Morning, y’all, Jebediah here. I caught some of that thar GOP presidential debate, and I believe that the Democrats have found their new presidential candidate: Ron Paul.
See, the nutroots do not like Hillary. They do not want her to be president. And they are generally upset that she is leading the pack. So, who better to represent them then Ron Paul, after this exchange
One of the highlights of the debate came when Paul said the United States has been bombing Iraq for 10 years and doesn’t understand how the Middle East operates.
"Right now, we’re building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq.
"They are delighted that we’re over there because Usama bin Laden has said, ‘I’m glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.’ They have already now since that time they’ve killed 3,400 of our men and I don’t think it was necessary," he continued.
It is a given among Democrats/liberals/progressives/surrender monkeys that 9/11 was our fault, as is every other attempted and successful terrorist attack. Heck, in their world view, the United States is the root of everything wrong in the world, usually with Israel and those evil Jews pulling the strings. And oil. Let’s not forget oil.
So, he would be perfect for the liberals. A candidate who speaks his mind, and comes right out and blames the USA.
"But he’s Conservative!" Well, yes, but, he is old style conservative, not a neoconservative. Classical Conservatives are like Dad: you elect them, and they tell you what to do. They also believe in preserving the status quo, looking back, as well as limiting the franchise, much like today’s Democrats. Sure, they are for morality and economic freedom, but if they could just push him to the right a wee bit more, he could be approaching the point of deciding to nationalize private business and replace organized religion with a state religion. Remember, nothing is out of bounds for the Democrats in their quest for power.
If you listen to the video, you will really hear the true, Classical Conservative in Paul. This article at Wikipedia is not perfect, and doesn’t dive in specifically to the three cores of political values (moral, economic, and political) as such, but it does give a good idea of what true Classical Conservatives believe in.
Don Surber calls Paul the Republican Kucinich.
Hot Air has the video of Rudy smacking Paul in the face with a cold, wet fish.
Sister Toldjah and Michelle Malkin have some pretty good live debate posts.
Captain Ed says that Giuliani won, but Paul threw the game
UNCUL JEBB!!!!
U DONE GOT SOME SKOOKIN ER SOME THANG?? WUTZ ALLA THIS FANCEY POLYTICKIN TALK?!!!
LOVE
BEULAH MAE!!!!!!!
Ron did not “blame the USA.” What you people who are spouting
that garbage fail to realize is that there’s a difference between provocation
and justification. If I poke a man in the chest with my finger, and he shoots
me with a gun, there is no question that I provoked him to shoot me. There’s
also no question that he was not justified in over-reacting to that extent.
Same deal with what Ron Paul said about the Middle East.. there’s no question
that our foreign policy actions have consequences, and that our meddling
in the ME has incited anti-American sentiment, and probably contributed to 9/11.
But that does NOT mean that the Islamic radicals were justified in killing thousands of
American civilians as a result. But it does suggest that we should quit f%#@ing
around in the Middle East lest we provoke more unjustified reactions.
Or to use a slightly different analogy… if you go poking a stick in a bee-hive, eventually
you are going to get stung. Who’s to blame when that happens, you or the bee? Answer: both share in the blame.
Anyway, quit trying to paint Ron Paul as somebody who’s blaming America, supporting the terrorists, or whatever… because it’s just not true.
You’ve got the part about “telling people what to do” completely backwards. Ron Paul is a libertarian, who wants smaller government across the board, who wants government not to tell people what to do. Both neoconservatives and social conservatives are big-government conservatives, with neoconservatives focusing on big-government programs in foreign policy and security and social conservatives on “cracking down” on what they see as moral wrongs such as drugs, pornography, etc.
It doesn’t explain everything, but it helps a lot to think in terms of two political axes rather than one left-right axis, with the other axis being authoritarian/libertarian, or equivalently big-government/small-government. (“Nolan Chart”)
First, Ron’s argument was covering half-century of US intervention in the middle east, not just the past decade. Second, he was referring to the general anti-American sentiment over there; what motivates them to side with attacks against us in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
The moderator was the one who interpreted this as “inviting 9/11”, and before Paul could respond, Rudy jumps in with nostrils flaring, demanding he recant a statement he never made.
Reasonable people can disagree with Ron Paul’s argument about the effects of our history of intervention in the region. To do so, you’d need to argue that our foreign policy toward the middle east (e.g., overthrowing Iran’s elected leader and installing the Shah; arming and funding Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden; bombs and embargoes which primarily hurt the people, not the leaders) was perceived by the middle east populace as either neutral or beneficial.
I would like to see someone make that argument.
Yes, a tiny percentage of Muslims are truly evil bastards, and would not be swayed in their determination to kill; these are the guys who attacked us on 9/11. But these men could not operate in the larger context without some consent of the populace who sees us as aggressors. It seems likely our government’s actions over the years have, at the very least, not helped that perception. This is a subject too important to simply brush aside because it makes us uncomfortable.
Smaller government is no longer something that mainstream Republicans want. Neo conservatives want a larger government.
9-11-01 (VA, PA, NY) 2,996 slaughtered!
Oct. 2000 – USS Cole and 19 US Sailors murdered…OBL declared war on U.S. in Feb. 1998…Tanzania & Kenyan US Embassy bombings…Feb. 1993 WTC bombing killed 6;
Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia bombings…241 US Marines killed in Beirut Lebanon…TWA Flight 837 where a US Navy Seal was murdered… Go to http://www.terrorismawareness.com and click on JIHAD and ISLAMIC MEIN KAMPF… It’s time to Harry Truman their asses …+ Damascus +… and …+ Tehran +…! Yeah Liberal Louie and Louise…it’s all our fault?
Beulah Mae, it took awhile, but I figgered it was worth soundin all high and fallutin’
Phillip and Bob, y’all are takin the same tone he did, basically “what did we do wrong so that the terrorist scum had to retaliate.” Basically, you have just proven what I wrote.
Stephen, i call them like I hear them. Paul may call himself a libertarian, but, when I hear him speak, and hear what he wants, makes me think “classical conservative>”
John, for a first, I will agree with you on part 1, republicans do seem to want bigger government. But neo-Conservatives do not. There is a difference. Just because we vote GOP doesn’t mean we really like what the party is doing. It is the lesser of two evils, in our opinion.
The truth does hurt at times, does it not? Paul was right on the money, though most Americans – who know so little about other cultures – probably don’t know it. Poor policy in the Middle East and our troops in the Holy Land make the Muslims hate us. We brought it on ourselves, and if you can’t comprehend that, then you need to spend less time writing and more time reading.