Paulistas to take ball, go home
Somehow I got this link in my email today, but it’s from Ron Holland on Lew Rockwell.com who declares that if the Republicans don’t crown Ron Paul their candidate, they wont vote in November. Oh, noes!!!
It is time for a groundswell of Ron Paul supporters to quietly, respectfully but firmly make their position clear to the mainstream media and the GOP establishment. Simply put, “No Paul on the ticket means no vote for the GOP in November”.
The Ron Paul Campaign has the GOP establishment stuck between a rock and a hard place even though they have not won a single state in the primaries to date. Every Paul supporter knows the underhanded tactics used by the Republican leadership at the state and national level as well as the organized smear and news blackout campaign carried out by the mainstream media.
Yeah, every week, the Paulistinians call for a “groundswell of support” for something or other and it never materializes. I’m sure this will be another popcorn fart. Of course, the reason they can’t win at the ballot box is because of some unidentifiable “underhanded tactic” and media blackout. As if no one has heard of Ron Paul in the six years he’s been campaigning.
The Republican Party desperately needs the votes of Ron Paul supporters in order to win in November against Obama.
Why? Most of Ron Paul’s supporters voted for Obama in the last election, because, foreign policy-wise what’s the difference between Obama and Paul? Look at the people like Adam Kokesh (IVAW) and Jake Diliberto (Rethink Afghanistan) who support Ron Paul for his foreign policy.
Yeah, sounds like sour grapes to me. And more of that disillusioned chest pounding we’ve heard from Paulistas since 2008.
Category: Ron Paul
Bad Bodenkurk: I listened to the first clip. After that, I didn’t feel it was worth wasting my time to listen to the others. What I heard in the first clip was Ron Paul doing 2008 “spin control” by denying that he’s a racist, then admitting that he was incompetent (“I don’t know who wrote what is in MY newsletter, and in fact I didn’t even read it”), then claiming that the media was persecuting him. I also heard him saying – nearly 20 years after the fact – that he disavows the letters. If you can believe him, that is. Of course, Paul’s story regarding the newsletters has also changed over time – going from not denying them and saying they were “taken out of context” (1996) to later claiming that he didn’t write them or know the content, but that denying it in 1996 would have been “too confusing” – thus indirectly admitting that he intentionally misled the public about the newsletters in 1996. And former aides (including his secretary) have also flatly contradicted Paul on this point, stating outright that he was very involved in the production of these newsletters, approved of the controversial materials therein as a way to boost circulation, and proofed the finals before publication. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html And there are those photos of Paul freely associating with Don Black in 2007. You might have heard of Black; he’s head of a white supremacist organization called Stormfront. And as late as Dec 2011, Black was quoted as saying that he thought Paul had personally written the newsletters in question and was “one of us”. Paul also got David Duke’s seal of approval in Dec 2011 as well. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2826918/posts http://www.politicker.com/2011/12/28/stormfront-founder-don-black-says-white-supremacists-thought-ron-paul-was-one-of-us/ The first article above actually contains far worse allegations about Paul, but they’re made by the head of the American Nazi Party – so I’m not exactly sure I’d regard them as completely credible. But it is IMO interesting if not telling that Paul has not disowned the support of either Stormfront or Duke, saying only that they “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what… Read more »
Minor correction: the first sentence of the 5th para above should read “. . . by someone claiming to be a Commander in the American Nazi party” vice “. . . the head of the American Nazi Party”.
Man, you just can’t be satisfied! You asked for Paul disavowing the newsletters, so I give it to you. Now you need more. If you want to talk flip flopping, there are better candidates for it. Like I said before, talking about the newsletters is like talking about whether or not Obama is a Muslim: it’s a non-issue. How is a presidents personal beliefs about race really important among the issues that we face in today’s world? Come on, dude. I don’t know what marque and reprisal are. I’ll look it up, though. As for Iran, I don’t disagree that they pose a threat. What I doubt is the intelligence that’s building the desire in Americans to pre-emptively invade or bomb their country, and I doubt the people in this country that want that war so badly. After the debate where Gingrich talked about Alexander Hamilton and killing America’s enemies, I heard probably 50 or so people regurgitating the same bullshit quote. These people, almost all of whom have never been in a war or killed anyone, are so quick to say we need to kill somebody. That makes me sick. Anyway, how can we trust that intelligence when the same type of intelligence was built around Iraq and it turned out to be complete bullshit? Personally, as a president, and like many people on this blog, having fought a war, I would exhaust every possibility to avoid war, and it seems like no candidate but Paul would also do that. In fact, I feel as though most of the other candidates have already made up their minds about going to war, or at least bombing Iran or killing their scientists or whatever, and that is not right by me. Furthermore, I believe that IF Iran did try to attack the U.S. or did pass off a bomb to a proxy to hit the U.S. with we would be able to intercept and defeat those plans. We have so much more working for us now than we did pre- 9/11. I simply don’t think it’s right to attack someone because… Read more »
I brought up much the same information. I then found myself, without warning, being sat down in front of the HR manager being told that if their allegations had merit (they didn’t) I would be let go.
You tell me if you consider that “threatening” or not, Bah.
Sparky, what the hell are you talking about, man? How does that have anything to do with me? And how does that show me threatening you?
Bad Bodenkurk: If you’ll bother to re-read the next-to-last sentence of the first para of comment #51 above, you’ll see I clearly acknowledge that Paul says he has disavowed his 1980s/1990s newsletters containing racist content. However, I also make it clear later in that comment that I think he’s lying, at least partially, about the matter. Hey, it’s a free country. If you’re feel someone’s trustworthiness or commitment to equality is a “non-issue” regarding their qualification to serve as POTUS, be my guest and vote for them. But IMO that also says quite a bit about you – more perhaps than you really intended. Paul’s older newsletters with racist content, and his more recent association with and acceptance of endorsements by known racist extremists, together with his truthfulness concerning same are IMO important. Why? Because they are indicators of his personal commitment to equality as well as his basic trustworthiness. Couple that with other troubling indicators – e.g., his changing story over time concerning the newsletters, former close associates of Paul who contradict his account, Paul’s more recent endorsements from and association with known racists – and the picture starts to get rather ugly. Is it swear-on-a-Bible definitive? No. But to me, as a whole it’s troubling as hell. To you, apparently it’s a “non-issue”. Essentially, what you’re saying here is that it’s no big deal to you if Paul’s a lying bigot. Suit yourself. Personally, for me that’s a deal-breaker. And I don’t believe he’s yet fully come clean on the matter. Now, regarding your comments above concerning the Iraq war, and war in general. First: you are aware that WMD were in fact found in Iraq after 2003 – aren’t you? Between March 2003 and mid-June 2006, there were approximately 500 documented instances of WMD found in Iraq. Given the degree of police-state control that Saddam Hussein imposed on Iraq prior to March 2003, it’s simply not credible to claim that these were all “forgotten leftovers” of his pre-Gulf War WMD program that were supposed to have been destroyed but never were. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/iraqwmd.pdf You also might also… Read more »
Hondo, you beat me to it, re: the John Stuart Mill quote.
“IF Iran did try to attack the U.S. or did pass off a bomb to a proxy to hit the U.S. with we would be able to intercept and defeat those plans”. Because the Border Patrol is doing such a good job on the border? Or ICE and the CG is doing such a bang-up job at every port on the Eastern, Western and Golf coasts? Bah, do you have any idea at all how many shipping containers hit the shores of the U.S. every day? You seriously think that each container gets examined? And, that’s not even addressing the Canadian ports or Mexican ports
@56 – Hondo, one point to quibble….the House document that you reference states quite explicitly that the munitions found were pre-Gulf War. Nor in my time in Iraq did I ever hear any reporting of WMD munitions of precursors that were evidence of a viable program in the interim of the two wars….to include the yellowcake that we transported out.
True. But the other documents I cited indicate that there was substantial evidence for a distributed program, either by the Iraqi government, the insurgency, or both, to locally fabricate chem/bio agents. And while Iraq did indeed destroy most of their WMD after the 1991 Gulf War, there is substantial doubt as to whether they retained a substantial portion of same – as well as the ability to relatively quickly restore production of some types. They wouldn’t have needed much in the way of either equipment or supplies to fairly quickly restore production of substantial quantities of certain types of WMD.
There is also the as-yet unanswered question of precisely what was in those numerous convoys reportedly observed traveling from Iraq to Syria in early 2003. I’ve never seen a definitive answer on that – though one report from someone who really should know (and also should probably keep quiet) indicates that the convoys indeed contained Iraqi WMD.
http://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24713/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/22/assads-fall-could-solve-iraqi-weapons-mystery/?page=all
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007645.php
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/18/233023.shtml
I can’t help but wonder if keeping that answer under wraps isn’t part of the reason why several nations are helping keep Assad in power in Syria today.
The big question would be “what was in the trucks”….it could have been anything from WMD to personal wealth.
The bigger question is that if these allegations had credibility, why wouldn’t the previous administration go full monty on exploiting them?
We know that much of the key testimony provided to us by Chalabi and other expats, was false and recanted, as well as the motivations for trying to lure us into deposing the Hussein regime.
An active program, to include a thorough sanitization effort, is still speculation as far as I can tell.
First and foremost, I did not at all imply that I am the only person to ever go to war on here. Matter of fact, I made it a point to say, “…and like many people on this blog, having fought a war…”. If you think I’m going to come on a milblog and act like I’m much wiser and more worldly than everyone else because I went to war, you’re wrong.
I highly disagree that the John Stuart Mill quote applies here. That quote is far more relevent to something like the a revolution. We don’t need to bomb Iran to be free. I can’t believe you think that quote applies to Iran.
Some of those articles were pretty suspect, particularly the newsmax article. Aside from talking about the convoys it kind of sounded like a conspiracy theory.
CI, you ask why would the previous administration not exploit them at all costs. I agree- it seems like they would exhaust all efforts to do so. The Newsmax article says that the U.S. wouldn’t do so because we knew that we’d need Russian, Chinese, and French help to deal with Iran, and we wouldn’t want to make them look bad about Iraq. Again, that seems pretty conspiracy theory-ish, and I don’t trust the validity of it.
I just spent an hour looking up WMD articles. There is too much speculation in it all, too much back and forth, and honestly, choosing something to believe is like siding with your favorite baseball team… For instance:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/10/chemical-weapons-i-were-i-found-in-iraq/180872/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082447/Wikileaks-Iraq-war-logs-claim-Iran-supplied-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq.html
Then there’s this:
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0
@55–After seeing what the Paulbots are capable of first-hand and having seen many other similar examples of their childish and dangerous behavior, yeah, well, lie with dogs, shit like that.
Hey Anonymous – or should I say, Bad Bodenkurk: you need to re-read that John Stuart Mill quote. It’s clearly applicable to individuals in general, not exclusive to revolutionary movements. And it’s just as applicable to societies that appear to have lost the will to defend their own vital interests (like today’s Western Europe, maybe?) as it is to individuals and revolutionary movements. Once an individual or nation turns pacifist, history says they soon lose whatever freedoms they formerly had. Oh, and I wasn’t applying that quote to Iran. Rather, I was reacting to your statement above that “I would exhaust every possibility to avoid war” (yes, that is a direct quote from your post above). Sheesh. Every possibility includes preemptive unilateral surrender, dipstick. You might be ready to accept enslavement vice go to war. I’m not. Similarly, my pointing out the fact that you weren’t the only one who posts here who’s been to war was a reaction to your playing the “been there, done that” card in conjunction with saying “war is so terrible”. Really? You don’t say? Tell us something we don’t know! That “been there, done that” card doesn’t carry much weight here, amigo. Many if not most of those who post here are in the same boat. Make your argument on its merits; don’t play for sympathy or try to bolster your case with true but irrelevant facts that we already know because we’ve experienced the same. Now, as for the Iraq WMD sources above: that was the result of 5 min looking thru the first 2 or 3 pages (out of around 9.3 million total hits) on a quick Google search for the material. Here are a few more: http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/me_iraq_04_26.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/likely-intel-chief-clapper-held-disputed-wmd-view/?page=all http://americanintelligence.us/index.php?/blog/1/entry-20015-iraqs-wmd-in-syria/ http://www.globalpolitician.com/21610-iraq-syria-wmd http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqs_wmd_moved_to_syria_before_war_says_general/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1515317/posts http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke.htm Oh, and that Newsmax article you’re disparaging only quotes one John A. Shaw as his source. Shaw was “only” the fucking Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security before and during the first 20 months of the Iraq war; his duties included tracking Iraq’s weapons programs before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. IMO, there’s… Read more »
“There’s too much speculation in it all, too much back and forth”.
Gee – that sounds to me like a weasel-word way to say, “There’s credible evidence out there contrary to my preconceived notion, so I’ll quit talking and change the subject.” But maybe that’s just me.
Wow, even when I admit that I’m wrong you still have to be a fucking asshole? God damn, dude, at least I wasn’t pushing the issue knowing I was wrong. What is it with you people? Jesus fucking christ, guy, take a fuckin chill pill.
As for the Mill quote, I did say I would exhaust every option to avoid war. Obviously I was talking about war with Iran over the nuclear issue. OBVIOUSLY. You seem to have a habit of taking everything I say, knowing exactly what I mean, and turning it into something else. Clearly I was talking about the war with Iran over the Nuclear issue, and you go telling me I’m ready to put my arms out to have them shackled. Way to take it out of context. Like I said before, we don’t need to bomb Iran to be free.
No, but it would damn sure make me happy.
Bad Bodenkurk: It’s immaterial if you were restricting the discussion to Iran only or talking in general. What you proposed is still a bad idea. “Everything possible to avoid war” by definition includes unilateral surrender. That’s a bad idea whether you’re talking about a single potential opponent or as a permanent philosophical position to govern national strategy. Sometimes an enemy gives you no choice – see Pearl Harbor and 9/11. There’s also some evidence that Iran may have already started a low-level proxy war against US interests. Who do you think is the primary supporter for both Hezbollah and al-Sadr’s anti-Western Shi’ia militia in Iraq? There’s also some thought that Iran engineered the attack on Khobar Towers (though there are also those arguing al Qaeda involvement instead). And Iran and Venezuela have been getting mighty cozy lately also. I assume you’ve noticed that Venezuela under Chavez hasn’t exactly been an ally of the US recently. I could go on, but perhaps that’s enough to show that assuming Iran will not attack us first – either directly or by proxy – is not exactly an unconditionally good bet. Taking the option of war unconditionally off the table is simply foolish. That leaves you with literally no good option if you’re attacked. And should Iran attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz – thus forcing us to keep it open (or reopen it) – our being attacked is IMO a given. Regarding your admission you were wrong – presumably regarding the WMD issue in comment 62 above, though you weren’t exactly specific: that was IMO one of the more transparent “non-apologies” I’ve seen recently. Rather than an admission of error, it seemed to me more along the lines of “you believe what you want and I’ll believe what I want to about the matter; there’s evidence both ways”. How else was any reasonable person supposed interpret your comment about “siding with your favorite baseball team”? Do I get strident at times? Hell yes. I also don’t suffer fools (or those too lazy to research an issue and think for themselves) easily. And… Read more »
“And Iran and Venezuela have been getting mighty cozy lately also. I assume you’ve noticed that Venezuela under Chavez hasn’t exactly been an ally of the US recently…. And should Iran attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz – thus forcing us to keep it open (or reopen it) – our being attacked is IMO a given.” OK, I can agree with that, though I still don’t think it should even come to closing the straits. We talked through the Cuban Missile Crisis even after the Bay of Pigs incident. Why can’t we talk through this? I think that it’s naive to think we can all play acoustic guitar and sing coombaya (sp) around a campfire, but to the general public it appears that our government isn’t even trying to peacfully solve the situation. Even if they are, our leaders are all publicly talking about war with Iran already, and it seems they all lust for it. I can’t remember a thing about Iran that Gingrich, Santorum, or Romney have said that was peaceful, and it seems like the King (Obama) is doing his best to stay on par with them (though with him, he might just be trying to retain the more conservative-centrist vote…). In fact, I just recently saw a video of Santorum talking about how since it’s ok to assassinate Americans it’s fine by him to assassinate Iranians. And the general public seems to feel the same way. Your point seems to be that if we HAVE to go to war, then we have to go to war. Details aside, I agree with that. But we don’t necessarily have to go to war if we’re not even trying to keep peace. Your inference that what I meant by “exhaust all efforts” was unilateral surrender is out there. You might as well say I would be willing to give blowjobs to every guy in the world, cut off my eyelids, murder my own kids by stabbing them with plastic knives and set fire to every building in New York City because technically that’s what I said from a… Read more »