. Look, I am shocked that a man who uses the type of ignorant boilerplate euphimisms that Mr. Paul uses is taken seriously. The overwhelming majority of Paul supporters do not add anything meaningful and often come off as just plain dumb. Sure this could be an issue of writing abilities but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
As to the limited number of Paul supporters who I have met they have been people I had already dismissed for the type of questions involved in the markets and politics. Now you may object to my characterization but I stand by it. One of them is a guy from a wealthy Chicago family who couldn't make it on the trading floor and became some sort of financial salesman, well this guy had some involvement in a company that our firm interviewed for an alliance situation. We chose not to have anything to do with them due to the fact that they were the most juvenile people I have ever dealt with in the business world. As the head of that company blew a deal by having a fit due to the fact that he did not understand the potential deal the Ron Paul supporter was right there backing him up. After two of my partners walked out (I love to watch train wrecks so I stayed!) the Ron Paul supporter kept telling the head of their firm that he was "the alpha male!" and other such inanities. His rap was that of the high pressure telephone salesman. It was hysterical!
In the mid 19th century the Republican party did not stand for sending troops overseas and imposing our style of governemnt on others by at gun point. During the American Civil War Prseident Lincoln's position was that if he could save the Union by preserving slavery he would do it. To argue that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery shows a frighten ignorance of American history. If you don't know American history I can't expect you to know middle eastern history. The bottom line is that Rep. Paul is in the right party and he's right on the issue. The warmongers don't belong in the Republican party and they are certainly wrong on the issue.
Anon.
"To argue that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery shows a frighten (sic) ignorance of American history."
Beyond the spelling and grammatical issues that seemingly all Paul supporters have, there was this little thingy called the Emancipation Proclomation, maybe you've heard of it in your obviously extensive studies of American history. Maybe you've heard of the Lincoln/Douglas debates? Yeh, didn't think so. How about the House Divided speech? Come up cold again, huh? Well maybe some jr. high history will help you out; don't forget to wear your sweater to school today, it will be chilly this morning.
Again, your Lincoln argument is made by liberal Democrats to take away from the legacy of Lincoln. Your overall rhetoric is the same as Dick Durbin, you and Paul are in the wrong party.
I apologize for my English, it was never my strong point, just like history isn't your strong point. One of the differences between us is that I recognize my short comings and you don't. Sadly, I don't have time to catch you up on American history. Just a couple of quick things: the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave, it was a political document meant to sway European public opinion against European governments recognizing the Confederacy. Of course I'm aware of Lincoln's speeches (you left out the Cooper Union Speech) and that Lincoln was against slavery. But he had no intention of ending slavery by force of arms. But you aren't the 1st warmonger to try to rewrite history and you won't be the last. You should buy yourself a good biography of Lincoln. Also consider enrolling in a couple of American history classes at the local university. Don't feel bad its shocking how few Americans know about their own country's history. Of course, you can just believe me and vote for Ron Paul but somehow you don't strike me as the type to believe anyone can know more than you about anything.
This will be the last time I'll write you on this subject. Yes, I know that breaks your heart. I also know you'll get over it.
I'm a conservative Republican. I have a degree in history. My 1st presidential primary vote was for Rep. Phil Crane, you're excused if you don't remember him, I thought of him as young Ronald Reagan no one else thought of him period. My 1st vote for president in a general election was proudly cast for Reagan. Like Rep.Paul I'm pro-life, pro-gun,(I'm a member of the NRA), pro-lower taxes and smaller government. I'm surprised to see that your Republican party apparently has room for Rudy Giuliani who is pro-choice and pro-gun control but it doesn't have room for Rep. Paul or me because we oppose the war in Iraq. Do you really want me to switch my party affiliation and vote for Hillary?
You have a choice to make you can go on as you are now or you can educate yourself. In the hope that you choice the later I suggest the following books: "Abraham Lincoln" by Carl Sandburg, "The Literary Works of Abraham Lincoln" Selected and Introduced by Carl Van Doren. On the subject of the middle east and 9/11 I suggest the "9/11 Commission Report", "Dying to Win" by Robert Pape, "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer and "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson. On foreign affairs in general I suggest "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" the writngs of Ron Paul. :-) No, I don't seriously expect you to read that one but it never hurts to ask. No mater what you decide I wish you good luck (except in next year's Republican primaries!).
I may not have time to write for 24 to 48 hours (as I didn't yesterday) but a response really deserves a full post. I have been accused of the following:
"But he had no intention of ending slavery by force of arms. But you aren't the 1st warmonger to try to rewrite history and you won't be the last."
Can we all say "Civil War"?
I am also being implored to believe the ideas of an alleged "history major" who has problems with both grammar and spelling. That really isn't such a big deal as it is the ideas that count but here's the problem: all of the history majors I have ever known spent a heck of a lot of time writing papers. They don't have those issues.
Another (?) Anonymous commenter seems to believe that our entry into WWII was a rotten idea, "Historicaly, the Republican Party has been the party of peace. WWI, WWII..." Let me be clear, I like my Jewish friends and was once engaged to a Jewish woman so I do not take kindly to the kind of ignorants who think that our nation shouldn't have helped end WWII (please don't start on the "we didn't do it for the Jews", I am aware of Roosevelt's reasons, unless you are willing to make the argument that ultimately it was not a good idea to liberate the camps. Don't be a hater! As to me being overly big-headed, I do improv on stage at Second City, you try standing in front of strangers and coming up with funny scenes in a minute, there is a lot of failure involved in learning that craft. Oh and yes I know who Phil Crane is (we have mutual friends) but I would like to point out that unlike Mr. Crane, Ron Reagan was not a drunk. Have a nice day, I doubt that I will return until the weekend - way too much to do!
Post a Comment
<< Home