By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord discuss Lord’s article that reveals how Ron Paul is no conservative, but rather a neo-liberal. They go into quite a bit here, but some of what they talk about is Paul’s secessionist views, how he view the articles of confederation, the danger of leftism in Paul’s philosophy, his view of the ‘non-interventionist’ founding fathers, and more.

It’s a very in-depth interview and I recommend you listen to all of it, but you can also read Jeffrey Lord’s article here.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop

Trending Now

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/CarlsonJustin Justin Carlson

    Garbage.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      Well though out statement there. Pretty sure you didn’t listen to it either…eh?

      • Anonymous

        Dude, what did I tell you about arguing with paulnuts? They’re about as bright as the other idiots worshiping that other false god, Obama. I show the paulnuts RuPaul’s own writings that show he’s a racist PUNK, and they act like they never saw it, and never even mention it. They say stupid things like the Army serves no purpose, and the CIA is more valuable in defending the country, then turn around and say the CIA should be disbanded. STOP ENCOURAGING THESE STUPID PAULNUTS BY PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM.

        • Orange Shaman

          “His own words” as you put it and his actions are completely contradictory. I’ll sooner believe in his actions over these so-called “direct quotes” that were for some reason never “brought to light” until he ran in 2008 and then suddenly found to be used against him.

          Of course the Army serves a purpose…but the argument is do they serve to defend our country or to expand the empire as we’ve done for the past century?

          Of course the CIA doesn’t need to be disbanded, but they like every other government organization needs to actually do their job so that events like 9/11 and these other “foiled attacks” won’t happen.

        • B-Funk

          Exactly. Rule #1: Don’t feed the trolls.

      • http://twitter.com/Convair54 Scott

        At least it went past one syllable.. Gar-bage. Sign of intelligence these days.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KTCI7WLQHCLEHKT4DDABPVQGXI Brian Wilson

        I think garbage pretty much sums it up.

        But, if you want a longer critique – here’s 16 minutes from Tom Woods:

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Hey Brian, great call on Dr. Woods, I love this guys thinking, and, his books. Go up a bit, there is an interview with Dr. Woods and Dr. Gutsman from the Mike Church show I posted above, check it out.

      • Anonymous

        Walk like liberal, debate like a liberal. Must be neo-liberals.

        Interesting segment. I missed this one.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Ron Paul is a neo-liberal……………..geez you people are straight up stupid, look up the word, IT MEANS LIBERTARIAN YOU DOLTS!!!!

          secondly, the Confederacy did NOT want to become all-slave States, they wanted the State to determine what was good for them(aka, States Rights), and that you obviously overlooked in your history lesson. The People are to have a voice(though not anymore) with what is called the House of Representatives(both Federal and State levels). According to the Constitution, there should be somewhere on the neighborhood of 11000+/- Representatives in the Federal House alone, but, due to Dems limiting that number to 435(which is nowhere near the 30,000 people being represented by one Representative in the house). States all have their own laws on how representing takes place, so I wont get involved there, but, point being, with 11000 people debating, how much caca would have been passed!? Not much I would bet. Trust me, if for some reason a State decided to toss out its own Constitution, the People would uprise like they are doing now with the Federal level of Government.

      • Cato_Va

        I wonder if you mentioned Codevilla’s piece on neoconservatism when it published? He is a Senior Editor at the American Spectator.

        Here is a clip to a great interview with Codevilla:

        http://www.mikechurch.com/Public-Transcripts/does-jeffrey-lord-also-think-his-senior-editor-is-a-leftist.html

    • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

      you and your cult leader are garbage

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

        can you please grow up, name calling, so liberal of you. gosh, next will be neo-con, then anti-semite, then isolationist, then, the one and only stupid paulnut……………….ok, now that i finished your work for you, how about something intelligent for once, huh!?

    • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

      you and your cult leader are garbage

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      I used to like Mark Levin, but he really “Jumped the Shark” in this interview.

  • Orange Shaman

    I’m sorry. How does wanting the government out of our lives FAR MORE than even the so-called “conservatives” considered “liberal” or “neo-liberal?” Guy’s an idiot and Levin is for supporting that kind of nonsense.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BPIFJYIKAC7TGLOTY6UZ6MCTAA Brock S.

      That would be because they are called libertarians.

      • Orange Shaman

        I know that libertarians are basically “classic liberals,” since liberal is a word that was stolen from them. It doesn’t surprise me that Levin would attack Ron Paul since he’s a pro-war guy like the majority of the conservative media…but this is just a flat-out hit piece.

      • Orange Shaman

        I know that libertarians are basically “classic liberals,” since liberal is a word that was stolen from them. It doesn’t surprise me that Levin would attack Ron Paul since he’s a pro-war guy like the majority of the conservative media…but this is just a flat-out hit piece.

      • Anonymous

        Difference between liberals and libertarians…. libertarians do not believe in big government. We dont believe in entitlements. We dont believe in preemptive war and mean it. We believe in the 2nd and 10th amendment.

        To say libertarians are neo-liberals is like saying republicans are Fascists, its pointless name calling in Levin takes part in it.

      • Anonymous

        Difference between liberals and libertarians…. libertarians do not believe in big government. We dont believe in entitlements. We dont believe in preemptive war and mean it. We believe in the 2nd and 10th amendment.

        To say libertarians are neo-liberals is like saying republicans are Fascists, its pointless name calling in Levin takes part in it.

    • Anonymous

      It sure as hell isn’t “Conservative,” so I think Levin and “Guy” are safe from your labeling.

      • Orange Shaman

        Conservatism is all for big government…but just a different brand than liberalism. Liberalism is all about big government being your “mommy,” but the majority of Ron Paul supporters are against that AS WELL. That’s what I find funny about this ridiculous hit piece.

        • Anonymous

          When you start out claiming that, “Conservatives are all for big Government” it’s pretty hard to take you seriously. It’s better to stick to specifics. For example, I say Ron Paul has an isolationist foreign policy. I do not say Libertarians are all isolationists.

          • Orange Shaman

            Okay. Conservatism and big government? Let’s go through the list. “Drug War,” “War on Terror,” constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman, “homeland security,” the so-called “PATRIOT” Act, even Reagan’s allowing the FCC to have more power over television and radio. I could keep going if you want, but these are some pretty prime and very large examples of how conservatives are big government folks too…just in a different manner than liberals.

            Isolationist and defense are two completely different things. This is more putting words in his mouth because I’ve never heard him say “We should just stay put and do nothing unless something is done to us.” Defense is about standing your ground and concentrating on stopping the attacks before they get to us…but it is NOT the militarism which is pre-emptive attacks in the name of “preventing” attacks when apparently they don’t seem to be doing any such thing.

            • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

              I apologize that I can only like this once.

              • Orange Shaman

                I apologize that I’m not more influential.

              • Orange Shaman

                I apologize that I’m not more influential.

            • http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

              The late Harry Browne summed it up best:

              Republicans will continue to campaign like Libertarians while governing like Democrats.

              Republican politicians are power-junkies — just as Democrats are. And the “enablers” are those who permit them to indulge their addiction to power — finding excuses for every life the Republicans wreck with big government.

              If you don’t want your vote to count, continue voting Democratic or Republican — rewarding the politicians for stealing more of your money and more of your freedom.

              From “Truth about Republican, Democratic parties

            • KenInMontana

              The roots of the “War on Drugs” go back to the Harrison Act of 1914, stepped up enforcement of drug laws began about 1920. The phrase “War on Drugs” is about 30 years old but it was really just a new name for prohibition. To suggest it is a product of modern Conservatives is incorrect, it actually stems from the early progressives in this country. You could only hang a bad choice of words on Conservatives there.

              “War on Terror” is once again, a poorly chosen set of words to attempt to put a name to an ongoing security threat. (In both cases though I think you will find the phrase came from the press) Many early terrorists and terror groups were Anarchists or Communists, early “Arab Liberation” groups learned their techniques from the Soviets and have in turned passed these methods onto the current crop of radical Islamists. Many groups, factions and movements of differing ideologies have used the methods of terror to make their point through out history and governments and people have resisted and opposed them. You could lay a bad turn of phrase on Conservatives, but to blame them for originating the struggle against the groups and people using terror is a poorly concocted lie.

              The USA Patriot Act passed the House on Oct 24,2001 357-66
              http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml
              It passed the Senate on Oct 25,2001 98-1
              http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
              Pretty damn bipartisan if you ask me, but go ahead check the votes.

              Not all Conservatives support an Amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, that argument comes down to the point of is it within the purview of the Federal Government’s powers as enumerated, so that one is weak as far as blanket statements that all Conservatives support it.

              • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

                That may be True, but TODAY the Strongest SUPPORTERS of those 2 abominations against liberty are Modern Conservatives.

              • Orange Shaman

                I’m not saying that ONLY Conservatives are responsible or that ALL of them support these measures. It’s that conservatives or those under conservative cloak, if you prefer to hide the fact of the matter…are the largest supporters…the most ardent supporters of such measures. Note I say nothing about things such as raising taxes or debt ceilings or stimuluses…which even though conservatives HAVE VOTED ON THEM…they are NOT THE MAJORITY of the ones who support those measures.

                • KenInMontana

                  No you didn’t say “only Conservatives” but you implied by the use of “conservatism is all for big government” that all conservatives are supporters of big government. Which is a patently false statement, if you don’t intend for it to be a “blanket statement” then you should refrain from making such blanket statements.

                • Orange Shaman

                  Overall, it is. Very few conservatives are for keeping the government out of our personal lives, so yeah. Conservatism as an ideology overall…is about big government…only a different brand. I would still prefer a conservative over a liberal, but they’re still going to grow the government.

            • David Robertson

              War on drugs – for
              War on terror – for
              Traditional marriage- for
              Patriot act- against
              Subsidies- against
              TARP – against
              FCC – for

              Interesting that you would try to sell these ideas as conservative, or bulk them all together as representing a conservative ideology. It would be a better argument if you said all the above represent items that the Republican majority approved or pushed. We Conservatives are not in line 100% with Republicans. We definitely are not Libertarians either. Frankly, I believe Liberty without order (as mentioned in the clip) or morally based law is untenable.

              • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

                “We Conservatives are not in line 100% with Republicans.”

                I’ll agree with this- not so much your list, but that’s exactly the point.

              • Orange Shaman

                Libertarianism from the very beginning…even John Locke’s ideology before the founders borrowed his ideas to create the Constitution has always been for small government…what conservatives CLAIM to be for.

                Libertarianism was basically John Locke’s answer to those who wanted Anarchy. He believed that people were capable of surviving on their own, but would WANT at least a LITTLE centralized authority to protect their life and property perhaps better than they could. I disagree with this, but that’s what it’s always been about. There IS order to it and THAT’S why there’s even a split between the two.

                I’m not saying that these ideas are SOLELY conservative. I am simply saying those are the ones that MOSTLY conservatives and RINOS support more so than liberals and democrats. Now…if you want to talk about raising taxes, raising debt ceilings, or stimulus…I won’t tack those on with conservatism even though many conservatives did vote for these things as well.

                It sounds like a blanket statement, but I do not mean it that way.

              • Orange Shaman

                Libertarianism from the very beginning…even John Locke’s ideology before the founders borrowed his ideas to create the Constitution has always been for small government…what conservatives CLAIM to be for.

                Libertarianism was basically John Locke’s answer to those who wanted Anarchy. He believed that people were capable of surviving on their own, but would WANT at least a LITTLE centralized authority to protect their life and property perhaps better than they could. I disagree with this, but that’s what it’s always been about. There IS order to it and THAT’S why there’s even a split between the two.

                I’m not saying that these ideas are SOLELY conservative. I am simply saying those are the ones that MOSTLY conservatives and RINOS support more so than liberals and democrats. Now…if you want to talk about raising taxes, raising debt ceilings, or stimulus…I won’t tack those on with conservatism even though many conservatives did vote for these things as well.

                It sounds like a blanket statement, but I do not mean it that way.

              • Orange Shaman

                Libertarianism from the very beginning…even John Locke’s ideology before the founders borrowed his ideas to create the Constitution has always been for small government…what conservatives CLAIM to be for.

                Libertarianism was basically John Locke’s answer to those who wanted Anarchy. He believed that people were capable of surviving on their own, but would WANT at least a LITTLE centralized authority to protect their life and property perhaps better than they could. I disagree with this, but that’s what it’s always been about. There IS order to it and THAT’S why there’s even a split between the two.

                I’m not saying that these ideas are SOLELY conservative. I am simply saying those are the ones that MOSTLY conservatives and RINOS support more so than liberals and democrats. Now…if you want to talk about raising taxes, raising debt ceilings, or stimulus…I won’t tack those on with conservatism even though many conservatives did vote for these things as well.

                It sounds like a blanket statement, but I do not mean it that way.

  • Anonymous

    I think most lowercase ‘l’ libertarians are happy to be considered Jeffersonian Liberals. So that’s not really a charge against Rep. Paul. Classical Liberalism is pretty close to libertarianism, as long as you factor out a few differences.

    The only reason you need the “Neo” prefix is to a) distinguish the term from modern day Democrat/Socialist “liberalism”, and b) to avoid the more perjorative term, “paleo.”

  • Anonymous

    Love Jeffrey Lord who also was part of the Reagan administration like Mark.

    Thanks for posting this RS.

  • Anonymous

    Love Jeffrey Lord who also was part of the Reagan administration like Mark.

    Thanks for posting this RS.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BPIFJYIKAC7TGLOTY6UZ6MCTAA Brock S.

    Conservatives aren’t for no government like Paul, we’re for small government. Big difference.

    • Orange Shaman

      Did Ron Paul actually say he wants “no government?” I don’t remember that. As a matter of fact, all I ever get when I listen to him speak and read his writings are that he ACTUALLY IS small government where the conservatives ONLY CLAIM small government. Read my reply to K Bob about conservatism and big government because it’s just a different brand than liberalism.

    • Orange Shaman

      Did Ron Paul actually say he wants “no government?” I don’t remember that. As a matter of fact, all I ever get when I listen to him speak and read his writings are that he ACTUALLY IS small government where the conservatives ONLY CLAIM small government. Read my reply to K Bob about conservatism and big government because it’s just a different brand than liberalism.

    • Frederick

      Ron paul is not for no government. That would be anarchy. Ron paul is not an anarchist.

    • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

      Conservatives are for HUGE government just a differant kind of HUGE government

      Conservatives want HUGE intrusive government in the area of “Security”, “Defense” and to control Social Behavior

      Progressives want HUGE intrusive government to control your employment, money, and life

      Ron Paul, and libertarian want the government, conservatives and progressives to leave us alone to live our lives how we see fit

      • Orange Shaman

        I wish I could own this quote, but I can’t. “Liberals want the government to be their mommy. Conservatives want the government to be their daddy. Libertarians want to be treated like adults.”

      • Orange Shaman

        I wish I could own this quote, but I can’t. “Liberals want the government to be their mommy. Conservatives want the government to be their daddy. Libertarians want to be treated like adults.”

  • Anonymous

    I don’t buy into this guilt by association nonsense. Just because a liberal might believe something similar to what you believe on one principle, it does not make you a liberal. This sort of reasoning is oversimplifying the matter far too much and it really shows he didn’t put a lot of thought into the article. I use the label conservative too, but really the label is nonsense. To put the nonsense of the conservative/liberal label into perspective, Milton Friedman liked to call himself a liberal.
    And antisemitic because he recommended a book written by someone who was antisemitic? Give me a break. Maybe he liked what the guy said on that one point, he wasn’t recommending the author, he was recommending a book. Maybe he didn’t know the author was antisemitic. Maybe he knew, disagreed on that, but thought he made a good point on something else. And guilty of the same because he was accused by someone? Give me a break!
    Not everyone is going to be with you one hundred percent on everything. I don’t agree with Ron Paul either with his stance on Iran, my thought is that if you have an enemy who is building nukes with the intent to nuke you, then a preemptive strike would not be out of line. I do believe we should otherwise not attack a country except in cases of self defense. I’m with him a hundred percent on a lot of other things. I’m not going to vote for him, just thought I would point out how silly these points are.

    • Orange Shaman

      Oh…but he’s also been called “anti-semetic” because he doesn’t support us supporting Israel without question or budget restraint. Also…this nonsense about “neo-con” being a code word for Jew is absurd too. There are plenty of non-Jew “neo-cons” out there. Virtually everyone running except for Paul and Johnson are in many ways pro-war and government involvement in social issues and I don’t believe a one of them is Jewish.

  • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

    I’ve said this before, and will continue to say this.. Ron Paul is the Libertarian Neville Chamberlain of America.. an Isolationist and an Appeaser.. and is without a doubt, as dangerous to America and the World’s Safety, Security, Peace, and thus Freedom of the Free Western World as we know it, and thus should never be allowed to be the US President, as Obama is.!!

    • Orange Shaman

      While many Ron Paul supporters actually do vote without logic…so do the majority of every other candidates’ voters too. I’d say a whole 2% of all voters period actually know the full scope of what the issues are, what the candidates have said and/or done in the past when not campaigning about said issues, and most importantly sure like a pretty smile and the false sense of security that past Republicans have given them.

      Isolationist and appeaser? Defense is different and that’s what he’s actually for. Defense is also not the militarism which is what’s called “defense” now. You have to know what’s what before you can make claims. Appeaser? Who’s he trying to appease? When has he ever flip-flopped on anything idealogically? What small government ideas being talked about now by the other candidates has Ron Paul not been saying for decades prior?

      Intelligent thinking, level headed logic and common sense are my sole reasons for wanting Ron Paul to get the nomination.

      • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

        I am referring to his acceptance of Iran’s acquisition of a Nuclear weapon to launch against st Israel.. or any other Terrorist Dictatorship Nation to acquire these weapons of mass destruction.. as those people are as mad as any human beings on earth could possibly be.. because they do not care about other people’s lives, their lives, or any lives.. as these people worship death.. this is the madness of their ideology, wrapped up in a religious doctrinational edict of destruction..

        To them MAD- Mutual Assured Destruction, is fine with them.. these are not the Russians, who did want to live.. and that’s why Ron Paul must not be allowed to become the US President.. even though, I’m sure he is a nice guy, in general..

        You cannot stand against madness, with appeasement.. a hard lesson learned in WWII.. by the British people under Neville Chamberlain..

        • Ben Lee

          So you then of course support a full scale invasion of Iran, correct? That is the only way to stop them from building a nuke. North Korea is the most isolated country in the world and they managed to build a few, so explain to us how you will stop Iran without half a million US boots on the ground?

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            I am sure he does, he like most conservatives have no problem sending thousands of people to die “for them” ofcourse he would never risk his own life, but other peoples lives are fine.

          • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

            I am sure he does, he like most conservatives have no problem sending thousands of people to die “for them” ofcourse he would never risk his own life, but other peoples lives are fine.

          • http://foxnation.com/ TeaPartyPatriot4ever

            #1, N Korea is isolated, and is not an issue for containment.. and second, the issue of Iran is not one of containment, but is in an extremely highly volatile explosive region of the world.. thus the US President, when we get one, and the PM of Israel, would both have to determine on a solution, the least would be an all out ground assault. and no, I would not rule out just air attacks, but that is not for me to say.. as I am not privy to US Military Intelligence information, as to what would be the best course of action.. Like I said, that would be up to the Military experts on how to handle that issue of solution..

            But I do know one thing.. Appeasement, only makes the aggressor, more aggressive and emboldened.. and doing nothing til the world is a ball of nuclear mushroom clouds, is not a good solution.. or did you not study history, specifically WWII, in school.. as right now, the world is ready to start WWIII, and another Holocaust.. or would you rather just let it all happen, and play reaction politics..

            This is what I mean, when I say, the world is a dangerous place, and we need a competent, strong Leader.. not an appeaser..

        • Orange Shaman

          You can try to use the argument of “national security” all you want…but in the end, it’s just nonsense. Let’s say hypothetically they build their nuke (which there has been no proof of or even close to proof of yet) and they actually do launch it at Israel. WORST case scenario, they might take out the capital city…but Israel will still exist and still be able to fight back with the incredible amounts of military technology we have given them. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have missle defense already and therefore could actually TAKE OUT the nuke before it even got to them. That we will not know unless it actually happens.

          Let’s also say that I’m wrong about that and Iran throwing a nuke at Israel would be just devastating to the entire world. Doesn’t the Bible preach that the world is going to end anyway? It doesn’t say there’s hope for it to be saved. It simply says it will happen. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy because whether through nuclear arsonists or our own plundering of the planet’s resources until we have nothing left or a mass extinction event such as another great flood which has happened more than just the once presented in the Noah’s Ark story…we WILL become extinct.

          The difference between Ron Paul and the others…the ONLY difference in this respect really is that he’s NOT APPEASING ANYONE. He’s NOT for bribing Middle Eastern puppet dictators with our money. He wants to DEFEND OUR OWN country. We CAN’T SUSTAIN all these wars…PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Either you truly are naive or just refuse to accept that very simple truth…but it still exists regardless.

        • Orange Shaman

          You can try to use the argument of “national security” all you want…but in the end, it’s just nonsense. Let’s say hypothetically they build their nuke (which there has been no proof of or even close to proof of yet) and they actually do launch it at Israel. WORST case scenario, they might take out the capital city…but Israel will still exist and still be able to fight back with the incredible amounts of military technology we have given them. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have missle defense already and therefore could actually TAKE OUT the nuke before it even got to them. That we will not know unless it actually happens.

          Let’s also say that I’m wrong about that and Iran throwing a nuke at Israel would be just devastating to the entire world. Doesn’t the Bible preach that the world is going to end anyway? It doesn’t say there’s hope for it to be saved. It simply says it will happen. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy because whether through nuclear arsonists or our own plundering of the planet’s resources until we have nothing left or a mass extinction event such as another great flood which has happened more than just the once presented in the Noah’s Ark story…we WILL become extinct.

          The difference between Ron Paul and the others…the ONLY difference in this respect really is that he’s NOT APPEASING ANYONE. He’s NOT for bribing Middle Eastern puppet dictators with our money. He wants to DEFEND OUR OWN country. We CAN’T SUSTAIN all these wars…PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Either you truly are naive or just refuse to accept that very simple truth…but it still exists regardless.

          • http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

            I get a little suspicious whenever someone argues for or against something in the name of “national security”. One should be wary because abuses may follow when such an argument is made — look at the PATRIOT Act for clear evidence of that.

            “Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.”

            — Justice Lewis Powell, writing for the majority, US v. US District Court, 407 US 297, 314 (1972)

            • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

              It is often said that more people have been killed in the “name of god” than for any other reason.

              Well most freedom has been lost in the name of “National Security” than for any other reason

              • http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

                As Ben Franklin famously said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

          • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

            you’re an idiot.. America is called the leader of the Free World for a reason.. and that reason is because we are isolationists and or appeasers to Tyranny.. which whether you like it or not, affects our own National Security, safety, and peace.. as well as every other Nation in the world..

            Thank goodness you will never be President, and that especially goes for your Ron Paul..

            • Orange Shaman

              America was the innovator of capitalism and free markets. We had an economic boom due to it. THAT’S why people came to us to work. THAT’S why people came to us to live. THAT’S why people still have SOME faith left in us…but the sad thing is that the ideas of militarism is ALSO (keep in mind not solely, but plays its fair share) draining our nation. We ARE Rome…and we shall fall as a result of not cutting back to a more DEFENSIVE (not isolationist…learn the difference) position.

              • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                *applause*

                too bad it is better to talk to a wall

  • Anonymous

    Paul’s a constitutionalist, nothing more nothing less. People who don’t like Paul really just don’t like the constitution.

    • Anonymous

      Really? You sure you wanna stick with that?

      • Orange Shaman

        I wouldn’t go that far…but Paul’s pretty much the only one who’s stuck with the Constitution time and time again by not voting for something if the document didn’t give the government the authority to do it. Most of the legislation he’s ever proposed was to repeal something unconstitutional. So, I understand why someone would say that even if it is a little oversimplistic.

        • Frederick

          Ron Paul, at least to me, comes across as a strict constructionalist. The DNC, and the GOP aren’t anywhere near that. Not even remotely close. They just keep feeding the beast.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, I’ll give him that. RP votes “no” on anything unconstitutional. That is definitely not a flaw.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, I’ll give him that. RP votes “no” on anything unconstitutional. That is definitely not a flaw.

    • Orange Shaman

      Well now…I would only argue that of course they like the constitution…when it fits their agenda.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GAEEZKCMCXMRLUIVYZEYW6ETT4 H

    What radio host is the mouth piece for Ron Paul???

    • http://profiles.google.com/michael.andrew.alaniz Michael Alaniz

      A Kook that goes by the name of Alex Jones.

      • Orange Shaman

        He’s been very wrong in the past, but he’s been much more correct as of lately. Let’s look at the current race. Back in 2009 after Obama was sworn in, he predicted that Bilderberg’s next pick to be president was Rick Perry. Who’s in the race now with high numbers? Just something to ponder on when you refer to him as a “kook.”

        • Michael Alaniz

          Here’s my proof of his kookiness. Have a good night!

          • Orange Shaman

            His methods are not the best…but he’s been right about quite a few things that was thought of to be “insane,” but is actually coming to fruition. Scoop posted a supposedly “new” video that Naked Emporer put on about the mobile TSA stations. Jones knew about and reported about those YEARS AGO.

          • Anonymous

            Who is the look in the blue tee shirt. That was freaky! Just like a hippy group in the 1960’s. Everything she accused Michelle of (that I could make out from his infernal racket) is absolute nonsense! He was saying she didn’t believe in free speech??? Our army raping and torturing children???

            What a whacko! I don’t need to see or hear any more from these nuts. If these are his stooges, I want nothing of it!

            Any time I see a crowd worked up like this chanting, it gives me the creeps. It means that their emotion have taken over and their is no longer room for reason!

            I don’t care how you package it, these kooks are freaky!

        • Anonymous

          Alex Jones has Perry pegged. Globalist, open borders, mandatory vaccines, confiscation of private property for private foreign corporations to create toll roads and even convert existing taxpayer paid roads to private tolls with the trans Texas corridor…oh, and spending has went kablow under his governoship. Bad idea to be conned by a Rick Perry to the rescue. Oh, and Perry mentioned secession, I guess he’s a Ron Paul kook too. In fact, why are all these other RINO GOP candidates sounding like Ron Paul more and more? Neocons = Jews? Please, not a slur, just points out the endless war and police state here at home and trading your liberty for security. Yes, this interview is crap. Ron Paul is the best chance we have to turn this runaway tyranny train toward liberty.

      • Orange Shaman

        He’s been very wrong in the past, but he’s been much more correct as of lately. Let’s look at the current race. Back in 2009 after Obama was sworn in, he predicted that Bilderberg’s next pick to be president was Rick Perry. Who’s in the race now with high numbers? Just something to ponder on when you refer to him as a “kook.”

      • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop
      • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop
    • Orange Shaman

      I wouldn’t call them the mouth pieces for Ron Paul…but Adam Kokesh is actually a pretty good voice when talking about him and Alex Jones too of course. Judge Napolitano does as well when he’s on the radio.

      • Frederick

        Judge Napolitano is a good guy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Martin/100000583961523 ‘Benjamin Martin’

      cmon guy we all know who he was referring to! AJ!

      Sad thing is he delivers a lot of legit news/ info but the conspiracy rants and alarmist angle ruins it for him… Im still waiting for the nukes that were fired on New Years 1999 from Russia he was barking about.

      • Orange Shaman

        He’s been more right than not recently.

        • Anonymous

          still boring

          • Orange Shaman

            I actually enjoy some of the stuff he talks about. Especially when he gets into the genetic manipulation of human beings.

          • Orange Shaman

            I actually enjoy some of the stuff he talks about. Especially when he gets into the genetic manipulation of human beings.

  • JayGK

    “Kevin Gutzman and I will be on the Mike Church Show on Sirius/XM Patriot 125 tomorrow (8/24/11) at 8:30am ET to discuss Jeffrey Lord’s anti-Ron Paul article in the American Spectator. It’s going to be ugly and fun at the same time, folks.

    UPDATE: Heres the MP3: http://mikechurch.com/mikes_audio/On-Air%20Interview/august_2011/pss20110824.mp3

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504624590 Chris G.

    I would say that Rep. Paul is a CLASSICAL liberal, as opposed to being a modern liberal (progressive) that we have today — so I take no offense in being called a “liberal”.

    IIRC, it was FDR who stole the word “liberal” & turned it around to mean something that was entirely the opposite of what it was intended to mean. But that’s the way progressives do things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Martin/100000583961523 ‘Benjamin Martin’

    THANK YOU for putting this up I have had such a difficult time in dealing with the obamapaulbots. This interview highlights so much that is dead on true. Things I have been trying to express or have felt. RP followers are also some of the most vicious vile individuals I have encountered the moment they find out you are not on board with the Paul doctrine… thus the labeling obamapaulbots. They are IDENTICAL to hardcore obama followers in their tactics and assaults.

    http://SavingtheRepublic.com

    • Frederick

      I Agree that many Paul supporters are mean, and foul. Everybody else is too. They just are a little more tactful.

    • Anonymous

      Benjamin Martin says: “This interview highlights so much that is dead on true”

      Your education in the history is severely lacking if you think that hit piece article is true. I certainly don;t mind if you don’t like Dr Paul. If you want to make the Hamiltonian argument, fine, have at it. But DON’T pretend you are for a limited federal government. You can’t have it both ways!

    • Anonymous

      Too bad it was already completely destroyed:

  • Anonymous

    I think the world of Mark Levin, but his obsession with Ron Paul is unhealthy, and counterproductive. This was a hit piece, pure and simple, replete with the worst type of guilt by association. Rhetoric is not a substitute for reason, and there was very little in the way of reason in this piece.

    • Orange Shaman

      This isn’t the first time he’s done this to Paul either. Conservative pundits love doing this. O’Reilly did this the last night too. He claimed that Paul himself was whining about the media was ignoring him when in fact it was other people who clearly noticed it (not to mention it really was happening for a little bit there until the bias was brought up).

      • Anonymous

        Could it be that Levin and O’Reilly are actually interviewing Paul because of the strange stuff he says?

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          what strange stuff!?!? I dont get how you see Ron as strange, he wants YOU to have the FREEDOM of choice. May I ask, what is wrong with a person failing……….are they too big to fail like GM!?

          • Anonymous

            Agree. Sorry your business is failing…maybe you should have made a better product. Its the free market. In reality I’m sure some other company would have purchased a lot of GM and changed some things or whatnot. I hardly doubt all the GM workers would be unemployed. And if they were then those are the breaks. Get another job. Perhaps at non-union Toyota or something.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              I hope you arent assuming i am a G(overnment) Motors guy…………I like the blue oval personally…………..

        • Orange Shaman

          WHEN has Levin interviewed Paul? I said O’Reilly has…and every time he’s ever done it, he hasn’t actually had a real respectful interview, but just asked him the type of questions that there is no answer that will satisfy the foaming at the mouth types who listen to his show OR HIM. It’s always been the same. “You don’t think there are bad guys that’ll get us?” NOT ONCE have I ever heard those words come out of Paul’s mouth…but Bill still puts them there. Just like the “ignoring him” deal. Paul didn’t say they were ignoring him…OTHERS did.

        • Orange Shaman

          WHEN has Levin interviewed Paul? I said O’Reilly has…and every time he’s ever done it, he hasn’t actually had a real respectful interview, but just asked him the type of questions that there is no answer that will satisfy the foaming at the mouth types who listen to his show OR HIM. It’s always been the same. “You don’t think there are bad guys that’ll get us?” NOT ONCE have I ever heard those words come out of Paul’s mouth…but Bill still puts them there. Just like the “ignoring him” deal. Paul didn’t say they were ignoring him…OTHERS did.

  • Anonymous

    This is a zombie interview. Lord’s article was buried by Woods and Gutzman on the Mike Church show (8/24/11). It keeps rising from the dead. It is now only a succession of personal attacks and calculated distortions of the facts. This is the best they can do?

    • Orange Shaman

      They’ll pull out everything they can in an attempt to “discredit” him. Only thing is…unlike the “racist” thing in 2008…people are more awake and alert to the truth and it won’t work. Wait…the original Paul supporters didn’t buy into that nonsense either. Oh well. The fact is that the message of liberty is growing. Hooray!

  • Orange Shaman

    What the heck, Scoop? Where is my reply to K Bob that specifically defines conservatism being about big government the way he wanted? It’s a fairly long reply and I know it was put in there because some people actually “Liked” it. Did you delete my stuff?

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

      It got marked as spam. I just freed it.

      • Orange Shaman

        Yeesh. I’m probably one of the few Paul supporters who actually respectfully and intelligently discusses my disagreements yet people choose to mark it solely because I am a “Paulbot?” Wow. I bet whoever marked me is a Perry supporter probably.

        • KenInMontana

          Cool your jets, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s a Disqus program that does it. What it judges on is a mystery as you are not the first to have a comment flagged by the system.

          • Orange Shaman

            I actually thought about that after I posted that because I notice there’s no option for any of us posters to mark another poster’s stuff and you guys have never done that to me before despite how much you’ve hated the stuff I say.

            • KenInMontana

              Actually, if we “hated” your posts you wouldn’t be posting here. Challenging a post that I see as either misinformed, hackneyed or just plain wrong is not “hate” it’s called debate.

              • Orange Shaman

                Okay. Wrong word.

      • http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

        I wonder if that’s what happened to my earlier comment in reply to Shaman. Did that get flagged as well?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    Now Levin is going after Lew Rockwell? Seriously?

    • Orange Shaman

      He’s an attack dog just following orders from above. What do you expect?

      • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

        Levin might very well be my least favorite “conservative” voice out there. I always kinda thought his voice was annoying, and he was rude to his guests, but now I’m getting to the point where I don’t even agree with him ideologically. Beck and Rush have their faults, but I think they are both better than him.

        • Orange Shaman

          Absolutely…and there are plenty of times that I scream at the radio “You (bleep)ing idiot!” when I listen to either of them…but with Levin anymore, it’s just blood boil from start to finish anymore.

  • http://religiopoliticaltalk.com Papa Giorgio

    Good stuff. Here is my audio: http://vimeo.com/28184224

  • http://religiopoliticaltalk.com Papa Giorgio

    Maybe you can send me the embed code so I can add it to my post (papag@r-pt.net): http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/08/rpts-thoughts-on-ron-paul-and-why-i-reject-him-as-a-serious-candidate/?preview=true&preview_id=13932&preview_nonce=c735d06063

    I will link to you of course.

  • Anonymous

    Turn the channel.

  • Anonymous
    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      thanks, glad to see another Siruis Radio guy here, now I am not alone. MIKE CHURCH AND ANDREW WILKOW!!!!!
      I posted the post show show down below with Gutsman and Woods.

      • Anonymous

        Wilkow is AWESOME! Absolutely my favorite radio show. Capatlism is Boss!

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          or better yet, we are right, they are wrong, that’s the end of the story!

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Just realize you and I posted the same post show show, lol

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

    George Washington warned us in his Farewell Address to not have “excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another”. Thomas Jefferson warned us in his First Inaugural Address to have “entangling alliances with none”.

    Admit it. Ron Paul could have picked better company . . . (okay, I’m kidding).

    • Orange Shaman

      Yeah. I mean…(bleep) those guys and (bleep) him. Right? Right?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

        LOL!

    • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

      Everyone misses the more important warning, the warning that had it been heeded would have made sure the mess we are in today never would have been possible.

      That warning was to not have political parties of any kind. Period. Political Parties will be the death of this nation.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

        Yes. Washington’s warning was that parties (political factions) would, among other things, open “the door to foreign influence & corruption”. There is currently a cultural war that is undermining the very fabric that made this nation great, and this war began with the introduction of foreign influences. Washington explained our culture this way:

        “With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles.”

        That is, nearly all were Christian in one manner or another, and nearly all were former British citizens with roughly the same manners, habits and political principles. The introduction of foreign influences, in particular those who hate Christian principles, caused the greatest destruction.

        The cultural degeneration came about fairly recently. When I was young, about 50-55 years ago, every public school had the 10 commandments and the golden rule posted in the hallways, one hour every week was devoted to Christian devotion, and every school day started with the pledge of allegiance and prayer. The worst thing that happened in school was an occasional fistfight. For about 150 years, this was the standard. Community wise, you could go on vacation without locking your home, you never thought about locking your car doors (even with a gun displayed in the gun rack of your pickup), and a man’s handshake was his word.

        But the Christian-hating ACLU and their kind put a stop to all that civility with the “Separation of Church and State” lie. Then they slowly chipped away at our morals with every revealing displays of nudity and foul language in the movies and on TV, all the while chipping away at other Christian moral landmarks. They also introduced the growing belief that it is “okay” to cheat the Gentile. And, the final nail in our coffin, they introduced the destructive concept of diversity.

        Now, you have to lock everything that isn’t tied down, even the most detailed contract does not necessarily protect you, and the nations morals are in the toilet. Even our language is corrupted by the diversity push.

        If liberterians want to do something really great, help us restore our culture.

        While you are at it, check this out:
        http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/1961.Willard.Hotel.Speech.htm

        • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

          double post

          • Anonymous

            If you politely informed them that you were not interested in their religion and moved on I’m sure you would have been ok. One of the main reasons I don’t consider myself a Libertarian is because of religion. Even the founders knew that without a morale and just society the Republic could not last. We see that more and more today as things are becoming more commonplace. A morale society is crucial to liberty. I’m not saying that you are not a morale person or that libertarians as a whole aren’t morale. But without religion society as a whole would become immoral.

            • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

              Being Moral and Just has nothing to do with Religion, true some people find guidance, support, and help in organized religion that is great for them.

              I do not need a 3,000 year old book, a Pastor, a Priest or an organization to tell me what is right and what is wrong, some people do….

        • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

          Libertarians want Liberty, everything else is unimportant.

          I do not want you to force your version of Christianity on to me, in exchange I will not force my beliefs on to you.
          While it is true that some of the Founders of this nation were “Christian” of various denominations, there were also many deists and other religions as well.

          And the country was founded on the principles Liberty, While many of the christian values were mirrored in the founding, most of the christian values are just common sense principles of liberty. Correlation is not Causation.

          I am not saying the Christianity had no part at all in the forming on this nation, nor I am saying it should have no part in modern society, My biggest problem is that many Christians, like many people from other organized religions, feel the need to force their religion down my throat. That is an abomination against liberty.

  • Frederick

    In all fairness this Jeffrey Lord guy is all over the place with his own spin on history attempting to bound Ron Paul, and his supporters to some preconstitutional Neo liberal efficacy. He attempting to throw all the thing that liberals tend to throw at republicans, and conservatives on to libertarians. I ain’t buying it. This is probably the first Levin spot that I am very suspicious of.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lois-Wilson/1408787609 Lois Wilson

    Thank you Mark – Great interview – I learned a lot

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Too bad it was all spin……….

      • Han Solo

        And lies, and totally made up false history.

    • Anonymous

      With all due respect Ms Wilson, I hope you will resort to PRIMARY sources of the Founders Lord references. If you do, I think if you are fair minded you will see how Lord has distorted and misrepresented their views.

  • Anonymous

    Jeff Lord was on Michael medved today too. I listened to that whole hour. Lord confirms that Paul and a lot of his supporters are just plain jew-haters.

    That’s what it’s always been about. Freeing up the money from greedy jew hands. This whole federal reserve screed. Jeff Lord talks about a newsletter he received about who really controls the US economy. A list of names, and JEW right next to it. I wish I could get my hands on that campaign agitprop. And the decrepit old man doesn’t distance himself from any of this crap. F@ck Ron paul and his old descended nazi balls.

    Who’s more retarded? Ron paul nazibots or Lyndon Larouchebags?

    • Anonymous

      Incidentally, Rand Paul’s campaign manager and close friend is a Berkeley leftist radical.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

        Please put up a link to this fact about Lew Moore………I am curious where you found this info at.

      • Anonymous

        Doesn’t surprise me. I’m sure if you look through that whole inbred Paul network, you’ll find a treasure trove of d!ckheads like Herr Jesse Benton and David adams. Not to mention the rank and file paul cultists who are just nazis and neo-confederates. Larouche, Lou Rockwell, alex jones, ron paul—throw the crazy out with the bathwater. All a waste of oxygen.

        Herr rand doesn’t appear to be as nazi esque as the crinkly old man, but don’t hold your breath. I would’ve voted for Randy.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Ok, let me see, Lou Rockwell, Alex Jones………..LaRouche, all are crazy………..because they believe in freedom…………dont buy that one for one bit. HOWEVER, if you said that Alex was a conspiracy theorist, ok, but, he is also about hands-off government, you doing for yourself, not me doing for you, which is how you sound. Lou Rockwell……….still lost there. LaRouche, dont know him, so I cant judge. Crazy is this idea that Ron is nuts. Or, Paulbots, as your cronies so like to put it, are nuts too. I want to see how Herr(as you put it) Rand is a bad guy too. And using such words as “inbred” makes you sound more the nut than any Paul fan here. How about this, you use SUBSTANCE for a change, instead of name-calling like all LIBERALS like to do, huh, is that too much a stretch!?!?!?

        • Anonymous

          Dude, you’re arguing with paulnuts, which never ends. STOP.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

            you know what the difference is between me, and lets say……………..pick someone, is I present facts, you present, “EEEK!!!! PAULNUTS!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!” BTW, are those fresh roasted or honey-glazed nuts!?(mmmm, tasty). Anyways, tell you what, grow a pair, debate, otherwise, you prove what Ron Paul and the rest of US think, which is you are scared you are gonna loose your potomac seat. Tough, time for a REAL conservative to stand on that lawn. PLEASE, for the LOVE OF GOD, get out of Saul Alinsky’s book, and say something of substance, otherwise flip to page 40 in your textbook, and continue with the name-calling………………

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

            you know what the difference is between me, and lets say……………..pick someone, is I present facts, you present, “EEEK!!!! PAULNUTS!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!” BTW, are those fresh roasted or honey-glazed nuts!?(mmmm, tasty). Anyways, tell you what, grow a pair, debate, otherwise, you prove what Ron Paul and the rest of US think, which is you are scared you are gonna loose your potomac seat. Tough, time for a REAL conservative to stand on that lawn. PLEASE, for the LOVE OF GOD, get out of Saul Alinsky’s book, and say something of substance, otherwise flip to page 40 in your textbook, and continue with the name-calling………………

            • Anonymous

              EEK. A disgusting paulnut spoke at me. If you wanted arguments as to why I hold my positions against Rupaul and the paulnuts [i.e.: YOU], then you should’ve read the several I’ve already posted. Just because you don’t have the wherewithal God gave the 4 year old, and are incapable of reading those writings, that’s not my problem. Its yours. I wrote more than once that they were ignored, or answered with stupid things like ‘the Army serves no national defense purpose, but the CIA does, and should be disbanded’. Go get some kid to read what I wrote to you, paulnut, and don’t think I’m open to discussing it, anymore, because I, and everyone else, see what discussing with you [paulnuts] gets: NOTHING. And accusing me of being an Alinskiite just underscores your absolute ignorance, if not downright stupidity, emphasizing the futility of trying to engage in a rational discussion with a paulnut [YOU]. As a REAL Conservative [unlike you paulnut neo-liberal miscreants] radio show host says:

              “Walk west, till your hat floats.”

              • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                cyrus the virus, grow up, seriously. you limpperry fans need to chill.

                Ok, now that i got some name-calling in too(gosh i feel like i am 13 again), i will address you like a MAN, and not a B!T[4 like you are trying to be. Whomever said that the Army was not meant to defend this nation, was WRONG. We are to have no STANDING Army, at least according to the Constitution. So, only in times of war(aka defense), would we allow for a voluntary Army. The CIA(once known as the OSS) is an unconstitutional group, and, by that, should be disbanded.

                As for the Saul Alinsky POV, it was to get you to realize, you sound like a libtard when you act like a 13yr old bully calling the kid with glasses a nerd.

                You want HONEST debate…………then how about stop the name-calling, grow a pair, and present a REAL argument. This BS that WE(paulnuts as you so eloquently state it) are NOT open to HONEST debate is hogwash. I will debate you any day of the week. Furthermore, I will be as cordial as one can be when having $4!T thrown at them constantly.

                I guess where you and I differ is, I can remove you from the rest of the nuts, but, when you call for all nuts to join in with you, seems to me you are the nutbag holding the nuts.

              • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                cyrus the virus, grow up, seriously. you limpperry fans need to chill.

                Ok, now that i got some name-calling in too(gosh i feel like i am 13 again), i will address you like a MAN, and not a B!T[4 like you are trying to be. Whomever said that the Army was not meant to defend this nation, was WRONG. We are to have no STANDING Army, at least according to the Constitution. So, only in times of war(aka defense), would we allow for a voluntary Army. The CIA(once known as the OSS) is an unconstitutional group, and, by that, should be disbanded.

                As for the Saul Alinsky POV, it was to get you to realize, you sound like a libtard when you act like a 13yr old bully calling the kid with glasses a nerd.

                You want HONEST debate…………then how about stop the name-calling, grow a pair, and present a REAL argument. This BS that WE(paulnuts as you so eloquently state it) are NOT open to HONEST debate is hogwash. I will debate you any day of the week. Furthermore, I will be as cordial as one can be when having $4!T thrown at them constantly.

                I guess where you and I differ is, I can remove you from the rest of the nuts, but, when you call for all nuts to join in with you, seems to me you are the nutbag holding the nuts.

                • Anonymous

                  So if we have no professional army at what point are volunteers asked for in a time of war? And where in the constitution does it not call for a standing army? If this is the case then why wasn’t the Army and the Navy disbanded after the Revolutionary War?

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Ok, lets start on point one, the constitution. (from article 1 section 8)

                  “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                  To provide and maintain a Navy;”

                  from the bill of rights:

                  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

                  what is the main point of this, we were to MAINTAIN a Navy, nothing was said about a standing Army, it was the Militia that was to be trained at all times(which is usually referred to as the people of each sovereign State)

                  http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

                  “Using armies for tyranny

                  Historically, governments had misused standing armies in two ways, both of which ultimately subjected the citizenry to tyranny. One was to engage in faraway wars, which inevitably entailed enormous expenditures, enabling the government to place ever-increasing tax burdens on the people. Such wars also inevitably entailed “patriotic” calls for blind allegiance to the government so long as the war was being waged. Consider, for example, the immortal words of James Madison, who is commonly referred to as “the father of the Constitution”:

                  Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people…. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

                  The second way to use a standing army to impose tyranny was the direct one — the use of troops to establish order and obedience among the citizenry. Ordinarily, if a government has no huge standing army at its disposal, many people will choose to violate immoral laws that always come with a tyrannical regime; that is, they engage in what is commonly known as “civil disobedience” — the disobedience to immoral laws. But as the Chinese people discovered at Tiananmen Square, when the government has a standing army to enforce its will, civil disobedience becomes much more problematic.

                  Consider again the words of Madison:

                  A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
                  The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.”

                  that is just part of why there were militias, NOT standing armies.

                • Anonymous

                  “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

                  That is talking of the money to support the army and that it can’t be budgeted out for more than two years. Where does it say that the Army should not exist? And again, if that was their true intent why was the Army not disbanded after the war?

                  So only the “National Guard” troops from each state should be the military force to be called upon when in need correct? The Governors have more power to have the Nat’l Guard enforce rules over the people than the president does of the US Army. Plus who would foot the bill for the separate militaries? Texas may be able to afford better weapons and equipment than New Mexico. And states would differ as to how much money to allocate to each military therefore giving some units a greater disadvantage. I would argue that if that had been held true then some states Nat’l Guard would still be in Vietnam era equipment. Who funds the air force? Is there an air force? Again into the funding and equiping (spelling). Communication between units would become hard as some technology don’t work with older comms and this state is going to use this commo while this other state uses another one.

                  The Oath that the military swears to is to uphold and defend the Constitution. There are regulations that prohibit the Military from operating as a police force (title 32). It is a soldiers (airman, sailor and marine too) duty to disobey unlawful orders. What tyrants do you believe will come to power in the US and use the military against their own people. Remember that members of the military aren’t robots and I believe the vast majority of combat arms troops would have a hard time doing things against their own people.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris ended the war.Few Americans (if any) trusted a standing army. Our Founders warned us repeatedly that war destroys liberty. Then the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791 and disbanded in 1796. A few decades after seceding from the British King, an American president waged total war on his own countrymen. A few decades after that, Progressives introduced the concept of “spreading democracy,” which killed over 700,000 of America’s finest boys in 2 world wars … and we’ve never been the same since.

                  When you state “the National Guard” as the militia, that would be incorrect. The militia that was spoken of by our founding fathers were the citizens of each state. No State was allowed to have a “standing army(aka National Gaurd)”, so it was up to the militia to take charge in defense purposes. Then, if for some untold reason, we(any State) were attacked, the militia would be the front line of defense while the U.S. Army trained its core group for battle. So, for the governor to have power over the people would be impossible, as the people were the “standing” army of the State.

                  Now, on to the Air Force argument that I have heard for years. Technically, the Air Force was originally the Army Air Corps. So, traditionally speaking, it is a wing of the Army, which is constitutional, but not a standing Air Force. This is once again, back to the point, that this is up to the citizens to take charge in.

                  Being that we are decades(if not centuries) past the original point of no standing army, then, by today’s standard, it is in and of itself legit. Go back to the original meaning of the constitution, the air force could NOT be a standing air force, you would have a militia of pilots. And, in today’s standard, we have some pretty good pilots who have not trained in, lets say, an F-15.

                  If the military today were to stand by its oath, obama would have been FORCIBLY removed from office(as well as at least half the presidents of the past).

                • Anonymous

                  I know the Air Force used to be the Army Air Corps thats not the point. Put an army general in charge of the air force and boom it’s the army air corps again.

                  So if China (for the sake of argument) attacked a militia would be expected to stand-up and defend against the chinese. If the Nat’l Guard who trains two weekends a month and two weeks a year (or whatever it is, and unless called into service by the federal gov’t) isn’t the answer then a “militia of the people” is who you expect to defend your home?? So where is this militia coming from? The generic term of “the people” is fine and dandy but who exactly?? To quote Jack Nicolson “…who’s going to guard that wall?? You Lt Weinberg??” Who is leading this militia? And what are his qualifications? I think that expecting a militia to appear out of “the people” is very nieave (spelling). What training do the people receive in order to defend and have some sort of common defense plan between counties and states? And if the US Army were to be training its guys for battle during this where do those people come from? Where does the “US Army” come from if there is no standing army??

                  The logisitics of a “militia” standing up to an invasion in modern day warfare would be a nightmare and way too late. Where would the vehicles be housed and who would maintain them?? During the revolutionary war all they had were cannons, muskets and horses. Individuals could maintain their own horses and use them as well as muskets. How many people do you know that own automatic rifles and/or assault rifles (i know people do b/c I do. However not everyone does or wants those)? What about tanks and other armored vehicles and the ammunition and fuel for such items? Who maintains the aircraft and their weapons? Who maintains parachutes for the ability to have the militia conduct airborne operations? If weapons and equipment break where does it go to get fixed?? Who fixes it? The list goes on and on.

                  In todays modern battlefield the logistics to have to rely on “the people” would crush our ability to properly defend the state and or nation. If there were only men with rifles walking around perhaps the militia could do a decent job at defending however times have changed and those times require a standing army. We have checks and balances in order so that power is not abused. I don’t think the people would let the US Military be used against them in todays world, and I doubt a lot of the military would go along with it.

                  For Obama to be removed by force from office, I would think impeachment would be the first step and in that impeachment he must be forced to resign or step-down or however it works. If in effect he didn’t leave office (although I do not know how he would have any power if the Congress and the courts didn’t recognize him as the POTUS) then the military may be forced to “remove” him. But what does that entail? Kicking him out of the white house and then what? Put is stuff out on Pennsylvania Ave?

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Where I think you are missing the point here, is at the inception of a standing army. IF there was NO STANDING ARMY TO BEGIN WITH……………….then go from there. The problem is, we have one now, and it is hard to conceive the idea of no standing army. This would eliminate what is known now as the National Guard, it wouldn’t have existed. Then, and only then, can the concept start making more since. You have to toss out what is known as modern day armies. I am talking from the founding fathers point of view. WE as a people, would defend our home. Example, using modern day terms, if your neighbors home were attacked(broken into, being robbed, car being stolen, pick something), you would protect it by gathering a gun. That is the best example I can give. As for a foreign country, if they were coming, we would know it much sooner, especially since no foreign country is going to be light in the number of “men” coming here.

                  As for your weapons used, remember, most are banned, or limited by laws(unconstitutional ones I might add), so access to what you are talking about is based on a Fed law that prohibits its use. If the law didn’t exist, who knows what people might own.

                  As for the repair of such weapons, this is also due to Fed law, but, if there wasn’t, there would be plenty of repair shops(motor pool personnel) out there.

                  Just to ask, have you read the Obamacare 2500 page law? It has a militia that will force you to see a doctor, they are to be paid the same as our military personnel, but have the RIGHT to remove you from your home. So, it might not be under the name Army, or Navy, or Air Force, or Marines, or National Guard, but they have rights even our military doesn’t have.

                  Now, technically, impeachment is the route one would go, UNLESS, Congress is in bed with the President(aka Nazi Pelosi and ilk). Then the Army should be the next step……..however, they answer to the Commander-in-Chief……….which is who? So, it is a never ending cycle, no one wants to bump the ship, no one wants to right it either.

                  As for where his stuff winds up if he is kicked out……….who cares, he won’t be allowed back in the White House………..what would it matter anyways?

                • Anonymous

                  I see your point if the laws never existed and a standing army was never raised. But in that point, how do we then defend against a nation with a standing army that has aircraft, tanks etc. If we assume the people could own whatever weapons neccessary who’s gonna buy a jet or a tank? And how many people have those except perhaps a few here and there. So then we must rely on weapons that people have in their homes while this foreign army comes around well supplied with plenty of people.

                  And if there were no CIA or other intelligence agencies how would we know that another country is intending on attacking us until they are over our skies?? I don’t think a militia has the capability to defeat a standing army in todays world.

                  I haven’t read Obamacare, 2500 pages is a little much for me. However if it does state that a “force” would come around and force people to go to the doctor then I’m sure “a militia of the people” in that case would surely be able to put up a fight and would. I know I would.

                  I understand about the military being under the CinC however if the orders are unconstitutional the military MUST disobey. Where that disobedience begins may not be until the tactical level (bn, companies, plts etc) but they still must or they are in breach of their oath. I do see how it can end up a never ending cycle however I don’t sit in the meetings with the Joint Chiefs and their thoughts on the policies and orders given by the POTUS. I do agree that no one wants to bump the ship or right it either. McCrystal did and was removed. I kind of think he did that on purpose.

                  As for his stuff I agree who cares but that wasn’t the point. I meant how does the military forcibly remove him? If he has no power (assuming that the congress, senate and courts agree with and abide by the laws of impeachment and him being removed) then what can he effect. I don’t think he would sit in the white house or somewhere else saying “i’m in charge!”. He would no longer have access to all the presidential security or transportation or anything of that sort so in essence his is forced to leave. How or who physically ensures that I don’t know.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Here would be how I would look at it………if we didn’t have a standing army, would we be a threat to other nations? How about, we wouldn’t have tanks and attack aircraft, if it wasn’t needed for nation building(or domination)? as for who would own one(tank, ect.), what has happened now that NASA has closed space exploration vehicles down? We would have the private sector doing all this.

                  Your assumption that nations want to attack us, is based on current conditions, what if there hadn’t been a civil war, and no standing army…………would we be better off or not? Sadly, thanks to our politicians, we may never know. We would have no use for a CIA ever. It should just make people wonder the what if, more than just trying to justify the stance. If we started to pull back, as RP has suggested, would we be better off or not…………who knows, cause we have NEVER tried it………..though nation building we have.

                  What I am basicly trying to understand is how all the people here are for the status quo, but don’t want to expand their minds to the what if area.

                  I guess the best way to describe this, is through biblical text, we are to believe there is no end and no begining………….the problem is, the human mind can’t think that way. we have this thing called time and space that confuses us in the aspect of not understanding that biblical theory. Hence science came up with the Big Bang, a begining, and death as an end………

                  If others get the concept, they may start to understand how RP thinks. It took me some time to understand, but, something has to change.

                • Anonymous

                  Bart… read your comments…. Here’s what I say…

                  Yeah… I wish rainwater were beer, but it ain’t gonna happen.

                  RP is dead wrong… why he’s not even got a philosophical underpinning to his view. It’s fairy land stuff…. all flowers and holding hands round the campfire.

                  There are real dangers in the world… right now Islam being the most serious existential threat… and Paul off spitting “its the fault of the Americans!”. While Jihadist tenants are guiding the acts and building coalitions in the Muslim world because of a 1400 year old totalitarian ideology, RP is sitting on an Island somewhere. This non-interventionist stuff of his has little… I repeat little value, and certainly only traction with his acolytes. Sorry can’t see it any other way. It’s just simply naive.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t worry. I don’t argue with these cats. These Ron Paul niggaz would suck the old man’s frizzled c@ck if they could. Ron paul is a muthaf^ckin religion to these idiots. I know this one b!tch on FB who, every god-damn day–is Ron Paul this, Ron paul that. It was like the prophet mohamamd for her.

            And also, here’s another interesting fact that you’ll like. Half of these Ron Paulistinian muthafuck@s aren’t even real. It’s like all spam generated.
            http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/06/ron_paul
            http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot

            Last thing, this @sswipe ain’t going to get elected head fag at the local pride parade, let alone POTUS. He’s a circus freak. The only thing they care about is the JEW–gold, neocons, israel, the JEW.

            Why do you think Don Black and his boyz love him so much? Paul doesn’t denounce any of this crap. I’m sure blacks are on page 2 of their manifesto.

            So ultimately, the old F#ck can circle jerk it with that cross-eyed idiot–Ralph Nayder. Fock them all!

            • KenInMontana

              Clean it up and you can repost it , however this comment is going away.

        • Anonymous

          Is jzaik Eric Dondero?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

          “Not to mention the rank and file paul cultists who are just nazis and neo-confederates.”

          I posted this previously, but it deserves repeating . . .

          The Nazi’s were big-government socialists with complete control over the economy. They controlled the auto industries, finance, . . . everything, much like the Obama administration.

          Ron Paul wants freedom. And so do I. So stop it with the Nazi nonsense, and name-calling in general. How about a little political discourse, or are you too stupid to come up with any?

    • Anonymous

      jzaik simply is passing on the lies of Lord and Levin. two of Ron Paul’s intellectual influences are Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, yes, two Jews. I am amazed that the same people who are offended at being call racist when criticizing Obama, will do the same thing with the label “anti-semite” or “jew hater” when they criticize the GOVERNMENT of Israel!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

        I’ll bet jzaik labels me anti-semitic, and I’m Jewish. I think Ron Paul’s ideology is closer to the Founders (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc.) than any other candidate, and that is the only ideology that can turn this nation around.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

        I’ll bet jzaik labels me anti-semitic, and I’m Jewish. I think Ron Paul’s ideology is closer to the Founders (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc.) than any other candidate, and that is the only ideology that can turn this nation around.

    • Anonymous

      Damn those Ron Paul austrian types for being such Jew haters! I can’t believe Ron Paul and his supporters follow these obvious Jew haters like Murrary Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

        LOL. If the Neocons desire a real education (rather than the indoctrination they have been receiving), they can find some of the best education on this site:

        http://mises.org/

    • KenInMontana

      In fairness and in the interest of civil, adult discourse, I am issuing the same warning to you that I gave an individual Paul supporter. Clean it up or else, I have had enough of this juvenile rhetoric.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      “F@ck Ron paul and his old descended nazi balls.”

      Would you stop it with the Nazi nonsense? The Nazi’s were big-government socialists with complete control over the economy. They controlled the auto industries, finance, . . . everything, much like the Obama administration.

      Ron Paul wants freedom. And so do I.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      “F@ck Ron paul and his old descended nazi balls.”

      Would you stop it with the Nazi nonsense? The Nazi’s were big-government socialists with complete control over the economy. They controlled the auto industries, finance, . . . everything, much like the Obama administration.

      Ron Paul wants freedom. And so do I.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

    I listened to Mr. Levin, who, overall, I think is a good man. HOWEVER, since scoop is NEVER gonna post this POV, which, is by all means, the TRUE way the founding fathers saw things………….and please, by all means, all the ones who call Ron Paul SUPPORTERS……NUTS, I say, then I am a FOUNDING FATHER NUT!!!!

    Jeffrey Lord Doesn’t Know The Founders or Ron Paul

    I ask you, if ANY of you can afford it………..LISTEN TO MIKE CHURCH……..

    Analysis……….Mr. Levin, is WRONG about the RIGHT TO SECEDE!!!!

    Go back and read what the word State means, not what we call states now(notice the capital letter difference).

    And to Mr. Lord……….you are WRONG, reread your Constitution!!

    Both Mr. Levin and Mr. Lord are advocating for tyranny of the Federal Government(in the aspect of not allowing secession), that is NOT how the Constitution was written.

    And what in GOD’S name are we talking about with this cherry-picking of the Constitution…………..the Indian’s were before the INITIAL Constitution’s writings. I hate to say it, they are stretching this one a tad.

    One thing I have to say that bothers me more than anything, is the word NEO in front of any other word. That tries to implicate someones thoughts into thinking Nazi, which is wholeheartedly wrong to do. Now, I did do some research, and for what it is worth, neo-liberal is the basic same thing as a libertarian, so, not sure the point of using that word necessarily.

    Now, I have been a hard-cored Constitutionalist for about the past 5 years thanks to Mike Church and Andrew Wilkow, and, that means that I support what Ron believes, though, for the masses out there, he is too old to win the election. What people look for is a young person, who has the charisma to draw people to them. But, I want to see what you guys think of Mike Church, Thomas Woods, and Kevin Gutsman(the last two co-authored the book “Who Killed The Constitution”).

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1188313820 Carol Cumbie

      Can someone tell me if Ron Paul doesn’t get pick for the nomination who do they vote for. The republican or Ron Paul which would help Obummer more. I think the main thing is for Obummer to be gone.
      The things I dislike that the Ron Paul people do is to deface property by putting up messages for Ron Paul.That should not happen. Or take it down afterwards. I know one thing when libertarians act like liberals when they don’t like what is being said or the candidate. They only hurt Ron Paul. The biggest thing that has hurt Paul to me is Alex Jones. With his reptile people and contrails. Getting in front of other americans and screaming into a bull horn doesn’t come of as very sane. He doesn’t talk down Obummer or Ron Paul. I like a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas that he has about the economy. His other views are hard to accept. I stand with Sarah Palin. She is would serve with a servants heart the way it should be. Instead of allowing our elected Officials to get wealthy from serving. Some of the things they do would land us in jail but how long does it take for them to even look into the wrongs some have done. Obama is running like a king. She has stood the test of the media. She has republicans wheelers and dealers that would love for her to be gone. They will lose the big money if she doesn’t go away. Her record stands. She has never been afraid to tell what Obama was doing wrong. She is the one he is most afraid of. She stood for candidates any of the others did. If you look at what she did in Alaska. She can beat Obama. She is the only one right now who can. Go look at her old acceptance speech and compare it to obama’s. If it was a chose of Obama or Paul I would rather Paul had it. I truly believe Obummer is trying to destroy America and everything it stands for. The progressives made sure Obummer was elected. There also was a lot of voter fraud that went on. Another Acorn was found guilty for voter fraud. Acorn is still around just different name. Al Franken didn’t really win even though they know that he still stayed in office until the next election. That needs to be changed. Democrats are dirty players. They don’t care how they get it as long as they get it.Gaddafi’s was given plenty of money by Obummer less than a year before they decide go after the middle east. Obummer has brought in a few houndred thousand muslims into this county they get housing SS, food stamps and everything is paid for them. Christians are not allowed to pray but no problem for muslims. I see something really wrong with it. Obummer lied when he said we were not a christian nation. As soon as he got back to this country congress & senate should have been waiting for him and asked him to apolize. If he didn’t they all should have record a message to go to the middle east saying we are a Christian nation. Then Obummer wonders why americans don’t believe he is a Christian.

      • Anonymous

        Carol – I really appreciate your heartfelt layout here. I understand what Sarah is doing – she’s letting the field weed itself out for a bit – letting the candidates hit back and forth while she stays out of the fray. Right before the caucuses – she’ll get in and hope for a long shot at it.
        Unfortunately – this is not good either. This process is crucial as a galvanization of the public’s decision making process. She’s holding back because she is afraid of the debates because she has a really hard time thinking quickly and she is concerned that this weakness will show. The longer she waits – the more protected she’ll be by her “rock star” status.
        I really appreciate her and her ability to promote the ideals of freedom. Unfortunately – we cannot afford to have the next president not be well grounded in knowledge and well rounded principle. I say this with all cognizance of her record – it’s just not enough.

  • Frederick

    I can see this is going to be a long thread. LOL..

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      sometimes………….long is good. debate is always good. without debate, you get obama………….sry to say

      • Frederick

        I listened to that radio spot you linked to, and It is a hell of a lot more responsible from a historical context than that nonsense Lord, and Levin were discussing.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Thanks for taking the time to listen. I dont know how badly I have been attacked here defending the truth, but, what I have gained from this site is: I am a Jew-hater or anti-semite, or a Paulnut. Funny how no one watched that video before calling me names.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          Thanks for taking the time to listen. I dont know how badly I have been attacked here defending the truth, but, what I have gained from this site is: I am a Jew-hater or anti-semite, or a Paulnut. Funny how no one watched that video before calling me names.

  • Ben Lee

    Are you sure that’s Mark Levin on that clip and not Debbie Wasserman Schultz? He’s using every Saul Alinsky tactic in the book on Ron Paul. Criticize Mark Levin and you’re an anti-Semite. “Racist, secessionist, neo-Confederates, Monarchists, crackpots…” I haven’t heard this much fear mongering since Orson Wells was on the radio. Levin and his guest have so many straw man arguments my hay fever is acting up. And by the way, Jeffrey Lord, Ronald Reagan was a supporter of Ron Paul.

    Levin and Rush Limbaugh are obviously panicked that many people have grown tired of hearing present day Conservative argue for “liberty and small government” and do nothing about it. (John Boehner’s phony budget this year is bigger than Pelosi’s). They’re tired of the fear mongering about mushroom clouds over NY if we don’t invade other countries. Oh, and doubling the military budget in 8 years is not small government. Creating the Homeland Security Dept is not small government. Spending 1.5 trillion dollars on nation building in countries that hate us is not small government.

    More and more people are following Ron Paul because they realize we don’t have two parties in this country we have one big government party— a Republican wing that likes corporatism, endless war, deficits, assaults on civil liberties like marriage and drugs, and expanded surveillance, and Democrats that like corporatism, the nanny state, taxes and assaults on commercial liberties. They both want to use their power in the government to force their notion of personal behavior on the rest of us. Both sides, conservative and liberal, suffer from the same problem. Both sides claim belief in ‘personal freedom’ up until the point a person does something that violates the morals or values of an individual. For some it’s abortion or gay marriage, for others it is eating fatty foods and making too much money. In both cases, groups use law as a means of forcing their moral beliefs onto other people.

    • Anonymous

      you wish

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

        uh, short and pointless……….elaborate on what you dislike, “you wish” is an absolute rubbish answer.

        • Anonymous

          No it’s not.

          • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

            i repeat…………..rubbish

  • Anonymous

    This is Garbage.

    The fact that this dude is so Arrogant that He think that Conservative ideas have obligatory unity and that they could never be found in the ”other side”.

    The non-intervention policy isn’t ”left-wing”, it is an aspect of Conservatism the conservative have forgotten, the left can be pandering to it, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is a Conservative idea.

    Also ”Neo-Liberal” ? … You mean like Obama but more scary lol ?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Pambas, I agree totally with you, except on the Neo-Liberal part………technically, neo-liberal is EXACTLY what a Libertarian is………read up on it. I just hate using the word NEO in any form. I takes away from the true meaning of what a person is………obama is a facist, Ron Paul is a libertarian(aka Neo-Liberal).

      and just to prove my point, from one of the more left-winged sites in the world, wikipedia, here are the 10 points of a neo-liberal.

      Fiscal policy Governments should not run large deficits that have to be paid back by future citizens, and such deficits can only have a short term effect on the level of employment in the economy. Constant deficits will lead to higher inflation and lower productivity, and should be avoided. Deficits should only be used for occasional stabilization purposes.

      Redirection of public spending from subsidies (especially what neoliberals call “indiscriminate subsidies”) and other spending neoliberals deem wasteful toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment

      Tax reform– broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates to encourage innovation and efficiency;

      Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;

      Floating exchange rates;

      Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs; thus encouraging competition and long term growth

      Liberalization of the “capital account” of the balance of payments, that is, allowing people the opportunity to invest funds overseas and allowing foreign funds to be invested in the home country

      Privatization of state enterprises; Promoting market provision of goods and services which the government cannot provide as effectively or efficiently, such as telecommunications, where having many service providers promotes choice and competition.

      Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;

      Legal security for property rights; and,

      Financialisation of capital.

  • http://twitter.com/jdtarheel Jamie Lowe

    If NEOCON is a code word for Jew. Then what is NEO-LIBERAL a code word for? The radio guy that shall remain nameless is MIKE CHURCH. Why does Levin accept the notion that our Federal Over-Lords shall dictate to us how to live our lives? Why is session off the table when it looks like the only way out from Mordor on the Potomac?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      OMG, where have all you Mike Church people been for the past year. I have talked this guy up, and been shot down on this site. Mike is by far one of THE most Constitutional men I have heard in years. Thanks Jamie, glad to see more and more Mike Church people.

      • http://twitter.com/jdtarheel Jamie Lowe

        I listen to Mike Church when Howard Stern is on Vacation or taking the day off.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          I listen to Howard after Wilkow, on replay, but i have to admit, he(Howard) was the initial reason i got sirius.

  • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

    It is a GREAT thing that Ron Paul is no Conservative…

    Progressive == Bad

    Conservative == BAD

    Libertarian == GREAT

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      I like the way you think, :)

  • Han Solo

    This idiots entire slanderous article was DESTROYED point for point by two super smart conservative historians Dr. Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman on the radio the other day. The two professors nailed this guy to the wall for his looney assertions.

    http://mikechurch.com/Public-Transcripts/jeffrey-lord-doesnt-know-founders-or-ron-paul.html

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      And I see more Red, White, and Dude’s here. Dang, I love it!!

      Too bad this core group here is too lazy to honestly listen to Mr. Lord get destroyed by 2 EDUCATED men. I wish Mike would do this MUCH more often. Glad to see Thomas sent a message to Mark Levin, too bad Mr. Levin ignored it.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      I am currently listening to Mike Church’s interview with Doctors Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman. They destroy Jeffrey Lord’s credibility.

      Thanks for the link.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      I am currently listening to Mike Church’s interview with Doctors Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman. They destroy Jeffrey Lord’s credibility.

      Thanks for the link.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

      I am currently listening to Mike Church’s interview with Doctors Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman. They destroy Jeffrey Lord’s credibility.

      Thanks for the link.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul can always count on his share of coverage from the Right Scoop website…as long as it’s a propaganda hit piece delivered by neocon idols. This site is little more than a cyberspace teleprompter for the establishment GOP. Perhaps you should change the name of this site to “The Daily Pharisee.”

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Hey now Hardsell, WE, meaning the Ron Paul supporters, DO NOT need to sink to their level of name-calling. If we refrain from it, as they like to call us names, then they will look silly, not us. We win on truth, so far, all I have seen is ONE hit piece that the regulars are falling for, hook, line and sinker, but, if they read through these posts, there are at least 4 posts of the Mike Church Post Show Show with Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutsman. So far, not ONE REBUTTAL, which is amazing, considering all the name-calling coming from them.

      • KenInMontana

        Barton, as to name calling, well all you need do is check previous threads on this site to see your fellow Paul supporters at their “name-calling” best.

        • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

          And most of the time it starts win Conservative start calling people “Paulbots” or “Mindless drones” or just insult anyone that support Ron Paul by remove him from polls and other analytic’s that start showing support for Ron Paul and say “well that cant be right no one in the right mind could support Ron Paul so we will manipulative the data and ensure the results WE want”

          This site is FAMOUS for poll data manipulation and openly does it, because Ron Paul can not be shown to have any Support, the GOP est. would not like that

          • KenInMontana

            Scoop has his reasons and it is his site, so in the end the choice to be here and participate is yours. Leaving Ron Paul off of a poll is hardly manipulation, as there is nothing to manipulate. If he were to place Paul on his poll, and then actually change the data, well then you could accuse him of manipulating the data. That said, according to his own supporters Paul is not a Conservative, that being the case why would you expect to see him listed among Conservative candidates on a known Conservative site? Ron Paul is a Libertarian, his own policy statements place him squarely in that political ideology, so why then, does he continue to wear the (R) of the Republican party? Unless it is to draw the matching campaign funds from the RNC.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              best i can answer, two party system…………..best i got for ya there

              AND since he is more in line with the (R) and NOT the (D), that should also answers it.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              best i can answer, two party system…………..best i got for ya there

              AND since he is more in line with the (R) and NOT the (D), that should also answers it.

            • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

              There has been more than 1 poll where he has either had Paul on it, then removed after Paul starting getting Majority support, or publicly stated he would change the data to “reflect the proper amount of support” for Ron Paul…

              Of course it is his site and he can do as he wishes, and I can continue to protest until I am banned… Which would not shock me since Conservatives love censorship as much as liberals.

              AS to why Ron Paul Runs as a R, Because there are far far far far far far too many mindless dolts that continue to believe that we are required to have a 2 party system, and that only a “R” or a “D” should when an election, many of them comment on this site. Further if you think the Republican Party is made up of only “Conservatives” then you really need to take a closer look at the party, In fact “Conservatives” are in the minority of the party, at least the elected part of the party. Most of the Elected Republicans are unprincipled political hacks who do not have any ideology other than the ideology of “Reelection” .. That is what he “R” in republican stands for, Reelection.

            • Anonymous

              “Ron Paul is a Libertarian, his own policy statements place him squarely in that political ideology, so why then, does he continue to wear the (R) of the Republican party?”

              To answer your question, he runs as a Republican because our “democratic” electoral system is fraudulent. The Federal Election Commision is comprised of a select group of only Republicans and Democrats. They decide who can get on ballots, get in debates, etc. The two parties, Democrat and Republican, exclusively dominate membership of the FEC, thus insuring that no third party candidate becomes a serious threat to their duopoly.

              That being said, your question wreaks hypocrisy. This country doesn’t hear Ron Paul trying to sound like his Republican opponents, they hear his Republican opponents trying to sound like him.

  • Anonymous

    Great interview. Ron Paul and his minions need to be exposed for what they are. Conservative bloggers at best tolerate them in the name of “freedom of speech”, or they use them for their hit counts by ridiculing them knowing it will drive comments up. They don’t take them seriously and they don’t understand how they undermine real conservatism.

    • Han Solo

      >Great interview

      Great lies and totally crazy made up history.

    • Han Solo

      >Great interview

      Great lies and totally crazy made up history.

      • Anonymous

        Ron Paul fans sure do know crazy, I’ll give you that much.

        • Han Solo

          Only from dealing with people like you who can’t advance anything more intelligent in a discussion than personal insults.

          • Anonymous

            As I said in a comment the other day, there are two facts about Ron Paul that are not in dispute: he’s an anti-American isolationist who blames American foreign policy for 9/11, and he’s a proven anti-Semite. If you don’t know those two facts you cannot argue about them, if you do know those two facts and still support him, you are not worth arguing with.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              LISTEN TO THE LINK, since you want to blab about isolationism………….anti-semite, prove it, otherwise, it is rubbish to me. Calling a cow a horse, doesn’t make it a horse, just cause you said so…………

              • Anonymous

                Like I said, you’re either stupid or you’re an anti-American Jew hater.

                I’ll watch the video.

                • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_T67C574AMJAV42XUZUBEWYNNUI DanE

                  Since when is embracing the positions of the Founding Fathers “anti-American”?

            • Han Solo

              Funny how not a single one of your ‘facts’ are true.

              If your going to spout off those kind of facts than your living in another world from reality.

              • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                i think she is refering to david horriblewitz’s column, http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-is-a-vicious-anti-semite-and-anti-american-and-conservatives-need-to-wash-their-hands-of-him/
                withdrawing money(under the guise of foreign aid) is not anti-semetic. I want us to back Israel up, if and when it calls for it. Right now, they can hold their own, we don’t need to help them currently. And trust me, they have attacked Iran before, without our approval, why do we need to back them currently?!? They are by all means holding their own right now.

                • Anonymous

                  No, I’m not referring to that article. I haven’t read it. I do admire David Horowitz so will read it when I have time.

                  Thanks for proving you’re a Jew hater, though. Can always count on you Paultnuts to prove it.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  how in god’s holy name am i a jew-hater!?!? you sure are full of name-calling and no facts.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  how in god’s holy name am i a jew-hater!?!? you sure are full of name-calling and no facts.

                • Anonymous

                  You people really are pathetic.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  you know what jaynie, i think you need a warm glass of shut the hell up, it sure wouldnt hurt you any………………..mindless turd.

                • Anonymous

                  You people really are pathetic.

                • Anonymous

                  Enough. How many times do you have to hit yourself in the head with the stupid hammer, before you realize your arguments are stupid? There is nothing other than stupidity in arguing with a paulnut. IGNORE them. They’re no different from any other trolls; keep interacting with them, and they’ll keep throwing their fits and conniptions. STOP. If you want to talk and discuss, do it with a RATIONAL person.

                • Anonymous

                  You’re absolutely right.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  the difference is, my HONEST talk has scared all of you, I have YET to stoop to name calling. AND, for as long as I have been here, most you had be very polite, until the name Ron Paul fell on this site. I dont know what makes you think I am not rational, but, I will be willing to DEBATE any argument you have, as long as you site where you get it from. Jaynie has done nothing more than name-calling, which, if you are agreeing with her, are no better, nor any wiser of a person to even think of discussing ANY issue with, yet alone the 2 she has thrown at me. I dont care if you call me a Paulnut or not, it fazes me none. I just dont get how any of you think you win an argument with name-calling. If you truely want to know what name-calling is…………….how about astro-turf…………that ring a bell…………or how about teabaggers……………or just flat out racists…………..to me, jaynie sounds like a liberal to me, sinking to the only argument a conservative can’t win, name-calling. Sheesh, and I thought you guys were older than 10………….so much for that thought, huh!?

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  the difference is, my HONEST talk has scared all of you, I have YET to stoop to name calling. AND, for as long as I have been here, most you had be very polite, until the name Ron Paul fell on this site. I dont know what makes you think I am not rational, but, I will be willing to DEBATE any argument you have, as long as you site where you get it from. Jaynie has done nothing more than name-calling, which, if you are agreeing with her, are no better, nor any wiser of a person to even think of discussing ANY issue with, yet alone the 2 she has thrown at me. I dont care if you call me a Paulnut or not, it fazes me none. I just dont get how any of you think you win an argument with name-calling. If you truely want to know what name-calling is…………….how about astro-turf…………that ring a bell…………or how about teabaggers……………or just flat out racists…………..to me, jaynie sounds like a liberal to me, sinking to the only argument a conservative can’t win, name-calling. Sheesh, and I thought you guys were older than 10………….so much for that thought, huh!?

                • Anonymous

                  Go read what I’ve written in other posts highlighting you foaming at the mouth paulnuts. I’m not restating it, here, when you can go find it, yourself. As for your pathetic attempt at baiting me, like a Conservative (something paulnuts aren’t) talk show host (that sat in for another great conservative, MARK LEVIN) says:

                  “Walk west, till your hat floats.”

                  Or, as the Great One, himself, would tell you:

                  “GET OFF MY PHONE, YOU BIG DOPE.”

                • Anonymous

                  No, I’m not referring to that article. I haven’t read it. I do admire David Horowitz so will read it when I have time.

                  Thanks for proving you’re a Jew hater, though. Can always count on you Paultnuts to prove it.

                • Anonymous

                  “…And trust me, they have attacked Iran before, without our approval…”

                  that’s Iraq 1981… unless you are referring to the Stuxnet worm.

                  Just to clarify.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  *accept the correction* but, I am still asking the simple question, name-calling isnt winning the argument, but then again…………..not shocked. Dr. Woods and Dr. Gutsman have blown all of “ya’lls” theories out of the water, but no one has countered those arguments, which, tells me most here believe in revisionists history, not the truth.

                  My theory is, Israel is quit well off when it comes to their OWN nukes, and I just don’t see them “helpless”. I do believe in the biblical point of view, which is we are to DEFEND Israel, NOT ARM THEM. Also, where I am lost, we havn’t gone into the other nations we deamed “dangerous” and taken them out.

                • Anonymous

                  I agree that Israel can handle their own. They have been doing it for quite some time now. Should we help defend them if needed? Yes. Do we need to front them everything? No. I also believe that we should let Israel handle its own business and if they want to do something in defense of their nation then who are we to stop them?

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  *applause*

                  I so totally agree with you. Couldnt have said it better myself.

                • las1

                  I agree with some of the things you said. Firstly… the Paul supporters are the worst at name calling and act like perfect Leninists in storming Republican events and conferences. Read up on how Lenin’s Bolsheviks overwhelmed the Mensheviks (the majority actually) with these tactics. Paul followers use these tactics with set doctrines and dogmas ready to use against violators of their sacred beliefs.

                  We’re getting short on space here to go into much detail, but Wood’s debunking was not a total success. The so-called non-interventionist argument posed by Lord was not addressed by Woods. It is true America attacked “Canada” which was really colonial Canada, but what about Barbary coast under Jefferson, what about the “entangling alliance” initiated by Washington in the Franco-American Alliance which was pushed also by Jefferson and negotiated by Franklin.

                  Once the self-serving alliance served America’s purpose it was scrapped unilaterally by America in the early 1790’s. France could accuse America of being positively “Islamic” regarding their negotiated treaties. We won’t even go into how easy it was in the late 18th, early 19th century to remain an isolated continent in early America. The isolationist vision – sorry non-interventionist -(a violated vision at that) was surpassed by global sea faring mobility… the vision impossible to maintain. Woods deliberately misconstrued some of Lord’s broader points in comparing Paulite tactics to leftist tactics, IMO.

                  Netanyahu said himself Israel can fight its own battles, but it is true Ameica’s aid to the tune of 2-3 B per year is significant, but What Paul supporters always always ignore is the malevolent nature of the regimes surrounding Israel and their absolute unwillingness to factor in Islamic dictates of conquest operating over 1400 years of history… instead preferring to take the bogus Chompskyite line of American imperialism/terrorist state/American’s always at fault line. This is where the Paulites and the Left are in perfect symmetry.

                  Space is too short to expand… but there will be opportunities coming up judging by Paul supporters’ responses. Thanks for your response Bart…

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Jaynie, do me a favor, just for me……………watch/listen to this

      then post your comments on it

      • Anonymous

        I watched it. All I can say about it is two things: radio appears to have very low standards and the ability of people to convince themselves of anything is great.

        By the way, I also think Ed Morrissey sucks on the radio so Church isn’t alone in his suckage.

    • Anonymous

      Jaynie59, can you point me to some of the books you have read to come up with your view of “real conservatism”?

  • C. Kelly Hurst

    I love Mark Levin, but he & (TRS) is wrong about Ron Paul. We’ve tried the meddling in other countries, bombings, sanctions, economic warfare, bribery, etc. IT DOESN’T WORK, we are breeding the next round of terrorists (a self perpetuating cycle) read the CIA reports on it. Calling RP a neo-liberal is ridiculous, he is by far the most fiscal conservative candidate out of the entire field (I have not heard one other candidate talk about ABOLISHING the IRS and repealing the 16th Amendment, which would effectively rid us of an income tax). Seriously, because he wants to stop bombing people, he is Neo-Liberal?! That’s absurd, he also couldn’t be any further than a racist. His whole platform is on personal liberty and economic freedom from the government for ALL people. Look at his voting record against any of those “conservative” candidates, he blows them all out of the water. Seriously TRS I love your channel but you have got to rethink your position on RP and stop following these ridiculous commentaries.

    • Anonymous

      Who could have possibly guessed that Wilsonian foreign policy wouldn’t work? It is not as if we had specific examples in the last century about the dangers of meddling in the affairs of other nations and the direct consequences it led to by the name of Hitler or WW2, right?

    • Anonymous

      Who could have possibly guessed that Wilsonian foreign policy wouldn’t work? It is not as if we had specific examples in the last century about the dangers of meddling in the affairs of other nations and the direct consequences it led to by the name of Hitler or WW2, right?

  • http://twitter.com/ThomasPaine_Fan tea-partier
  • Orange Shaman

    Amen, brother.

  • Orange Shaman

    I love how conservative pundits rant on and on about how the liberals can not win on ideas, so they resort to name-calling and flat-out lies. What do we see here? Exactly what they blame the liberals for. How low will they sink? Answer: Like all intellectually dishonest people…STRAIGHT TO HELL, if that’s what it takes. Problem is that you cannot destroy the dynamic power of the HUMAN SPIRIT! I’ve BEEN drug down to Hell before…both spiritually AND PHYSICALLY (Middle East). I stand stronger than ever because of it.

    There are plenty of “Paulbots” who just aren’t able to articulate themselves well OR potential saboteurs. That gives those on this site and people like Levin and Lord ammo. However…every time you go up against someone like ME or Paul himself…you JUST PLAIN LOSE. That’s why conservatives have resorted to “liberal tactics” as they’ve been griping about forever…and it’s to ATTACK THEIR OWN instead of sticking to the EASY target of OBAMA. How sad indeed.

    • KenInMontana

      Funny, I don’t ever recall losing anything to you, I have watched you egg on your fellow RP supporters here with the diatribes and rhetoric, I find it extremely laughable when you accuse posters here of using the same Alinsky tactics that yourself and your fellow Paul supporters use on anyone who isn’t 100% in your camp.

      • Orange Shaman

        Alinsky? You can accuse some of the others of that because the more juvenille and petty stuff from them I don’t pay attention to. How am I using these tactics though? My voicing a disagreement to what yall say isn’t anymore “ends justify means” than you voicing your disagreements back at me.

        If you don’t believe you’ve lost the debate, then you might not have…but then again…of course you’re not going to lose, if you don’t admit defeat even when the ideology you rally for has been tried before and failed just as miserably as what’s being done now.

        Civility and credibility might just be in the eye of the beholder in these discussions/debates/arguments. I love having these discussions even if in the end, we all still think one another is wrong. Here’s why I personally believe that you and your other conservative brethren have lost in the world of ideas. I try to point out things from conservatives (not just RINOS) which has failed, but instead of any logical defense of these ideas, I just get called a name or am told I don’t know what I’m talking about.

        Instead, most of those who I argue with spew lies and put words in Paul’s mouth. As far as ideology, the calls that conservatism is actually about smaller government is just not the case and past Republicans to include the “almighty Reagan” is perfect proof of that.

        We can’t just reduce the role of government in select areas that the liberals like only. We have to eliminate the role of government in our personal lives and in our empire building and overall global militarism as well or else our nation WILL FALL.

        Of course you can stop the government waste and both parties agree with doing that, if they’ll actually tackle it instead of bicker over something else that’s petty…but that’s not enough to even take care of the deficit. We need MORE cuts to get ourselves back on the right track. Question is…where? Of course you can stop entitlement and welfare programs and you might slowly start reducing the debt…but it doesn’t seem morally righteous to do so when we have military bases around the world which aren’t even being used and we’re spending money to not only rebuild what we’ve destroyed, but improve 3rd world infrastructure in the Middle East. I’m all for stopping welfare, Medicare, and Social Security completely…but if I had to choose what stops first…I’ll choose the endless wars over ANY of those anyday.

        Priorities matter and liberals NOR conservatives are prioritizing properly to ensure that this nation has any hope whatsoever of preventing collapse under its own weight.

      • Orange Shaman

        Alinsky? You can accuse some of the others of that because the more juvenille and petty stuff from them I don’t pay attention to. How am I using these tactics though? My voicing a disagreement to what yall say isn’t anymore “ends justify means” than you voicing your disagreements back at me.

        If you don’t believe you’ve lost the debate, then you might not have…but then again…of course you’re not going to lose, if you don’t admit defeat even when the ideology you rally for has been tried before and failed just as miserably as what’s being done now.

        Civility and credibility might just be in the eye of the beholder in these discussions/debates/arguments. I love having these discussions even if in the end, we all still think one another is wrong. Here’s why I personally believe that you and your other conservative brethren have lost in the world of ideas. I try to point out things from conservatives (not just RINOS) which has failed, but instead of any logical defense of these ideas, I just get called a name or am told I don’t know what I’m talking about.

        Instead, most of those who I argue with spew lies and put words in Paul’s mouth. As far as ideology, the calls that conservatism is actually about smaller government is just not the case and past Republicans to include the “almighty Reagan” is perfect proof of that.

        We can’t just reduce the role of government in select areas that the liberals like only. We have to eliminate the role of government in our personal lives and in our empire building and overall global militarism as well or else our nation WILL FALL.

        Of course you can stop the government waste and both parties agree with doing that, if they’ll actually tackle it instead of bicker over something else that’s petty…but that’s not enough to even take care of the deficit. We need MORE cuts to get ourselves back on the right track. Question is…where? Of course you can stop entitlement and welfare programs and you might slowly start reducing the debt…but it doesn’t seem morally righteous to do so when we have military bases around the world which aren’t even being used and we’re spending money to not only rebuild what we’ve destroyed, but improve 3rd world infrastructure in the Middle East. I’m all for stopping welfare, Medicare, and Social Security completely…but if I had to choose what stops first…I’ll choose the endless wars over ANY of those anyday.

        Priorities matter and liberals NOR conservatives are prioritizing properly to ensure that this nation has any hope whatsoever of preventing collapse under its own weight.

        • KenInMontana

          If you had paid any attention to my history of posts here you would realize just how ridiculously off the mark you are on my politics.

        • KenInMontana

          If you had paid any attention to my history of posts here you would realize just how ridiculously off the mark you are on my politics.

        • KenInMontana

          If you had paid any attention to my history of posts here you would realize just how ridiculously off the mark you are on my politics.

      • Orange Shaman

        Alinsky? You can accuse some of the others of that because the more juvenille and petty stuff from them I don’t pay attention to. How am I using these tactics though? My voicing a disagreement to what yall say isn’t anymore “ends justify means” than you voicing your disagreements back at me.

        If you don’t believe you’ve lost the debate, then you might not have…but then again…of course you’re not going to lose, if you don’t admit defeat even when the ideology you rally for has been tried before and failed just as miserably as what’s being done now.

        Civility and credibility might just be in the eye of the beholder in these discussions/debates/arguments. I love having these discussions even if in the end, we all still think one another is wrong. Here’s why I personally believe that you and your other conservative brethren have lost in the world of ideas. I try to point out things from conservatives (not just RINOS) which has failed, but instead of any logical defense of these ideas, I just get called a name or am told I don’t know what I’m talking about.

        Instead, most of those who I argue with spew lies and put words in Paul’s mouth. As far as ideology, the calls that conservatism is actually about smaller government is just not the case and past Republicans to include the “almighty Reagan” is perfect proof of that.

        We can’t just reduce the role of government in select areas that the liberals like only. We have to eliminate the role of government in our personal lives and in our empire building and overall global militarism as well or else our nation WILL FALL.

        Of course you can stop the government waste and both parties agree with doing that, if they’ll actually tackle it instead of bicker over something else that’s petty…but that’s not enough to even take care of the deficit. We need MORE cuts to get ourselves back on the right track. Question is…where? Of course you can stop entitlement and welfare programs and you might slowly start reducing the debt…but it doesn’t seem morally righteous to do so when we have military bases around the world which aren’t even being used and we’re spending money to not only rebuild what we’ve destroyed, but improve 3rd world infrastructure in the Middle East. I’m all for stopping welfare, Medicare, and Social Security completely…but if I had to choose what stops first…I’ll choose the endless wars over ANY of those anyday.

        Priorities matter and liberals NOR conservatives are prioritizing properly to ensure that this nation has any hope whatsoever of preventing collapse under its own weight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/allisonbricker Allison Bricker

    So then according to these Neo-Conservatives, Angelo M. Codevilla who the American Spectator used to sell subscriptions is also a “liberal”, as he also speaks to the FACT that Founders such as Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Adams were non-interventionist.

    The Levin-Lord interview is so full of logical fallacy and ad hominems it makes me cringe to think anyone would take these two at face value.

    When will either of these two provide a source to where Madison, Jefferson, Adams et al actually said the president has the authority to make WAR and that military adventurism was their goal; hmm gee because they cannot as none of the aforementioned ever did advocate for Imperialism.

    Perhaps they could connect Hamilton as a fellow warmonger, but Hamilton also wanted a King, appointed state governors, and Senators for Life, hardly awesome company to associate oneself with as proof the founding generation supported war.

    Mr. Levin’s name calling coupled with Jeffrey Lord’s revisionist history make for the perfect Warmonger Propaganda Machine.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    Sorry, but these arguments do not survive my reply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      Tom, love your books, hope others read them someday, when they come out of their comas.

      Glad to see you drop in……………

      Ok, so where are all the “paulnut” name callers now?

      A real author and historian is here………..debate, please, i beg you

      As Goldberg(WCW wrestler) once said……….”Who’s next!?”

      • Anonymous

        Loudmouth Levin was owned by Woods so bad in the last debate that he resorted to deleting anyone who even brought the topic or Tom Woods up on his facebook page. This was really stepped up after the challenge Woods posed to Levin.

        I think that tells you all that needs to be said about who won that exchange. If Levin is smarter this time, instead of attempting to debate someone with far more knowledge and debating skill than him, he will ignore the latest Tom Woods video and stick to his high pitched nasal voice screaming on his talk show. It really was like watching Evander Holyfield fight a local Toughman competitor.

      • Anonymous

        Loudmouth Levin was owned by Woods so bad in the last debate that he resorted to deleting anyone who even brought the topic or Tom Woods up on his facebook page. This was really stepped up after the challenge Woods posed to Levin.

        I think that tells you all that needs to be said about who won that exchange. If Levin is smarter this time, instead of attempting to debate someone with far more knowledge and debating skill than him, he will ignore the latest Tom Woods video and stick to his high pitched nasal voice screaming on his talk show. It really was like watching Evander Holyfield fight a local Toughman competitor.

    • Anonymous

      Mark Levin being destroyed by Tom Woods in debate? It is deja vu all over again….

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

    • Anonymous

      Mark Levin being destroyed by Tom Woods in debate? It is deja vu all over again….

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

      Glad to see you Dr. Woods.

    • Anonymous

      That was a home run! I couldn’t stop laughing. Thank you, Tom Woods, for absolutely smashing Levin. That was pure ownage.

    • Anonymous

      That was a home run! I couldn’t stop laughing. Thank you, Tom Woods, for absolutely smashing Levin. That was pure ownage.

  • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

    ru paul is a communist

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      so intelligent………..ru paul, gosh, that took one brain cell to think of………..and communist…………..what is the definition of a commie, or do you not even know!?

      ok, time for the (r)epublican to come out……………..

      let’s see, what makes, as you so eloquently put it, Ru Paul a communist………..list your reason for calling him that WITH PROOF, otherwise, your argument can’t hold water.

    • Anonymous

      Since we all know neo-cons like Levin don’t directly trace their lineage back to the Trotsky influences of WFB or Irving Kristol or anything, right?

    • Anonymous

      Since we all know neo-cons like Levin don’t directly trace their lineage back to the Trotsky influences of WFB or Irving Kristol or anything, right?

    • Orange Shaman

      Oh yeah. We can see that clearly in his voting record which is just FULL of wealth redistributions, government takeover of businesses and destruction of free markets, as well as government seizures of private property away from individuals.

      Wait…you mean he’s voted the EXACT OPPOSITIVE of those things? I must have read wrong when I researched what a “communist” actually is then. MY BAD. Yeesh.

  • http://twitter.com/Winston80 Winston

    ru paul is a communist

  • Jason siejutt

    Mike Church has two excellent guests on his show that absolutely destroyed Lord and his out right lies on Paul and the founding fathers.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      wow, more red, white, and dude………..what in the wide-wide world of sports is a goin on here!?

  • Jason siejutt

    The Main stream republicans are afraid of anyone outside of there click. look at our issues they were created by republicans like George Bush as well as democrats.

    Lord calls Paul a threat. Yes the threat is to the establishment.

    Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman destroy Lord. Ask yourself why Levin hates Paul so much. Mark Levin is turning into a Neocon!!! Do you think Ronald Reagan would support our current foreign policy?? No he wouldn’t and look at 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Reagan pulled us out. Bush would have doubled down and invaded!!!

  • Cato_Va

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods69.html

    Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com On The Mark

    Lincoln WAS a tyrant. His suspension of habeus corpus was nothing. He imprisoned the Maryland legislature to prevent them from voting against his wishes. He also imprisoned newspaper editors who opposed going to war. The list is very very long.

    Some have said, “Freeing the slaves was worth Lincoln’s constitutional violations.” But, freeing the slaves was NEVER the point. The Emancipation Proclamation explicitly excluded freedom for slaves in states and other areas that were actually under Union control, like Kentucky for one example. It also triggered mass desertions from the Union Army and riots in the streets of large cities in the North. How could that be if the purpose of the war had been to free slaves?

    The motivation for secession, which everyone at the time understood to be the right of each state, was not the threat of abolition, but rather the perpetual redistribution of wealth. Sound familiar?

    James Madison authored the U.S. Constitution so he might know a little something about it. He said, “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

    • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

      Most people do not realize that Lincolns Goal was to SEND ALL OF THE SLAVES BACK HOME TO AFRICA. He did not want to Free here in the USA.

      Lincoln started the process by which the federal government is more powerful than the states…

      It was then accelerated massively about 60 years later by the Progressive with the Aid and Full support of “Conservatives”

    • Frederick

      In order to more fully understand the truth about who Lincoln was, one has to be willing to consider all things Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was not a very popular politician, and was the most controversal president this nation has ever had. The more I read about Lincoln, the more I am convinced that he was a 19th century big government progressive. His speeches, pandering, policy etc.. all ring with a pro government tone.

  • http://twitter.com/youngkitz Jared Kitzrow

    This is a pretty disgusting hit-piece, as usual. Levin has lost a lot of respect from myself over the past couple years.

    These “conservatives” would take Obama 100% of the time over Ron Paul.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      and sadly, they sound like obamazombies when they bash Ron Paul fans calling then Paulnuts or Paulbots. So amazing how Saul Alinsky wins nearly everytime with those who dont know the truth.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      and sadly, they sound like obamazombies when they bash Ron Paul fans calling then Paulnuts or Paulbots. So amazing how Saul Alinsky wins nearly everytime with those who dont know the truth.

  • http://twitter.com/youngkitz Jared Kitzrow

    This is a pretty disgusting hit-piece, as usual. Levin has lost a lot of respect from myself over the past couple years.

    These “conservatives” would take Obama 100% of the time over Ron Paul.

  • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

    Ron Paul is for defense of the UNITED STATES, not the defense of every other nation on the planet

    We can not, nor should be have to, afford to be the “World Police”

    Israel can and should defend its self as they see fit as a nation, and we should give them any POLITICAL support they need on the world stage. However the US Military should ONLY be used in the DIRECT DEFENSE of US Boarders and Territories. If Israel wants US Military Protection they can apply to be come the 51st state or a Protected Territory like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Island or the 100’s of other smaller Islands and Atolls that are US Territory

    • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

      you’re an idiot.. America is called the leader of the Free World for a reason.. and that reason is because we are isolationists and or appeasers to Tyranny.. which whether you like it or not, affects our own National Security, safety, and peace.. as well as every other Nation in the world..

      Thank goodness you will never be President, and that especially goes for your Ron Paul….

      • http://www.theancient.us The Ancient

        I assume you meant we are NOT isolationists or appeasers to Tyranny….

        And infact we are appeasers to Tyranny, We support and prop up Dictators and enable 100’s of despots to remain in power. We ensure that the people cant or wont raise up because we feel that OUR security is better served by having the dictator or despot in power.

        Some of the most brutal dictators in the modern world were put in to power either directly or indirectly by us, or are supported by us to “maintain stability”

        We need to stop being “America: World Police” and become once again, “The United States, The Great Republic, Home of the Free, Home of the Brave… A Force for Liberty….”

        We have lost sight of our core principles and have put security above all else…

        I know not what path others may choose, but for me give me liberty or give me death.

        • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

          You know, I agree with a lot of what you said, and unfortunately, that is all too often the case, for the sake of stability in the region.. but we cannot also, just ignore reality when real world dangers are upon us, just because we have a hands off, no getting involved policy, while the world around us, explodes, and implodes into a mushroom cloud..

          Now, with that being said.. I am a retired US Military person, and have lived and worked in the middle east for 8 years as a govt civilian contractor, and I know what this region, and these people are like, and what they want to do, and what they are willing to do.. and that does not include peace and regard for human life, neither their own, or any others..

          So, this is, and will always be a something that every US President will have to deal with, as matter policy, on an case by case basis, regionally or globally..

      • Anonymous

        TPP4E – when you resort to name calling – you’ve already lost the argument. I’ve watched you respond back and forth here – and you are the only one to do this. You need to focus on the merits of your position – read your opposition’s carefully explained arguments and slay them with the facts. If you cannot do this – they win – you lose.
        In the past – I’ve held your views – I’ve been persuaded by the facts – I cannot argue them – as such – I had to join them. Freedom (the liberty to do right things) like misery and common sense like company.

    • http://foxnation.com TeaPartyPatriot4ever

      you’re an idiot.. America is called the leader of the Free World for a reason.. and that reason is because we are isolationists and or appeasers to Tyranny.. which whether you like it or not, affects our own National Security, safety, and peace.. as well as every other Nation in the world..

      Thank goodness you will never be President, and that especially goes for your Ron Paul….

  • Anonymous

    Congressman Ron Paul is just plain scary; especially on his foreign policy leanings…

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul is a glovebox full of good ideas in a truck full of fail.

      • Orange Shaman

        Yeah. We know because we’ve tried? Oh wait. No. Sticking with what hasn’t worked for the past century’s a MUCH more SOUND way to go about doing business.

      • Orange Shaman

        Yeah. We know because we’ve tried? Oh wait. No. Sticking with what hasn’t worked for the past century’s a MUCH more SOUND way to go about doing business.

    • Anonymous

      As opposed to whom? Carter? GW Bush? Obama? We’ve been going down the wrong foreign policy path for many years. Rep. Paul is the only one who truly has a non-interventionist foreign policy. After all the foreign policy failures over the years, it’s time to re-think it. Rep. Paul has the right answers.

  • Anonymous

    Tom Woods has already destroyed the latest desperate attempt from the neo-cons. BTW, remember when Levin was wrong, yet again, when claiming that there is not growing support for Ron Paul just a couple weeks ago?

    I guess someone forgot to tell Gallup, Rasmussen, and a few other polling companies considering how he is surging up in the polls. He is third nationally, third in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the latest rasmussen head to head with obama has paul down by one point with neo-con favorite sarah palin down 17! What the neo-cons have to really be scared of is that Paul is running in first by eight points over perry in the under 29 demographic, so the future of their welfare/warfare state may one day be coming to an end.

    Besides, if Lewhine and the rest really thought Paul was not a danger of becoming more popular, polling facts that already disprove that view notwithstanding, they sure wouldn’t spend so much time talking about him on every week…

    Here is a link to Tom Woods destroying Lewhine on another issue just for old time’s sake:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

  • Anonymous

    I like Ron Paul’s views on throwing out the health care bill, throwing out the EPA and phony green movement, IRS, Czars, UN and many big useless and corrupt governmental agencies. I agree with him about getting us out of ALL the wars around the globe.

    However, I am frightened by his lack of understanding concerning foreign affairs, his attitude toward Israel and his open door policies for illegals.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul does not have an open door policy towards illegals. He talks a lot about defending our borders. Please take a few moments to look him up on youtube and you’ll hear him talk about defending our borders over and over again.

    • Orange Shaman

      Lack of understanding? He seems to understand better than anyone else that this militarism has not worked. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel any safer with almost a half million troops and over 140 military bases across the world.

      Attitude towards Israel? Yeah. I hate when someone has enough faith in a country to give it the freedom to do what it wants instead of following orders from us. I also hate it when someone decides that maybe our own nation is broke and our own borders aren’t secure, so perhaps there’s a possibility that we can’t afford to keep propping up and bribing puppet dictators in surrounding regions and building another country’s military.

      Open door policy? He’s made it clear and lays it out VERY WELL that FREE MARKETS with NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION will take care of the illegal immigration problem.

      • KenInMontana

        What I took away from that video was that he stated do away welfare,food stamps, medicaid for illegals and that would solve the problem, however I believe he would have to get that through Congress first as it is a bit beyond Presidential authority to rewrite laws, that would be an uphill battle in and of itself. He also stated that they should be deported, isn’t that government intervention? However, I didn’t hear anything close to “free markets” solving illegal immigration and nothing concrete as to just what free market solutions that you allude to.

      • KenInMontana

        What I took away from that video was that he stated do away welfare,food stamps, medicaid for illegals and that would solve the problem, however I believe he would have to get that through Congress first as it is a bit beyond Presidential authority to rewrite laws, that would be an uphill battle in and of itself. He also stated that they should be deported, isn’t that government intervention? However, I didn’t hear anything close to “free markets” solving illegal immigration and nothing concrete as to just what free market solutions that you allude to.

  • Anonymous

    I like Ron Paul’s views on throwing out the health care bill, throwing out the EPA and phony green movement, IRS, Czars, UN and many big useless and corrupt governmental agencies. I agree with him about getting us out of ALL the wars around the globe.

    However, I am frightened by his lack of understanding concerning foreign affairs, his attitude toward Israel and his open door policies for illegals.

  • http://twitter.com/validatedself Jordan Morris

    If Ron Paul is a foreign policy leftist then William F. Buckley was as well. See Buckley’s own words here: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/25/was-bill-buckley-a-foreign-policy-leftist/

    • http://twitter.com/validatedself Jordan Morris

      You folks need to turn the radio off for a few days and try doing your own thinking. If you let someone else do it for you for too long your mental faculties really start to deteriorate. You really start to come across as intellectually weak when all you can do is parrot the false assertions and repeat the same fallacies of your dear talk show hosts.

  • Anonymous

    Was Levin talking about Glenn Beck?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      no, he was talking about Patriot Mike Church, many of whom here ignore as a true conservative talk show host

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      no, he was talking about Patriot Mike Church, many of whom here ignore as a true conservative talk show host

  • Anonymous

    Ahmadinejad: Iran is determined to eradicate Israel
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/ahmadinejad-iran-is-determined-to-eradicate-israel-1.380629

    Iran’s Nuclear Program
    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

    The NY Times report ends as follows:

    A Nuclear ‘Trigger’

    Starting in early 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly accused Iran of dragging its feet in addressing “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear program. Tehran has declared that all of the evidence gathered by the agency — mostly from the intelligence agencies of member countries, and some from its own inspectors — are fabrications.

    An I.A.E.A. report issued in February 2011, listed seven outstanding questions about work Iran apparently conducted on warhead design. The documents in the hands of the agency raise questions about work on how to turn uranium into bomb fuel, how to cast conventional explosives in a shape that can trigger a nuclear blast, how to make detonators, generate neutrons to spur a chain reaction, measure detonation waves and make nose-cones for missiles.

    The May report gave new details for all seven of the categories of allegations. The disclosure about the atomic trigger centered on a rare material — uranium deuteride, a form of the element made with deuterium, or heavy hydrogen. Nuclear experts say China and Pakistan appear to have used the material as a kind of atomic sparkplug.

    The report said it had asked Iran about evidence of “experiments involving the explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce a short burst of neutrons” — the speeding particles that split atoms in two in a surge of nuclear energy. In a bomb, an initial burst of neutrons is needed to help initiate a rapid chain reaction.

    Harold M. Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos weapons laboratory, said the compression of uranium deuteride suggested work on an atomic trigger.

    The agency’s disclosure about Iran’s alleged use of uranium deuteride also suggests another possible connection between Tehran’s program and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani engineer who sold nuclear information.

    A famous photograph of Dr. Khan, whom Pakistan has released from house arrest in Islamabad, shows him in front of the schematic diagram of an atom bomb on a blackboard. A pointer to the bomb’s center is labeled uranium deuteride.

    The May report also gave fresh charges on the design of missile warheads. Documentary evidence, it said, suggested that Iran had conducted “studies involving the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replace it with a spherical nuclear payload.”

    The Shahab-3 is one of Iran’s deadliest weapons, standing 56 feet tall. In parades, Iran has draped them with banners reading, “Wipe Israel off the map.”

    Given that official Iranian policy is to “wipe Israel off the map,” Representative Paul’s position on Iran having nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

    • Han Solo

      What are you going to do about? Ron Paul is right. Either put up and say your for sending thousands of young men to their death over their fighting on the ground with fanatics.

      Or Shut the frak up.

      Once again you can’t see that Ron Paul is 100% correct because the truth hurts your little neocon warmongering ego.

      • KenInMontana

        Your comment does nothing to help your side of the discourse. I suggest you start with looking up the precise definition of “NeoConservative” due to the fact that a great many of you Paul supporters obviously have misinterpreted it. Secondly, I have grown tired of your lack of manners, fix it (as Mr.Frank offered no insult to you or your candidate) and conduct yourself as an adult. (That is indeed a warning)

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          then how about the same thing being said about Jaynie constantly namecalling me, which, you never said anything about, and, I never attacked here(until i got fed up with being called Jew-hater, anti-semite, and a paulnut). ken, you and i have had plenty of POSITIVE conversations over the past year, but, this one, i must say was a bad post for you. if i had gotten this treatment this morning when i got called all those names by a regular to this site, then i wouldn’t post this now.

          as for neo-conservative, in this aspect of militarism, it is used properly. just as i said neo-liberal was used, to my amazement, properly for RP.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          then how about the same thing being said about Jaynie constantly namecalling me, which, you never said anything about, and, I never attacked here(until i got fed up with being called Jew-hater, anti-semite, and a paulnut). ken, you and i have had plenty of POSITIVE conversations over the past year, but, this one, i must say was a bad post for you. if i had gotten this treatment this morning when i got called all those names by a regular to this site, then i wouldn’t post this now.

          as for neo-conservative, in this aspect of militarism, it is used properly. just as i said neo-liberal was used, to my amazement, properly for RP.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          then how about the same thing being said about Jaynie constantly namecalling me, which, you never said anything about, and, I never attacked here(until i got fed up with being called Jew-hater, anti-semite, and a paulnut). ken, you and i have had plenty of POSITIVE conversations over the past year, but, this one, i must say was a bad post for you. if i had gotten this treatment this morning when i got called all those names by a regular to this site, then i wouldn’t post this now.

          as for neo-conservative, in this aspect of militarism, it is used properly. just as i said neo-liberal was used, to my amazement, properly for RP.

          • KenInMontana

            Both sides have been policed, as far as this thread goes. I can’t catch everything nor can I be here 24/7, I have a job and a son to raise (single parent) Scoop has spoken to Jaynie in the past and from what I have seen on this thread the two of you gave as good as you got. Personally I have never had an issue with you, my point in this is that I thought I was dealing with adults around here, apparently with a handful of exceptions it seems I was wrong. As of this point I have yet to ban anyone over this, which is why people are getting warnings. You should see some of the things I have been called here and some of the e-mails Scoop has gotten, some of them would curl your toes. Let’s see, I have been called a fascist and a warmonger (by RP supporters) a Papist, accused of defending child molesters and murderers (because I am a Catholic), and many other things too numerous to go into here and now.
            As to the term “NeoCon”, the NeoCons originated at the beginning of the Cold War, Democrats who saw elements in their own party drifting to the far left. They favored a more aggressive opposition to the advance of Communism rather than the lukewarm resistance that members of their party advocated. As is evidenced, converts tend to be a tad more zealous in their “new found faith”. A second wave swept the Democratic Party in the early 1970’s (due to what they perceived as a lack of will in opposing Communism) resulting in more defections to the GOP. This latest buzzword “NeoLiberal”, is a direct result of the resurrection of the “NeoCon” label by supporters of Ron Paul, by some on the Conservative side as a slight against supporters of Paul and Paul himself as well as hardcore Libertarians. When one “invents” a term one gets to set the definition even if it is at it’s core, wrong.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              to your first part, I never attacked jaynie in the aspect of name-calling, she IMMEDIATELY went on the jew-hater/anti-semite rhetoric before I ever said a slight against her. I asked for specific points, all she said was jew-hater. The sad part to that is, if you went to my FB page, you would see that my icon on there is the glenn beck israeli flag pic, that states that i stand with israel. so, before she even knows who she is talking to, she immediatly went on the name-calling, i never did till i got fed up with it. i can be called whatever you want, but jew-hater and anti-semite, i am far from.

              As for the emails, I promise, NOT ONE was sent by me, and, I would NEVER attack someone through email. That just shows cowardice, and I am not afraid to stand on my principles at all. I am a christian, so I feel ya on the name calling for being of any religious group. How being a catholic would automatically place you as a pedo/rapist is beyond comprehension. I do support RP, but, I will state this plain and clear, his IDEAS need to be looked at and debated. I do however think he is too old for the typical young voter to vote for, most want a charismatic candidate, and one who “looks like them”(aka, young).

              And thirdly, I looked at the meaning of the word(s) as they are used in today’s context. I do understand the history of the word(s), but when used by today’s definition, sadly, neo-con was right, and so was neo-liberal. I just dont want someone thinking I am using those words, cause I hate the word NEO in general, it defeats the purpose of what the argument is(neo scares people into thinking nazi).

              Conclusion, Ken, I hope you understand, I am not mad directly at you for what was said, it just seemed hypocritical to come after a RP person first, especially since I took such a tongue lashing for 3-4hrs, with nothing said.

              • Anonymous

                If you don’t want to be called an Anti-American Jew hater then don’t post anti-American Jew hating propaganda.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  I am still waiting for this so-called anit-american jew hating propaganda is………..
                  for at least a day now……………
                  still going…………..

                • Anonymous

                  Lay off Mark Levin and I’ll lay off you. If you continue to attack him you can expect a reply from me until I get banned.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  If he were right, I wouldn’t “attack” him. If debating what the host and his guest said is attacks, then we are all screwed. Debate is the foundation for truth, without debate, you get obama. And, what I hate to say is, Levin, for as much as I do like him, he AND his guest were wrong about our founding fathers. Truth be told, they misrepresented RP, and that is what I am angry about. If you dont like his foreign policy, then don’t like it. I go from the Federalist Papers, and our great, and might I add, not dead Constitution. And, for what it reads, Levin is wrong on this particular attack of an American Citizen. All I ask is, if he is right, point out the facts………….and if you scroll up half a page, you will see, I can debate without name-calling, and present facts. This is GOOD debate too. As all parties learn something.

                • Anonymous

                  If you continue to attack Mark Levin I will continue to attack you. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  And I ask for facts, YOU PRESENT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GRASP!?!?

                • Anonymous

                  The fact is that this is not 1938. You’re not going to get away with it. Not if I can help it.

                  By the way, one of your comments seems to have vanished but since I use email notification I saw it. It’s probably stuck in the spam filter like one of mine was the other day.

                  Calling me an anti-American racist is on par with claiming Mark Levin is not a conservative. People can call me a lot of things, but anti-American ain’t one of them.

                  Claiming Mark Levin is not a conservative is an attack. He is the most prominent conservative voice today. And what you don’t realize is that you confirm everything Lord and Levin say in the video of this post with every comment you make.

                  I’ll say it again: stop attacking Mark Levin and I’ll leave you alone. As Virus said, you’re not worth it. But it’s not 1938 and will not let you spread your filth unchallenged no matter how much whining you do to the moderator. They can ban me.

                • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                  Ok, 1938!? Sorry, dont follow, but will do my homework.

                  When did I ever say Mr. Levin was NOT a conservative!? I would love to see this, as I believe he is 90% conservative, which, doesn’t distract me from him, it just tells me he has some ideas that don’t conform to the conservative mindset.

                  And, you don’t like being called an anti-american racist, but yet, without knowing my stance on Israel, you call me an anti-semite!? Where in the (h-e-double hockey sticks) do you get off judging me, but not yourself!? That sure isn’t truth to fact at all. But, I digress, I doubt you will even understand what the word debate even means, yet alone, grasp that concept.

                  As for what “those two” try to get drones to catch, isn’t truth either. I haven’t attacked Mr. Levin personally, nor, have I hated on the man. I said, and will try to quote it again, HE WAS WRONG ON THIS CLIP. RP follows select few of the founders, just like Levin and Lord claim, just not the way they claim it. Dr. Woods stated it correctly, there are some founders you agree with, and some you don’t, how can one not be selective in the choices of founders they follow!?

                  As for Virus, he is a drone, he won’t debate either, but that I don’t mind, getting you to debate, not argue, is what I was trying to do with you. I am not your “typical” RP supporter, nor, do I condone those who only attack without merit. I am trying to understand how you, or anyone for that matter, are able to attack without merit an RP supporter, such as myself, that hasn’t slung mud in your face?

                  I don’t know how to put it to you, other than this to sum it up…………
                  Mr. Levin is a great mind, but has flaws, just like all of us.
                  To personally attack ANY candidate without merit is wrong, I don’t care who the candidate is, it is wrong.
                  If you are going to try and get people to understand where a candidate is coming from, why not ask the candidate, instead of having some pundit come on a show and try to discredit them. And before you say anything about Dr. Woods, he has email exchanges on his site between him and Mr. Levin, just so you know he doesn’t attack without getting it from the horses mouth.

                • Anonymous

                  See continuation. It’s too far to the right for me to read.

            • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

              Just a side note, congrats on being a single parent, i am one too(17yr old daughter). I used to truck drive, so I was gone all the time. I am back home, working locally(for peanuts comparatively speaking), going back to college, and hoping my daughter follows with the college idea. I figured if I am doing it, so will she.

            • Anonymous

              When did Scoop ever speak to me? I have made it very clear here that if you don’t like something I post then ban me. Aside from the penis post, which I found amusing, I have never been spoken to and I will not tolerate being equated with these Anti-American Jew haters. They are on a mission to destroy conservatism and as long as they are allowed to post their lies I will respond to them.

              It’s rich to read Ron Paul supporters whine about being called out for their hatred and I will not stop doing it.

              • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

                funny, you cant read what was posted either.

                you need to take your anti-american @$$ to some place that cares. I tried treating you with respect, but F that idea now.

                when i was young, respect was earned, you haven’t earned on ounce from me.

                So I make this point to Ken, who I hope reads this…………she is a hateful B!T[4. she wont interact WITHOUT name-calling, but, the minute you call her to the floor, she is ratting you(and scoop for that matter) out as to have never spoken to her about her tone toward people. This makes me a tad upset that you of all people, would attack a RP supporter(not that it would matter who they supported) and NOT say something to her on her outright rude tone. So much for trusting you I guess.

                As for you RACIST jaynie, get a life, read the article of confederation, read ABOUT the founders, read the Federalist Papers, and learn something for once.

                I am going off facts here, you are going off name-calling, and because someone doesn’t have the B@ll$ to call you to the mat for your intentional attacks, you continue the same G-DDAMNED DIATRIBE, it’s old, find something new to say. You haven’t done anything but get those who want to hold a TRUE debate in a gander with the language and outright lies you spread.

                Go ahead, call me a jew-hater, you are a FOUNDING FATHER HATER………….want some, come get some!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Lord is indeed correct that Rep. Paul is not a conservative however, he is also not a liberal. Rep Paul is a LIBERTARIAN. A Libertarian is very different from a conservative and also very different from a liberal; a point Mr. Lord apparently doesn’t understand. Check out this page for pretty good information about Libertarianism.

    http://www.libertarianism.com/

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Lord is indeed correct that Rep. Paul is not a conservative however, he is also not a liberal. Rep Paul is a LIBERTARIAN. A Libertarian is very different from a conservative and also very different from a liberal; a point Mr. Lord apparently doesn’t understand. Check out this page for pretty good information about Libertarianism.

    http://www.libertarianism.com/

  • http://police-state-watch.blogspot.com/ JTWilliams

    Ron Paul is a classical liberal- the headline itself is absurdity. If Paul was a neoliberal, perhaps such a person could only be defeated by a neoconservative? Tyranny, authoritarianism, and empire are as old as humanity. Individual sovereignty and self-governance are the true indicator of a free societal structure. The US government certainly talks a good game about democracy and human rights, but no matter what the propagandists say, the people on the other end of your bombs don’t give a d@mn if you’re attacking under humanitarian auspices!

    • KenInMontana

      Actually Ron Paul is a Libertarian, do a bit more research on Classic Liberals. All the true Classic Liberals are long dead and gone. While Libertarians mirror many of the beliefs of Classic Liberals they aren’t quite there, yet.

  • KenInMontana

    That is a good book, my own Grandfather had a copy, my younger brother has it now. My Grandfather and my Father as well told me the truth about FDR many moons ago. It is a book that needs to see a greatly increased circulation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Andrew-Martin/506135983 Jason Andrew Martin

    Here’s a compelling response from Tom Woods to Jeffery Lord’s article criticizing Ron Paul. I’d be interested to see if Mark Levin or Mr. Lord would actually be brave enough to address Woods’ response (I doubt it).

  • Anonymous

    I do like a lot of RP’s ideas on domestic issues. However I do agree with Lord on where you draw the line to secession. What if counties want to secede? What about towns and cities? I understand states rights and believe the Feds need to give up on a ton of there endeavors and leave it to the states.

    Now my main issue with RP is his foreign policy. I love cutting back on foreign aid, and believe we should. Entirely? Don’t know, but I do agree that some cutting should be done (why do we give aid to China when they own the majority of our debt??) And there are countries that will strive to be just “un-stable enough” to continue receiving US dollars. I do believe that we should act in our nations interests around the world though. If it doesn’t concern us then fine, lets stay out. But if there is an emerging threat are we going to wait until they do something?? RP said in the last debate that Iran didn’t have enough fuel to fuel any nuclear rockets. Maybe, maybe not. But thats not what is concerning. Iran developing a nulcear weapon that can be transported by an individual is whats scary. Would it have the destructive capability to level NYC? Maybe not but Times square?? I’m not saying lets go invade Iran right now, but keeping them in check until they depose of their government or tyranical ways yes. Why have we not supported any of the Iranian uprisings??? Those in my mind would have been the ones to support…not Libya or our ally Egypt.

    Can we close some military bases around the world probably, but lets not just go all out and say that everyone should come home. RP believes that the military should stay here and defend the country from our borders, which I can understand, but is that what we want?? Do we want to HAVE to defend from inside our country if thats what it came too? Would we want a war-zone in parts of the country because our enemies have come in and are now fighting us from within?? Thats what was part of the Cold War was having all those troops stationed in Europe to act as a deterrent for the USSR from invading. The USSR knew they would be in a knock-down fight from the beginning if they tried to advance.

    I’m not saying that we need to be out in every war thats going on. I certainly don’t think we need to be in Libya, but I do think we need to be able to keep our enemies in check.

    • Anonymous

      I agree. I like a lot of Paul’s domestic agenda. He goes off the rails on foreign policy, though. That, and his obsession with the Fed, really shows his true philosophy and it’s very ugly.

  • Anonymous

    This is a continuation of a string with Barton that went too far to the right and became unreadable.

    I will not debate Ron Paul supporters. As I have said before, there are two facts about Ron Paul that are not in question. Ron Paul is an anti-American nut who blames 9/11 on American foreign policy and he has a long, sordid, history of being an anti-Semite. If you don’t know these two facts you are in no position to argue for him, and if you do know these facts about him and defend his positions anyway you are not worth arguing with.

    I will, however, respond to any and all attacks on Mark Levin. Claiming Mark Levin is not a conservative, or not the right kind of conservative, is beyond the pale and I will respond. As I said, it’s not 1938. And yes, that is a Nazi reference. Godwin’s Law does not apply when it’s a legitimate comparison.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

      David Horowitz’s logic put to the test………..and I suppose how one proves RP is an anti-semite……….i guess

      • Anonymous

        Sorry Barton… how on earth is this clip of any value? The guy lost me about 1:30 when he was doing his RP supporter schtick about Christians supporting Israel, Armageddon and Jesus coming back in 1988 or 2000. His deliberate mangling of Horowitz’s name falls into the name calling category and he did that to the loss of any credibility with any argument he may have had.

        It’s this type of foolishness that puts Paul supporters on the fringe in my estimation. Libertarian arguments are extremely valuable for ideas of fiscal responsibility in policy making. Even some (and I emphasize the word some) foreign policy ideas have merit. But this guy ramzpaul… not worth the time. Sorry.

        Face Palm…

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          it is a spoof……..that was the point, but you have to listen to the end of the video to get the joke. Sry, it was a poor attempt at humor, since this person wont listen to facts, just makes allegations, and then no proof to back it up.

          If you listen to the end, there is a phone call he makes to his local “business”, making the outrageous statement that they dont allow jews in after 10pm. At which point, you find out the store closes at 10pm. This means no one is allowed in after 10, but since jews aren’t allowed in after 10, then they are anti-semitic.

          It just goes to show how Horowitz spins his logic to make someone out to be something they aren’t………..hope that helps, and, understand, I am frustrated with the lack of hard facts here, and, that I needed a laugh………sry las1.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2A6HIPLFALQCHLNVDFOHJ5TZAM Barton

          it is a spoof……..that was the point, but you have to listen to the end of the video to get the joke. Sry, it was a poor attempt at humor, since this person wont listen to facts, just makes allegations, and then no proof to back it up.

          If you listen to the end, there is a phone call he makes to his local “business”, making the outrageous statement that they dont allow jews in after 10pm. At which point, you find out the store closes at 10pm. This means no one is allowed in after 10, but since jews aren’t allowed in after 10, then they are anti-semitic.

          It just goes to show how Horowitz spins his logic to make someone out to be something they aren’t………..hope that helps, and, understand, I am frustrated with the lack of hard facts here, and, that I needed a laugh………sry las1.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah… I know what it was… ramzpaul flopped… plain and simple.

            Here’s where I will say… not everything is anti-semitic… it’s an over used slur… but make no mistake to what is going on to day in Europe and America… all claims of being against Zionism and many criticisms of Israeli foreign policy is a cover for Jew hatred. Tiny little Israel! Why the heck don’t people get this is beyond me!

            I like Horowitz, although at times he can be acidic and angry… but he has spent forty plus years battling the left because he was once one of them. If Paul is not anti-semitic… he sure attracts them… one poster here was banned (at least I think he was banned) because he hid that aspect of his Libertarianism … then one day it all came out. The Paul supporters lend themselves to the charge.