Ron Paul in Iowa; "Except for his foreign policy..."

[zxcvbob]

Didn't he help enshrine it himself?

When Victor Frankenstein* warns you about the monster, you should listen.

_{*not to be confused with Froderick Fronkensteen}

[AZRedhawk44]

America's strength militarily since WWII has always been our ability to "throw money at the problem", whether it was in terms of numerical or technological superiority.

I'm getting a gut feeling that even if the worst (mis)representations of "Ron Paul foreign policy" are all true, his administration having the most potential to clean up American fiscal matters might well leave us more secure overall and in the long run. Even if any "hands  off" or "appeasement" strategies backfire.

I do think that America has taken on the entire Radical Islam/terrorism issue with a Cold War mindset of playing Risk or Chess, where we felt like the whole map, one country at a time would turn "Red" if we weren't doing the same. A policy of, "You hit us, we'll kick your teeth in, then stomp you 10x as bad. Then go home ASAP", might well accomplish more than decades long exercises in nation building.

The above has appeal.

The current plan endorsed by Statists on both side of the aisle is not working, and is a classic definition of insanity:  Doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.

[Ben]

Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.

That's the part of the speech that gets all the airplay, but the counter to it, a few lines down, never does.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

[Lee]

Here's some good news, Romney is going to buy Al- Queda for $10 Trillion and lay them all off.  Newt is going to debate them until they just look silly and go home...not where they've lived for 3000 years but, pre-pre-pre Ottoman.  Bachman say's...huh?  Is Senator Byrd still alive?  Maybe Paul can recover by offering him the VP position.  He makes him look both, younger, and less racist.  I'm not giving up on him yet.  My protest vote must be counted.           

[Boomhauer]

Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...

[TommyGunn]

Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...

I swear I have never known anyone in politics who can vacillate between being an interesting, principled leader and an utter jackwagon as quickly and spectacularly as Ron Paul.     

[Boomhauer]

I swear I have never known anyone in politics who can vacillate between being an interesting, principled leader and an utter jackwagon as quickly and spectacularly as Ron Paul.     

Well, the news is mainly on right wing leaning websites. I'm waiting to see it on more regular news sites to confirm it.

[agricola]

Heard today that Ron Paul considers Bradley Manning a patriot. Waiting to see more details...

Here is him saying it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pbSCT2SE6U&feature=player_embedded

The point he is making is a correct one, people who blow the whistle on things that have gone wrong in government should be respected and supported.

[MicroBalrog]

I have just posted on my FB on this fascinating topic. Perhaps the membership here will be interested.

[geronimotwo]

I have just posted on my FB on this fascinating topic. Perhaps the membership here will be interested.

if it had to do with ron paul, it now reads "This content is currently unavailable"

[MicroBalrog]

if it had to do with ron paul, it now reads "This content is currently unavailable"

Fixed.

[RevDisk]

The fact that the theaters of war we are in may well be the wrong ones or that our strategy is blind or warped does not mean we are not at war and don't need to react accordingly.  Mr Paul's views on Islam are astoundingly naive, not to mention dangerous.

Eh, not really. Having spent way too much time dealing with military stuff, and Islam, as always, it's always overblown.

Islamic terrorists is not even 1% of the threat of the USSR and communism. At the moment, the only thing strong enough to destroy America is America. And we're trying to do our best to gut our economy and manufacturing base. That is the highest national security priority we have.

Overestimating a threat can be more dangerous than underestimating it, at times. If you throw too many resources at a minor threat and ignore the major ones.

[roo_ster]

Eh, not really. Having spent way too much time dealing with military stuff, and Islam, as always, it's always overblown.

Islamic terrorists is not even 1% of the threat of the USSR and communism. At the moment, the only thing strong enough to destroy America is America. And we're trying to do our best to gut our economy and manufacturing base. That is the highest national security priority we have.

Overestimating a threat can be more dangerous than underestimating it, at times. If you throw too many resources at a minor threat and ignore the major ones.

I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill?  In American territory?

Orthodox Islam's adherents have it all over the Russki commies in that department.

[MicroBalrog]

I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill?  In American territory?

Do Americans they killed by proxy count?

Do America's allies count?

[RevDisk]

I agree with all of that, but I got to wonder:
How many Americans did the USSR manage to kill?  In American territory?

Orthodox Islam's adherents have it all over the Russki commies in that department.

As I said, USSR was a lot smarter and more dangerous of an adversity. We fought the communists in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and plenty more unofficial wars all over the globe. How many Russians did we kill in Moscow? 

Flashy != more dangerous

9/11 = 2,977 dead
Afghanistan = 1,780 US dead

Korea = 36,940 US dead
Vietnam = 58,220 US dead

Hell, the MIA from the communist wars outnumber the KIA from the Islamic terrorist wars.


More than the death counts, which are easy to quantify... Manufacturing base. USSR had a massive one. Islamic fundamentalists do not. If they can't build anything, long term they will never be more than an annoyance.

On the other hand, if we lose our manufacturing base, we will long term become little more than a global annoyance.

[roo_ster]

So, no numbers for how many Americans the USSR killed, on American soil or elsewhere?

Do Americans they killed by proxy count?

Do America's allies count?

Not for this question. 

OTOH, the USSR was a huge threat, one that we succeeded in saving during "The War to Save Russian Communism" (AKA, WWII).  Orthodox Islam manages the trick of doing us more damage while being a much lesser threat.  The question is, "Is America up to the lesser challenge Orthodox Islam presents?"

The answer is not yet clear, as the Left has managed its march through the institutions and now holds that ground.

On the other hand, if we lose our manufacturing base, we will long term become little more than a global annoyance.

Ayup.

[agricola]

So, no numbers for how many Americans the USSR killed, on American soil or elsewhere?

Not for this question. 

OTOH, the USSR was a huge threat, one that we succeeded in saving during "The War to Save Russian Communism" (AKA, WWII).  Orthodox Islam manages the trick of doing us more damage while being a much lesser threat.  The question is, "Is America up to the lesser challenge Orthodox Islam presents?"

How on earth is it more damage?  As revdisk said, the Soviet support for revolutionary movements / communist proxy states across the world helped to cause thousands of your dead and millions of everyone elses. 

Also, how on earth can WW2 be described as "The War to Save Russian Communism", given that half of your war was spent against a nation that (a) attacked you and (b) wasnt fighting the Soviets until right at the end when the Soviets invaded them?  Even the half that was in Europe didnt really kick off until some time after the Soviets were clearly winning.

[zahc]

If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.

[MicroBalrog]

If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.

Well since Ron Paul plans to retire after this one it hardly matters.

This was our last chance to actually change stuff swiftly rather than nibble away at it for decades while thousands of War on Drugs/War on Drugs prisoners continue to rot in prisons.

[agricola]

If Paul does well in this election, I have to wonder how long the media will keep up the blackout. The blackout is so blatant it's amusing. Its as if the paleomedia will do anything they can to avoid mentioning Paul's name. On the radio this morning all I heard about Iowa was about the "top three" with "Mitt Romney leading and Rick Santorum" in 3rd". They played quotes from Mitt and Rick and I don't think they even mentioned Paul's name.

I did laugh at Megyn Kelly today mention of him just now - it went something like "Will people vote for a moderate like Romney, or someone from far outside the mainstream of conservative opinion like Ron Paul?  Especially in a conservative state like Iowa."  Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now?  Balancing the budget?*

* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true

[RevDisk]

Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now?  Balancing the budget?*

* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true

<Jayne>
Apparently. 
</Jayne>

[AJ Dual]

I did laugh at Megyn Kelly today mention of him just now - it went something like "Will people vote for a moderate like Romney, or someone from far outside the mainstream of conservative opinion like Ron Paul?  Especially in a conservative state like Iowa."  Is opposing the government detaining citizens without trial "outside the mainstream of conservative opinion" now?  Balancing the budget?*

* actually on the evidence of the past thirty years this one is probably true

Past 30 years?

Honestly, I think this is rudimentary human tribal/primate behavior. And I think this is the root of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, the Milgram Experiment, Stockholm Syndrome, the Holocaust... any number of things.

When people look back on America's past, both pre Civil War (slavery notwithstanding) and pre "New Deal 1930's, and see them as some sort of Libertarian near-utopia, at least in the sense of freedom, they forget there were extremely authoritarian structures operating in parallel, in terms of social and religious mores, that while operating less than 100 years ago, would seem purely medieval were they to be thrust upon us now.

I've come to the conclusion, that for many people, hell... most people, whether it's the latest fad, the "Thundershirt" for neurotic dogs, or Temple Grandin's Cattle Squeezer, for both livestock and autistic children... the presence of an authority structure serves the same purpose for the populace at large.

It's probably the biggest obstacle Libertarian ideology has to overcome. While I still have modest hopes for a Ron Paul presidency, I don't think Libertarianism will ever be successfully imposed from the top down. If some sort of Libertarian minarchy comes to pass, I think it'll be some sort of organic ground-up phenomena. And it'll have to come in the guise of something deeply attractive, either personally, or fiscally, and be so strong it either causes people to overlook their need for authority, or simply not even notice until it's too late.

[AZRedhawk44]

Paul-poll on Drudge.

Vote early, vote often.  You can multi-vote by refreshing your browser.

[roo_ster]

How on earth is it more damage?  As revdisk said, the Soviet support for revolutionary movements / communist proxy states across the world helped to cause thousands of your dead and millions of everyone elses. 

The question was not WRT the proxies.  We have declared a hot war against Orthodox Islamic terrorism, something we never did to the Russian commies.  I suspect that is because the Russian commies never killed us by the thousands.

Also, how on earth can WW2 be described as "The War to Save Russian Communism", given that half of your war was spent against a nation that (a) attacked you and (b) wasnt fighting the Soviets until right at the end when the Soviets invaded them?  Even the half that was in Europe didnt really kick off until some time after the Soviets were clearly winning.

1. The USSR, along with Nazi Germany, was the proximate cause of WWII.  No great outcry to get involved when the two sides f ht esame totalitarian coin were chumming it up.  After Hitler nearly defeated the USSR, though, the commies, lefties, and sympathizers in gov't were all sorts of eager to jump in.

2. Half of America's WW2 effort was not against the Japs.  Only a small fraction of total American WW2 resources were deployed against the Japanese.  The VAST majority was deployed against Germany.  Were it not for MacArthur's tender pride, the Japanese could have been handled with only the USMC and small fractions of the Navy and Army Air Corps, making the ratio even more skewed.

3. The Soviets never would have come close to surviving were it not for American material aid, period.  They would have been a mess of mass starvation and inadequate logistics that would have been rolled up to the Urals.

4. More square miles of Europe were under totalitarian rule after WW2 than before.  We kicked the crap out of one devil only to pave the way for the next.

5. We did not go on to finish the job of destroying totalitarianism and deliberately let the Soviets penetrate farther into Europe had our leadership not deliberately delayed.

Net result; after all that blood, money, and effort; was an enlarged and strengthened evil Russian communist empire.  Pardon me if I do not cheer the result.

[RevDisk]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/the-trouble-with-my-uncle-rick-santorum/

Having met Santorum, I agree with the above.  He is an empty suit, that runs to hold office for the perks, bribes, etc. Think Palace Guard GOP