Levin to Ron Paul: Hitler would have wanted nukes too

Levin says there is no groundswell of support for Ron Paul even though his activists try to create the illusion of support in these straw polls. And he’s not the founder of the Tea Party, as most of the Tea Party wouldn’t even vote for him due to his ideas on foreign policy.

But Levin hones in on the same point that most others have focused on today, and that is his stance against Iran. Levin asks why should we care if it’s natural that Iran would want nukes. He says Adolf Hitler would likely have wanted nukes too. I wonder, would Paul have been OK with that? Levin continues to say that the reason it’s important that Iran wants nukes is because it’s a threat to us and our allies. Would we like China, Russia and Pakistan to not have nukes? Sure, but what can we do about it at this point? But that doesn’t mean we should allow Iran to have nukes just because Paul thinks it’s reasonable. They are a threat and should be dealt with like a threat.

Levin is dead on as usual:

***

NOTE: I know we’ve had a lot of clips that focused on Ron Paul today, but this should be the last of the important voices on this issue for a while.

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.
  • Anonymous

    Hitler had a very strong alliance with radical Islam and the Grand Mufti. Hitler would be proud.
    THE MUFTI’S DIARY ON HIS MEETING WITH HITLER
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/the-muftis-diary-on-his-meeting-with-hitler.html

    • Anonymous

      If we are going to make analogies to famous figures of history, especially a communist and a fascist, let’s compare policies. Ron Paul adheres to what Washington, Jefferson, and the other founders said: “peace with all, entangling alliances with none.” Hitler not only approved of aggressive foreign wars and invasions of other nations, but he also was responsible for a police state — I am sure he would love the patriot act were he alive today — and a similar relationship to big government and big business that we see today that is favored by neo-cons and the GOP establishment with things like TARP and QE1 and QE2.

      So on the one hand, you have someone who is only for defensive wars and against the corporatism of big business and big government, also against police state measures like the Patriot act, is against a large and powerful state, yet on the other hand you have people like Levin who are in favor of all those things. Thanks for bringing up the Hitler connection because his actual policies and beliefs in the power and role of the state come very close to mirroring what neo-cons (and the gop and democratic establishments think, for that matter) advocate, because it gave me an excuse to point out who the real national socialists are.

      And I don’t even have to get into the ideological roots of neo-cons like levin, do I? You realize how much Irving kristol and WFB, both of the founders of neo-conservatism, were heavily influenced by Trotsky?????

      • So we’ll legalize heroin & we agree that Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons? Mister Paul I hope you are defeated in your district. Because you are a kook.

        • Anonymous

          Legalize herion? False! Taking the federal government out the drug war and giving State’s the right to vote, police, and regulate drugs is not legalizing drugs but nice try you are no different than everyone else who doesnt actually look at Ron’s policies but are quick to judge. I doubt any State would legalize heroin but if they did thats there right. If you want to call yourself a strict constitutionalist read it sometime poser.

      • Levin – one that is a true conservative – a neocon?

        Come on – nothing further from reality.

  • Anonymous

    Hitler had a very strong alliance with radical Islam and the Grand Mufti. Hitler would be proud.
    THE MUFTI’S DIARY ON HIS MEETING WITH HITLER
    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/the-muftis-diary-on-his-meeting-with-hitler.html

  • Anonymous

    Congressman Paul’s stand on Iran is a deal breaker with me. His pro-life stand is all that I can really appreciate from this man. He needs to live in the real world.

    • Anonymous

      i guess you’ll be happy then with Crzy Bachman or war-mongerer Perry… Then you’ll get your precious war!

      • um….last time i checked, Perry was a governor of a state and not the commander in chief of any arm forces of any branch of the military. I am not a fan of Perry myself but statements like yours make you a complete dumbass.

        • Anonymous

          No foreign policy reform = status quo = preemptive war = war-mongerer

          • Anonymous

            Foreign policy reform – not isolationism.

          • Anonymous

            Foreign policy reform – not isolationism.

          • Anonymous

            Math is not your strong suit, nor is logic – jumping to a conclusion of No foreign policy reform considering current CINC is faulty at best.

            • Anonymous

              Im sorry but i do believe our foreign policy is directly related to our economic problems. If you want to fix our economic crisis, there must be a foreign policy reform. If you are a candidate that has no ideas on how to do so, then i dont believe that candidate is serious about balancing a budget.

              BTW what math are you talking about? lol

          • Anonymous

            Nice, terse form of the moral equivalence. You do know that I can use the same trick to claim you are “equal” to say, Charles Manson, or Pol Pot, right?

          • Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to sandwiches, sandwiches lead to diarrhea, diarrhea leads to space exploration…

            See? I can do it too.

        • Governor is the Chief officer of the National Guard, no?

          • KenInMontana

            He was until the Guard was “Federalized” a while back. However I believe Texas also has a State Militia which by law cannot be federalized, that said if Texas has declared war on somebody lately then most everybody (myself included) missed it.

          • Anonymous

            How often in his 10 years as governor has he deployed the TX National Guard in an act of war – let me think – uh, that would be ZERO

        • Governors of each state are supposed to be the Commander in Chief of their state’s national guard. Learn about your own country.

          • Governors have control of their state militias. Governors activate their states’ National Guard in the event of an emergency. Governors do not have the authority to declare war. That is an enumerated power for the US Congress listed in Article I, Section 8. Furthermore, under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007, the governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during state emergencies. The President has the authorization to deploy the National Guard without the consent of the governor if the President determines the state government has lost control of its people and can no longer enforce the law. HTH

      • I hope you tell your analyst about your fantasies.

      • Anonymous

        “Precious war”?! How often did you get dropped on your head as a kid?

      • Sane people are often SEEN as Crazy by those who ARE. There are many rationalizations for Bad Behavior used to justify it; One is to make excuses, projecting the blame onto anyone or anything other than themselves. See Obama. Another is denial – claiming that they didnt do it. See Clinton or Obama.

      • Please, give us more logical fallacies. I love false choices! It makes for such good policy!

      • go to hell asshole

    • Anonymous

      he also said that they can’t even refine their own gas,

    • Anonymous

      he also said that they can’t even refine their own gas,

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul does live in the real world. Iran is no threat to us, and you people constantly ignore the fact they have no air force.

  • Anonymous

    Congressman Paul’s stand on Iran is a deal breaker with me. His pro-life stand is all that I can really appreciate from this man. He needs to live in the real world.

  • Anonymous

    Levin is so wrong in so many ways. First of all, the tea party was once an idea, an idea that our federal government should be restored to its original foundations given it to it by the Constitution. Since Ron Paul has run for President in 1988, this has been his main platform. So yes, Ron Paul is the founding father of the Tea Party idealism. The Tea Party movement, aka the people involved politically with the Tea Party, is an entirely different thing.

    U.S. relations in Iran did not begin with the hostage crisis in 1979. It began with the U.S./British coup in 1953 that brought the oppressive shah to power, and it was resentment over his police state that turned Iranians against the U.S. Before the U.S. government’s interventions in the Middle East, Americans had an excellent reputation in that part of the world – another piece of history our political class ignores.

    We have the biggest military, with the best technology, and you see Iran through the eyes of an American, now try and look at America through the eyes of an Iranian. Endless war because we screwed up in 1953, is not the answer.

    We all know our foreign policy is not the best. And like Tim’s joke last night, you show me any other presidential candidate other than Paul that brings up foreign policy reform, and ill come to your house and make you dinner.

    We will continue to bomb and provide foreign aid to countries around the world, and at what cost? Trillions and trillions of dollars, and Ron Paul is the only person with the balls to bring this up. If you dont like his plan, then lets see your plan! Just like Obama on the debt ceiling, you can denounce Paul on his policy all you want, but until you provide your own policy in which like Ron Paul’s plan would save trillions, hold your tongue, just like you wanted Obama to hold his on the debt ceiling.

    Honestly, is there anyone here that believes our foreign policy is working? Why are Paul supporters the only people who give a damn about this subject? Our foreign policy is as big a factor when it comes to our economic crisis as entitlement programs. Until you realize this, we are doomed.

    • Yes and Al Goracle invented the internet too.

    • Yes and Al Goracle invented the internet too.

    • Sorry…that does not wash. The Tea Party asks for a return to constitutional restraint, not to the type of articles of confederation government that Ron Paul is for in essence. I could vote for the guy..I could deal with the anti-drug enforcement stuff…I could deal with his views on marriage…I’m even starting to agree with him on stuff I did not before. Foreign policy is not a primary focus of the tea party, but it would be if he were president. I can’t believe this guy tries to defend Iran getting nuclear weapons after Ahmadinejad stated that “he would wipe Israel off the map”. He would unilaterally immediately return all troops home. Yeah, lets give Al Qaeda an easy path to return to their training grounds. Lets allow countries to have the tactical disadvantage that they have go away so that if someone wants to attack us, it would be much easier. Its not just a pre 9/11 mindset. It is a pre Pearl Harbor mindset! It is absolutely pie in the sky utopian-ism that usually only Liberals could dream of spouting. He makes Barack Obama seem like a stalwart national security guy. Now, do I agree with nation building? Nope. Do I agree in principle that we could re-adjust our deployments to better tactical defense advantage? Probably. Do I believe that we should just hand Iran, North Korea, and other rogue nations nuclear weapons on a silver platter? Absolutely not and I will not stand by and allow it to happen. I unequivocally will say now and forever more, a statement like that will ensure not just my voting for someone else, but I would actively campaign against this because it is not in our country’s national security interest to be this absolutely ignorant of the consequences of Ahmadinejad getting a nuclear weapon.

      • Anonymous

        he didn’t defend Iran… He said that they had the right to have them like everyone else does… Who are we to judge? We are not America World Fuckin Policeman!!!!!!

        • Ok, again mr. copy paste when it has nothing to do with my post. You would just give them a nuclear weapon on a silver platter when they’ve already said they would wipe israel off the map? We won’t have any allies left if we did that.

        • Ok, again mr. copy paste when it has nothing to do with my post. You would just give them a nuclear weapon on a silver platter when they’ve already said they would wipe israel off the map? We won’t have any allies left if we did that.

          • Anonymous

            we call them allies, they call us “suckers” for paying for their protection….

            • Ok..so you’d just have the whole world hate us instead of just islamic countries then? I do not have much faith in many of our allies, but I do in Israel and their very existence depends on them not having a functional nuclear iran.

              • Any country that would go as far as to hate us because we aren’t bankrolling their protection shouldn’t be our ally in the first place.

          • Anonymous

            Ahmadinejad never said he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”.

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

          • Anonymous

            Ahmadinejad never said he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”.

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

          • Anonymous

            I think he said, “We’re gonna wipe that map off of your face.” Yeah, that’s what he said. Probably to Gorbachev.

            Meanwhile Ahmadinejad’s pals in Hezbollah were happy with the “push them into the sea” platform that Arafat handed them. Or vice versa. Arafat made it his platform. And Iran has been more than happy to fund it.

        • Watch the language dude.

      • Anonymous

        “Sorry…that does not wash. The Tea Party asks for a return to constitutional restraint, not to the type of articles of confederation government that Ron Paul is for in essence.”

        Ron Paul is in for the Articles of Confederation? Just because Levin says something hypothetical does not mean that is reality. I know talk show hosts can be great salesmen, but you don’t have to buy crap.

        • Ron Paul does not believe in the constitution. He can’t and still have his foreign policy views. I mean look at the record of american involvement of wars even as an infant country. Most isolationist thinkers were articles of confederation anti-federalists. I’m pointing out simply that his thinking does not jive with the tea party on many different levels. While I’m open to drug legalization, and for withdrawing marriage from being a government sanctioned union that also is not the tea party as it stands now position.

          • Dude take your disinformation views on Ron Paul somewhere else. You might convince others who don’ know Dr. Paul but you are not fooling me. Anyone with half a brain and internet can plug in Ron Paul’s name in Google and see his record for themselves. None of these candidates have the record that Ron Paul boosts. How many of these candidates predicted the financial mess this country faces before 2008? NONE. “Ron Paul does not believe in the constitution.” That is FALSE he has been the champion of the Constitution for 30 years. Google Ron Paul.

            • He believes in alot of the constitution. Just not the parts he doesn’t agree with. Like the ability to have strategic deployments to defend ourselves. Fiscally, he is a giant. Love his fiscal policies. Even can stand some of his social policies that in general I do not like the idea like the end of the war on drugs.

              • Last time I checked, Iraq did not have any WMD’s and it’s now called “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Defend ourselves exactly how? Defend ourselves from the ‘evil Muslim country’ that we are currently defending the freedom of, that is of absolutely no threat to us? Your ‘strategic deployment’ to ‘defend ourselves’ isn’t very strategic at all.

                • You are speaking of two separate things entirely. So lets deal with them as such. Iraq was in the process of attempting to secure WMD’s and in the process of slaughtering much of their own population unprovoked. Reports have come out long after the fact that have been ignored that it was a true aim. Everyone thought that they had them, but they disappeared. Information can be wrong, but the intent was right in that war. We fought the war, like every other war like pansies and thus we were there much longer then we should have which still hasn’t been completed. Defend ourselves from threats not currently perceived that could pop up. Regime change, uprising, changing government to an anti-american government that could easily access those weapons. Its not about here and now its not checkers it is chess.

                • Anonymous

                  Someone forgot about the CIA investigator that came out and said that he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

                • KenInMontana

                  You do realize that Chemical Weapons (like he used on the Kurds and others) are classified as WMDs ,right?

                • Oh… you mean the kind that have been tested at Dugway in Utah? Perhaps Iran should have invaded us in order to liberate our own WMDs? Or is it okay to have chemical weapons so long as you have not yet used them?

                • Anonymous

                  Hey, look over there!

                • You people really think there is no difference between America and other countries? That we are equal when it comes to responsibility?

                • KenInMontana

                  Hmm, let’s see. I don’t recall expressing an opinion on the ethical issues of the use/development/stockpiling of chemical weapons. I do recall pointing out that chemical weapons are one of the types of weapons now classified as WMDs (what we used to refer to as NBC weaponry/warfare). But, if a strawman is all you’ve got, you aren’t worth discussing it with.

              • Please quote the exact part of the Constitution that refers to “strategic deployments”. Please also explain how it is that a country is “defending itself” when it is not being attacked.

              • Anonymous

                The so-called “war on drugs” is a complete failure and a total waste of taxpayer dollars. Look past the propaganda and you’ll understand why the “war” needs to end now.

            • If a candidate came along with good sound foreign policy constitutional views and Ron Pauls other views. I’d vote for him in an instant.

              • Making up false statements about a popular grassroots candidate like Ron Paul who has voted consistently with the polices he has proposed, does not make your arguments any better.

                • What false statements?Enlighten me.

                • The real unsound policy here is the one that isolates us from the rest of the world by positioning us as constant aggressors (and assures our economic collapse along the way). On the contrary, shouldn’t we prefer a non-isolationist foreign policy of non-interventionism and free trade? Why is it that some people believe the only kind of foreign relations are those involving foreign aid (bribes) or pre-emptive war (threats)? I can think of a lot of people I have relations with. I don’t give any of them handouts, and I don’t punch any of them in the face unless they punch me first. Didn’t we all learn these simple concepts when we were in third grade?

                • @Scott Reams-Im sorry but your opinion is very rose colored glasses. Unless you have traveled and had any interactions with Mulims or any other country that is anti USA-then please, dont assume just because we “leave them alone” that they will be satisfied. Hardly. Im all for minding our own business to some extent, but Congressman Paul is in serious denial regarding Iran and nuke policies. And really, the USA has ALWAYS been the worlds policeman. WHY? Because we are damned if we do and damned if we dont. Libya was a good example. WE sit by and watch and we are chastised by other countries and the people of libya are on camera asking where we are! Then, if we act, even under stupid Obamas cloak of U.N> intervention(WE ARE THE UN!) we still get slammed left AND right. You cant make everyone happy. And I am certainly unwilling to forego my own nations security just because others think we should mind our own business. Screw that.

                • Hmmm… I’d say the men and women in the armed forces who are over there have a pretty good perspective… wouldn’t you? The FEC shows that active military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul’s foreign policy over that of the entire rest of the field combined. Perhaps you should take your own advice and listen to the people who are dying for you.

                • You’re naive and have some very dangerous ideas here. Most of the people in North America are not like Muslims. Even the muslims here are not like the ones abroad. Even if you stay away, they will still come and kill you. They will still hate you. Their religion is based on the killing of infidels, those who are not muslims.

                  If you think blowback is real, you have no idea what the blowback will be if you leave them alone.

                • They -did not- come and kill us before we started intervening in the 50s. Period.

                • You’re naive and have some very dangerous ideas here. Most of the people in North America are not like Muslims. Even the muslims here are not like the ones abroad. Even if you stay away, they will still come and kill you. They will still hate you. Their religion is based on the killing of infidels, those who are not muslims.

                  If you think blowback is real, you have no idea what the blowback will be if you leave them alone.

                • What false statements?Enlighten me.

              • Making up false statements about a popular grassroots candidate like Ron Paul who has voted consistently with the polices he has proposed, does not make your arguments any better.

              • Anonymous

                Sarah may fit your bill.

            • Anonymous

              http://www.ronpaul.com

              then click on issues and you will see his platform for every separate issue such as border control, honest money, health care, taxes, education, war on drugs, etc.

              SERIOUSLY! If you believe in what the main stream media, fox news, and radio talk shows, have to say about Ron Paul at least you could do is look him up for yourself, or as Glenn beck says, “Do your own research.”

              • I have read his website in its entirety. The only issue I really have is with his isolationism and general disregard for national security. I did do that research.

                • “Isolationism”? What is “isolationist” is our current foreign policy. Even if Iran were to get a nuke, Israel could easily destroy Iran, *without* the help of the United States. You are committing a fatal misunderstanding here.

                  Hey, if you’re willing to bomb the crap out of Iran, you’re welcome to sign up for the army. Just don’t use my tax dollars to bomb foreigners.

                • army doesn’t bomb…fwiw

                • Oh, by the way. Even if I signed up for the air force/navy and we bombed Iran…you’d still be supporting it with your tax dollars. I am ineligible to serve in the armed forces for medical reasons.

                • Ah… I see. It’s much easier to send our people to their deaths when you aren’t qualified to do it yourself.

                  Ron Paul receives more campaign contributions from active military than all other Republican candidates combined (look it up on the FEC website). He also receives well more than Obama. Do you really have no interest in what the people who are actually over there putting their lives on the line are saying about this issue?

                • Anonymous

                  Gosh. I wonder who else gets a big chunk of that of “active duty” contribution money. Would his last name rhyme with “shmolama?”

                  Never mind that the amounts we’re talking about among such low-paying positions barely add up to one plate at an Obama fundraiser.

                • Anonymous

                  Gosh. I wonder who else gets a big chunk of that of “active duty” contribution money. Would his last name rhyme with “shmolama?”

                  Never mind that the amounts we’re talking about among such low-paying positions barely add up to one plate at an Obama fundraiser.

                • Obama… yet another candidate who receives fewer contributions from active military than Ron Paul. Considering that Obama has far, far more name recognition (for obvious reasons)… and considering that his idea of foreign policy is hardly different from that of a typical neo-conservative… that’s quite a statement.

                • Obama… yet another candidate who receives fewer contributions from active military than Ron Paul. Considering that Obama has far, far more name recognition (for obvious reasons)… and considering that his idea of foreign policy is hardly different from that of a typical neo-conservative… that’s quite a statement.

                • Anonymous

                  Hey, Scott! Still playing music? I am. For a little while longer.

                  I’m not sure why “neo_conservatives” are such a bogeyman. It’s like someone raising the specter of Wiccans taking over society. Hardly enough “neocons” in the entire world to pose much of a threat to the Ronulans, who probably outnumber them five-to-one.

                  Be that as it may, Obama received almost as much as Paul, which is indeed “quite a statement” considering how much the RP crowd is flogging this bit of minutiae.

                  In other words, it’s not really much to be proud of.

                  I’ll give Ron Paul his due when he’s right. It’s just that, like Pat Buchanan, when he’s wrong, he’s bizarrely, uncomprehendingly wrong.

                • So we can use your tax dollars to bomb domestically? What a dumb statement.

                • There are more options than just “Iran nukes Israel”. You are misunderstanding, or at least misrepresenting, the threats a nuclear power in the Middle East represent. They could proliferate to other countries, threaten rival neighbors, or proliferate to terrorist organizations. Hell, they wouldn’t even have to fire a missile into Israel! Iran could just hand it off to a jihadi in Hezbollah or to Hamas; I’m sure they’d love to do serious damage to Israel and it would afford Iran the cover that “they didn’t do it, the terrorists did”.

                  In a place as turbulent as the Middle East, why would you want to take the chance of nuclear weapons added to the mess?

                  Also, I don’t really understand that last taunt. If I signed up to bomb Iran, I would be using your tax dollars to “bomb foreigners”. That’s like, “Hey if you want to beat me up and rob me, go ahead. Just don’t steal my lunch money from me.” It just doesn’t make any sense.

                • There are more options than just “Iran nukes Israel”. You are misunderstanding, or at least misrepresenting, the threats a nuclear power in the Middle East represent. They could proliferate to other countries, threaten rival neighbors, or proliferate to terrorist organizations. Hell, they wouldn’t even have to fire a missile into Israel! Iran could just hand it off to a jihadi in Hezbollah or to Hamas; I’m sure they’d love to do serious damage to Israel and it would afford Iran the cover that “they didn’t do it, the terrorists did”.

                  In a place as turbulent as the Middle East, why would you want to take the chance of nuclear weapons added to the mess?

                  Also, I don’t really understand that last taunt. If I signed up to bomb Iran, I would be using your tax dollars to “bomb foreigners”. That’s like, “Hey if you want to beat me up and rob me, go ahead. Just don’t steal my lunch money from me.” It just doesn’t make any sense.

                • Anonymous

                  Joshua S – Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a none-interventionist. This is a big difference fella! He believes just as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson that we should not be involved in foreign entanglements or nation building.
                  As for Israel – yes they are very much our allies, but they are not a poor nation and they can buy as much weaponry from us as needed to defend their own borders. Israel does not need the permission of our nation our that idiotic, vile U.N. to do what is necessary against Iran – including nuclear action to protect their own country.
                  Just as all those other countries like Italy, Germany, France, the U.K. should pay for their own military and defense. Our troops do not need to be spread out throughout the world. All those countries near and around Iraq, Iran, and Libya including Europe should be banding together with Israel to protect their countries. Our young service people should not be the world’s police or fodder for the protection of other nations.
                  Just like Korea, and Vietnam – we again have our young service people in the midst of another UNDECLARED WAR – they need to be brought home and let those countries who are aligned against a common enemy who threatens their borders and shores anti-up their own defenses and military.
                  If and until our congress Declares War under Article 1, Section 8 – our precious young soldiers need to be brought home.

                  “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Trust in temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies… steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” (President George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797)

                  “Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” (President Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801)

                • We are not in france, germany, or any of those other countries solely for their defense. They are strategic bases to deter action from unfriendly countries within range of these bases. Early presidents did intervene in wars and situations in other countries. Entangling alliances to me means alliances wherein there are requirements detrimental to our interests to maintain those alliances. Your point is received, and I agree, I just differ on the current situation that I believe in this day and age would be considered an emergency situation. Afghanistan and Iraq were both approved by congress, may have been after the initial commencement, but they are approved therefore is constitutional. We did not declare war because the war is not against a particular country but rather a group of terrorists inside of that country. Either way, the procedure was followed for those wars unlike the last four that we have become entangled in where we are helping enemies dethrone and replace other enemies with little actual security implications that improve it.

          • ummm under any REAL reading of the Constitution it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have a standing army outside of declared war for a period of more than 2 years.

            So you might want to actually READ the constitution before you open your pie hole

            • KenInMontana

              Actually that clause applies to funding the military, it has nothing to do with having a standing military. That’s why DoD has to go “hat in hand” to Congress every year for funding.

          • The early wars you refer to were wars that were declared by Congress. We haven’t declared a war since WWII. Warmaking powers were vested in the Congress for good reason. You hand these powers to the President (in direct opposition to the Constitution) at your own peril. Powers that were Bush’s become Obama’s, and look at what he’s done with them. Are you just waiting for the next Republican President to get into office so that he can go to war with the blessing of the Arab League but without the permission of the people’s representatives? Have we already forgotten why it is that having a military dictator is a bad thing?

            • KenInMontana

              “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” look it up. Asked for by the sitting President at the time and passed by Congress.

          • Anonymous

            So you’re saying a Constitutionalist doesn’t believe in the Constitution?

            That’s like saying a human doesn’t believe in humanity. Makes no sense.

          • Anonymous

            So you are saying Washington was anti-federalist? He advocated foreign peaceful trade with all, while entangling alliances with none. John Q Adams said much the same thing, was he also an anti-federalist? Was Madison when he warned that the state gains most of its power in a time of war, and that war was the single biggest threat to liberty?

            The founders also had just seen that european queens and kings could launch wars unilaterally on their own, so they made sure that congress had to declare war, and not one single person. Mark Levin and I imagine most of those defending him on this forum agree with that view, while disagreeing with the founders.

            Even on a practical level, you are basically saying that government intervention in the economy is a bad thing because of its unintended consequences. I don’t think anyone who knows what is going on would argue that welfare, high taxes, regulation, etc have awful unintended consequences — yet many of those same would argue that there are no negative unintended consequences.

      • orthodoxyordeath

        Ron Paul’s foreign policy is suicidal. The last time we attempted isolationism, we ended up getting dragged into WWI and WWII to save the civilized world. For all we know, Paul with his “non-interventionism” might not have gotten involved in either war and would have just “let them work it out” as he wants to let Israel and Palestine do.

        We can stick with the Constitution, but we need to remember, we do not live in the 18th century like our Founders did. Our Founders did not face the terrorists and despotic nations that we face today. A missile could not reach our shores in a matter of minutes in 1776, a plane couldn’t just cruise over our borders and submarines couldn’t just sneak in and wreak havoc.

        Paul has even advocated leaving all of our overseas military bases and just protecting ourselves with a few submarines. Now, the biggest problem with this isolationist tactic isn’t the Commies or anything like that anymore. We now face the Islamofascists and the entire evil behemoth that is Islam. We can’t just sit at home cooped up while they begin to spread everywhere.

        He also wants to abandon NATO, abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. If he had been around in any of these time periods, there would be no West Berlin airlift (1948), the North Koreans would have been allowed to take over South Korea (1950). We also would have ignored Grenada (1984), and there would have been no Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait (1991). If Paul was president in the 1980’s, the Soviet Union would still be around today. Thank God he wasn’t………

      • orthodoxyordeath

        Ron Paul’s foreign policy is suicidal. The last time we attempted isolationism, we ended up getting dragged into WWI and WWII to save the civilized world. For all we know, Paul with his “non-interventionism” might not have gotten involved in either war and would have just “let them work it out” as he wants to let Israel and Palestine do.

        We can stick with the Constitution, but we need to remember, we do not live in the 18th century like our Founders did. Our Founders did not face the terrorists and despotic nations that we face today. A missile could not reach our shores in a matter of minutes in 1776, a plane couldn’t just cruise over our borders and submarines couldn’t just sneak in and wreak havoc.

        Paul has even advocated leaving all of our overseas military bases and just protecting ourselves with a few submarines. Now, the biggest problem with this isolationist tactic isn’t the Commies or anything like that anymore. We now face the Islamofascists and the entire evil behemoth that is Islam. We can’t just sit at home cooped up while they begin to spread everywhere.

        He also wants to abandon NATO, abolish the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and give up America’s veto power in the UN Security Council as well as all military assistance to Israel. If he had been around in any of these time periods, there would be no West Berlin airlift (1948), the North Koreans would have been allowed to take over South Korea (1950). We also would have ignored Grenada (1984), and there would have been no Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait (1991). If Paul was president in the 1980’s, the Soviet Union would still be around today. Thank God he wasn’t………

        • You sure you were talking to me? Because all of this foreign policy stuff is exactly why I am not voting for Ron Paul and never would. Our constitution leaves our number 1 priority through the federal government as our national defense and national security. Therefore the constitution has no impact on at least my positions on how our defense should be carried out. It is the one place that is granted the most leeway in the constitution. Although, it does bother me to authorize wars without congressional approval, it does bother me that I can be accosted for attempting to board an aircraft (I will not until this policy changes board any aircraft. I will drive to california first.)

          • Anonymous

            Why would you go to California? Unless you’re helping someone you care about move out….that would be justifiable.

            I read ‘the grapes of wrath’ in high school where people moved to California for jobs after the dust bowl hit. Now it seems like the reverse is happening, people fleeing California.

            • haha…true that. I have a couple friends in california. Probably could never make it out there flying or otherwise because of financial restrictions. Just illustrating that under no circumstances outside of a real emergency in the family would I use that mode of transport.

        • “Our Founders did not face the terrorists”

          Our founders would have faced plenty of “terrorists” if they had been manipulating the governments of entire sections of the world for over 50 years.

          • orthodoxyordeath

            The only terrorists they did face, were the Barbary Coast Pirates, who Jefferson attacked with what would later become the Marines. The Middle East hates us because it’s people are followers of Islam, and Islam hates freedom, and that is what we stand for.

            • Islam has existed for a lot longer than today’s terrorists have. So why weren’t they attacking us before the past 50 years?

              • orthodoxyordeath

                Hem hem. Barbary Coast Pirates. Thomas Jefferson. USMC. 18th century. ’nuff said. Remember that they were also busy subjugating all of the middle east not to Islam but Islamic rulers.

            • Our Gov’t hates freedom more

              • orthodoxyordeath

                You’re more free here than under sharia law my friend. No one hates freedom more than Islam. Don’t be ignorant.

                • I’m more free here than under sharia law–so far.
                  The only reason one would think Islam hates freedom more than government is that he was told as much by a government that hates him for his freedom.

                • orthodoxyordeath

                  No it’s just a fact that Islam has been crushing freedom since 640AD. It’s an evil, evil religion.

          • Oh, you mean like Haiti. And the nations of North Africa.

          • orthodoxyordeath

            They didn’t need to manipulate anyone. All they need to see is freedom and they will attack.

      • The direct translation of the Ahmadinejad quote is:

        “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

        Any other interpretation is the propoganda of someone with an agenda to make war. “Wiping something off the map” is a phrase that is meaningless in Farsi. If you suggested such a thing to an Iranian, he would wonder if your map was dirty.

      • Anonymous

        The founders wouldn’t intervene, whether the Iranians were a threat to Israelis or anyone else, apart from Americans. Peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Friendly terms with, but independent of, all nations on earth, sharing in the broils of none.

        I’m not saying your view of American foreign policy is wrong. Just that Ron Paul’s is the constitutional one because the framers and founders shared it. Hawkish republicans sometimes forget that while they’re flying the Gadsden and searching for monsters to destroy abroad.

      • Han Solo

        Maybe if like Ron Paul suggests. We stopped interfering in everyone’s business the problem would take care of itself. If we stop telling Israel what they can and can’t do they would take care of it. They did it last time Iran tried. Its more in Israels national interest than ours.

        Ask yourself. Why exactly have we been sitting around watching it happen right in front of our eyes since Bush????? If you want to blame anyone blame dumbass Bush.

      • Why do people so readily swallow the propaganda that the establishment dishes out for them? A small amount of research will reveal that the available intelligence on Iran’s foreign policy positions and on their nuclear weaponry aspirations does not at all infer that they are a clear and present danger to our national security or to Israel’s.

        Ron Paul references the CIA’s own intelligence assessments as support for his position. Mark Levin and other’s like him who do all the thinking on behalf of the mainstream elements of the tea party and republican party cite only sensational news headlines.

        The quote about wiping Israel off the map was itself a quote of an ancient Farsi idiom the translated meaning of which is not so clear. It is not prudent or intellectually honest to use that one quote to create a foreign policy of preemptive aggression. The comparison with Hitler is a logically fallacious appeal to emotion.

        The idea that the United States can use force to control the behavior of all the nations of the world in order to protect our interests and security is profoundly absurd. It will not work but is in fact counter productive and will lead to our ruin. What is worse is that our blood and treasure is expended primarily for secretive economic motives that are masked with more noble sounding pretexts such as national security and humanitarianism. Don’t be so naive as to think that special interests only secure the misuse of federal money and power in the realm of domestic policy. There are very wealthy and powerful special interests who vie mightily for the commencement of these wars in order to protect not the lives and liberty of the American people, but to ensure the security of multi-billion dollar investments and business opportunities.

      • BUt you (not your fault) did stand by while North Korea built nuclear arms. What did America do to prevent the North Korean Nuclear Bomb????? Nothing but bitch and harp and spend trillion’s of dollars. I understand that nothing short of ANOTHER war in the middle east will disrupt Iran from building a Nuke. So lets see war in Iraq, Afganistan (sp), Libya. And one $$$ transaction with a rogue leader and Iran will have the bomb to destroy Israel. Nothing you have even said has sold me that this country has the will to go and fight Iran, but we will spend the borrowed, printed, fake money to prepare. I love this nation, and spent 20 years in the Army defending it, but if Iran wants to build a bomb, they will do it, and we will sit on our asses once again and watch it happen.

      • Anonymous

        A return to constitutional restraint? Do you realize what those people who wrote the constitution had to say about war and foreign entanglements? And if your argument is “it is a different time now” then guess where else that can be applied?

        The CIA has described 911 as “blowback” for our intervention in the middle east. Osama himself specifically said he wanted a war involving us in the middle east because it was a perfect recruiting tool for al queda — a movement that we supported and helped arm during their fight with the last invaders, by the way.

        If you believe that the state’s intervention in domestic affairs, from welfare to regulations to high taxes all have negative impacts and blowback, why do you think this does not apply to invading and blowing the hell out of nations for dubious reasons overseas?

    • Sorry…that does not wash. The Tea Party asks for a return to constitutional restraint, not to the type of articles of confederation government that Ron Paul is for in essence. I could vote for the guy..I could deal with the anti-drug enforcement stuff…I could deal with his views on marriage…I’m even starting to agree with him on stuff I did not before. Foreign policy is not a primary focus of the tea party, but it would be if he were president. I can’t believe this guy tries to defend Iran getting nuclear weapons after Ahmadinejad stated that “he would wipe Israel off the map”. He would unilaterally immediately return all troops home. Yeah, lets give Al Qaeda an easy path to return to their training grounds. Lets allow countries to have the tactical disadvantage that they have go away so that if someone wants to attack us, it would be much easier. Its not just a pre 9/11 mindset. It is a pre Pearl Harbor mindset! It is absolutely pie in the sky utopian-ism that usually only Liberals could dream of spouting. He makes Barack Obama seem like a stalwart national security guy. Now, do I agree with nation building? Nope. Do I agree in principle that we could re-adjust our deployments to better tactical defense advantage? Probably. Do I believe that we should just hand Iran, North Korea, and other rogue nations nuclear weapons on a silver platter? Absolutely not and I will not stand by and allow it to happen. I unequivocally will say now and forever more, a statement like that will ensure not just my voting for someone else, but I would actively campaign against this because it is not in our country’s national security interest to be this absolutely ignorant of the consequences of Ahmadinejad getting a nuclear weapon.

    • LeonidasOfSparta1957

      You have the freedom to your own opinion EconconservatevSocliberal but Professor Levin has that freedom too, as do I. Ron Paul is wrongheaded on every issue except Pro-Life. That’s my opinion. There. I said it. All he will do is run as a spoiler, a lost cause, and ensure Obama another 4 years. Those are my opinions. You ranted for 6 paragraphs. It doesn’t take that many for me to say to you that Ron Paul is the anti-candidate.

    • Anonymous

      And you Rue Paul freaks keep going you sound just like obama-bots: you drone on and on and on.

      Levin is never wrong, and don’t you forget it- you big dope.

      • Anonymous

        He’s “never wrong” on his show, but he can’t cut people off in the real world.

        When you call people you disagree with “freaks” you only show that when you are called “racists” and whine about it, your whining deserves no audience. Dish it out and take it. One reason we are above you because we are above name calling period.

        • Anonymous

          Who is whining pal?

          I’m not going to come to rightscoop to have it flooded with people starting every point with “Ron Paul…did you know that Ron Paul…etc”. The foreign policy promoted defies reality. It is amazing how hard it is to teach grownups not to be so naive.

          The only way you’d be above me is if you’re taller than I am.

          • Anonymous

            Your right, people who stand above the outlook of the majority because they truly believe in something is so unpatriotic.

            • Anonymous

              You can’t argue with them. They are so used to thinking the whole world is a one-way conversation on a radio with a cut-off button and ten minutes of idiotic commercials that they go on acting like its that way here. If they could be wrong once in a while they could learn something. Hence they just get dumber and dumber all along.

              • KenInMontana

                That type of comment is precisely the reason you are met with such resistance. The comments by Paul supporters on the debate poll thread are an excellent example of why you are met with hostility. Think that over, take a hard and honest look at your fellow Paul supporters. Try reason, maturity and respect when dealing with those you are trying to convince or converse with, you’ll find it carries you much further than insult,belittlement and vitriol. Have a nice evening.

                • Anonymous

                  Very well put

                • Most conservatives are illogical in nature so there is very little reason to try to meet them with logical arguments.

                • KenInMontana

                  As are most Paul supporters. That does not prevent trying to use logic does it?

                • KenInMontana

                  As are most Paul supporters. That does not prevent trying to use logic does it?

                • Nice generalization. That totally doesn’t undercut what you just said.

                • Anonymous

                  Try reason, maturity and respect when dealing with those you are trying to convince or converse with, you’ll find it carries you much further than insult,belittlement and vitriol.

                  Agreed. But on the other side, we expect the same, so when Paul is left out of an RS presidential poll, it makes people who believe in a democracy upset.

                • KenInMontana

                  You need to wake up to the fact that we do not live in a Democracy, it’s a Republic. You also need to realize that this is Scoop’s blog, if you don’t agree with his views you don’t have to be here. I get upset at a lot of things but I don’t piss, moan, swear and throw a tantrum like some unruly adolescent that didn’t get enough discipline as a child. A blog poll you don’t happen to like is no excuse for the type of behavior exhibited of late here by your fellow Paul backers. You all want to be taken seriously? Show some respect when you are a guest in another man’s house, and you will be accorded the same respect. If someone were to come across my porch the way they came in here, well lets just say they would not be leaving under their own power.

      • Anonymous

        I used to be an adamant Levin fan, but after this attack on Ron Paul I am done with him. What a joke all these Republicans can do is focus on protecting their good ol’ boy club.

        Ron Paul is the only candidate that is truly set apart from the status quo. His statements on Iran sound extreme, but the truth is they are sensible. We can’t live out lives attackin everyone who doesn’t like us.

        • Anonymous

          I don’t find anything sensible in his comments about Iran, like when he included the United States as one of the countries that surround it. And FWIW, I don’t think you can name and quote anyone who is in favor of “attackin everyone.”

      • Anonymous

        Amen, MJS.

    • Anonymous

      “Levin is so wrong in so many ways”

      It would have been nice if you isolated one or two of them. You just keep repeating that US foreign policy has not been the best possible. Levin didn’t create that policy.

    • David Lee

      I’m sorry Mr. Paul has no plan. Pulling out all our troops and letting the tin pot rulers of the world do whatever they please is not a plan. That’s cowardice and belies the fact that America is the world’s model and beacon of hope and freedom for millions of people living under the repressive rule of tyranny.
      Don’t believe it…just look around every time people try to rise up and fight for freedom. Who do they look to for help? Sometimes we can’t or won’t help (Tiananmen square and the statue of liberty they made). Sometimes we have a true leader that does stand up and helps (Reagan in Germany).
      Sticking our head in rue paul sand is not a plan. no Plan at all.

  • Tea Party Founder would be Jefferson, who sent the Navy to do what with Muslims? People need some history, our Founders would make a fist and punch if someone attacked us, and they did, what they would NOT do is send money to foreign countries to fund abortions.

    • Anonymous

      But before the punch they would sign treaties with the Muslims, pay them a bunch of ransom money, and, when all else fails, send out a fledgling navy.

      • Jefferson, beloved libertarian president, cut the military and made the Navy pathetically small. Which naturally left America in a pickle when it came to defending its merchants, thus inviting the Barbary pirates to target American ships because of our weakness. Go figure.

  • Dr. Paul believes in a strong national defense, but he doesn’t believe in pre-emptive wars.

    • Defense from inside the country is by no means strong. Stripping the defense department of its funding drastically by more then is even proposed by the left is no strong national defense. So..you want pearl harbor to happen before we go out and take care of an imminent threat? I mean, people seem to forget in Afghanistan we are fighting those people who planned the 9/11 attacks. So now we cannot even fight back? No, when we defend from inside our borders it will be too late to defend ourselves from those that seeks to destroy us.

      • Anonymous

        Joshua, I have only seen a few of your post on therightscoop, but I must say you are becoming one my favorites – post on sir!

      • Anonymous

        Joshua, I have only seen a few of your post on therightscoop, but I must say you are becoming one my favorites – post on sir!

        • I just found the website by Mark Levin tonight. I’ll probably be around. I appreciate it.

          • Anonymous

            Have enjoyed your posts. Mainly because I agree with what you’ve said.

        • I just found the website by Mark Levin tonight. I’ll probably be around. I appreciate it.

      • Anonymous

        You are far too young and naive to be blogging about this subject. Stop now and do yourself a favor. (Very embarrassing for you)

        • Embarrassing to say that Iran is a potential national security threat? I’m not worried about my reputation with Ron Paul supporters.

          • That’s ok. There’s no help for the helpless.

          • Every Nation in the world is a “potential” security threat.

            Maybe we should just use the Neutron bomb on all nations and solve all of the “National Security Threats”

            if you want the REAL truth, the only threat to liberty in the nation is the US Federal Government.

            • What, you mean we should consider Samoa a potential security threat? And the United Kingdom? And Swaziland?

              Obviously, no. Not every country is considered or can be considered a potential security threat. I do love oversimplification, though! Do some more!

              Oh, that’s nice to know. International communism wasn’t a threat to liberty in America. Neither was state-government enforced slavery. And neither was Nazi Germany. Good to know.

          • Every country is a “potential national security threat”. Except maybe Canada.

            • Anonymous

              Clearly you don’t know how wily and ornery them Canadianites can be.

          • Every country is a “potential national security threat”. Except maybe Canada.

      • h will

        With the invasion from the south we are not even protecting and defending from the inside.

      • I dont know if you have noticed or not, but the nation is BANKRUPT, we can no longer afford to maintain bases in every nation and provide for the defense of every nation for free.

        If these nations would like our defense then they need to pay us for it, as it is now not only to we pay for the actual defense we then since MONEY in addition to providing men and equipment, this is just retarded.

        Further, the idea that the “best defense is a strong offense” has been proven time and time again as a BAD BAD idea, that policy combined with the “enemy of our enemy is our friend” as cost us more in lives, money and equipment than any other policy since WWII

        It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
        ~George Washington

        The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.
        ~George Washington

        All men having power ought to be mistrusted.
        ~James Madison

        If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
        ~James Madison

        The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
        ~James Madison

        It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
        ~James Madison

        The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
        ~James Madison

        Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.
        ~Thomas Jefferson

        Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
        ~Thomas Jefferson

        The founders of this nation were very very much against the type of foreign policy you advocate for

    • Anonymous

      What do you consider a war nowadays? We don’t live in a clear cut world where countries necessarily send troops to our shores. What would it take for Paul to take action?

      • Anonymous

        Well said.

      • Anonymous

        Well said.

      • Anonymous

        When the liberty and freedom of the American people is in jeopardy. Unfortunately, wars like the war on terrorism only created a war on our constitutional rights, liberty, and freedoms through the Patriot Act.

        • Anonymous

          So we need to be vigilant about our liberty and force politicians to respect the Constitution. That doesn’t, however, mean we should adopt a dangerous, isolationist posture.

        • 9/11 was caused by what pre-emptive war exactly? enlighten me.

          • Anonymous

            Here’s Ron Paul in 1998 predicting that our bombing in the Middle East and sanctions against Iraq makes us more likely to be the victims of a terrorist attack. Consider yourself enlightened.

            • They do not need a reason to hate us. They hate us because we exist.

              • Anonymous

                Then why were they good friends with us in the 40s and 50s until we got involved with overthrowing their governments and setting up dictators?

                I hate to shatter your world, but they don’t hate us because we play the lottery and go to titty bars. They hate us for the very reason they tell us they hate us: because we get involved in their internal affairs and bomb the hell out of them.

                Did you even watch the clip? The Clinton administration put sanctions on Iraq that starved and denied medicine to 500,000 children. He bombed the Middle East for narrow political goals. How would you feel if China did that to us? Would you be outraged? Are you and Levin agreeing with the Clinton administration now?

                The consequences of our actions was predictable and Ron Paul predicted it, as he has predicted so correctly on most things, especially the economy.

                From your picture you look young. Don’t worry, I have faith in you. You know that your position is wrong and I know that you will come around. Maybe not tonight, but soon.

                • Anonymous

                  Please, go on about titty bars…

                • Anonymous

                  Something we can all agree on 🙂

                • Bingo.

              • Anonymous

                This is an extremely false statement and is why most americans believe in preemptive war. You foolishness is the reason we are in 6 wars.

                • So..they do not feel the need to kill the infidel to go and meet their virgins in their heaven? We are not hated because of bases, or even bombings. It is simple. We support Israel, therefore they hate us.

                • That is a oversimplification of a complex topic that only an ignorant person can believe.

                  Educate yourself, dont take the Fox News, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck talking points.

                • Anonymous

                  Ron Paul talking points for everyone!!!

                • An understandable misunderstanding, but ultimately false. The nature of Islam is that of expansion and constant conquering of infidels. It’s kind of written into the doctrines and it’s an integral part of Arab (and Muslim) culture in general.

                  “We” is very broad. Perhaps you have not considered the invasions of Europe and Asia, if we’re going back that far. Either that or please narrow down. Also, I am only aware of 4 of those wars. Please do expound. (Technically we are in no wars.)

                  Also, do you deny that Israel is a large factor insofar as they our allies, and that large strains of Islamic leaders and swaths of popular opinions in those countries want to see Israel replaced by an Arab state?

          • Anonymous

            We set up military establishments in the Middle East. Osama Bin Laden said over and over again that we as infidels should not be in those regions. He said over and over again that the attacks will not stop until we leave.

            Basically, our foreign policy which has not changed, was the reason we were there in the first place. Is it so crazy to think, if we had minded our own business and stayed out, that 9/11 would never had happened, and that we would not have been in the Middle East fighting a “war on terror” for over half my life?

          • http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267829

            This will help explain our involvement in the Middle East and why 9/11 eventually came about.

          • http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267829

            This will help explain our involvement in the Middle East and why 9/11 eventually came about.

          • http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/31267829

            This will help explain our involvement in the Middle East and why 9/11 eventually came about.

          • Anonymous

            It has something to do with the Aztecs. And a chihuahua.

        • “9/11”, which I assume means Afghanistan, wasn’t preemptive war. An Afghanistan-based group declared war on the United States, so we took the fight to them.

          If you speak of Iraq, then you’ll have to explain further because that’s confusing me how it made us measurably less secure nationally.

          Or do you mean the 9/11 attacks were a result of a preemptive war?

        • “9/11”, which I assume means Afghanistan, wasn’t preemptive war. An Afghanistan-based group declared war on the United States, so we took the fight to them.

          If you speak of Iraq, then you’ll have to explain further because that’s confusing me how it made us measurably less secure nationally.

          Or do you mean the 9/11 attacks were a result of a preemptive war?

        • “9/11”, which I assume means Afghanistan, wasn’t preemptive war. An Afghanistan-based group declared war on the United States, so we took the fight to them.

          If you speak of Iraq, then you’ll have to explain further because that’s confusing me how it made us measurably less secure nationally.

          Or do you mean the 9/11 attacks were a result of a preemptive war?

  • David Landro

    Hitler did want nukes. Was working feverishly towards that goal.

    • And the Germans wanted Hitler because we obliterated their economy post-WWI with oppressive sanctions. Fortunately, we may have learned a little something from the mistake. We didn’t punish Japan’s population post-WWII as we did earlier with Germany… and they turned out okay.

      • No, you’re right. The United States rebuilt Japan into a democracy. Hooray for nation building!

  • Anonymous

    If Ron Paul isn’t going to dump billions of our tax dollars for 3rd world shit-holes to have and then screw us anyways, he is my man for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Make China deal with their own backyard!!!! I’m tired of other countries milking the benefits of having protection from our military with no expense to them

    • China’s not going to do anything about the terrorist weeds in the Middle East anymore than Russia is. They both see the whole debacle as a way to stick it to us (China more so than Russia, I think).

  • Anonymous

    If Ron Paul isn’t going to dump billions of our tax dollars for 3rd world shit-holes to have and then screw us anyways, he is my man for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Make China deal with their own backyard!!!! I’m tired of other countries milking the benefits of having protection from our military with no expense to them

  • Anonymous

    The one clear job given to the Federal Government is to protect our borders, which is threatened by the violence of terrorists. That’s a fact. All the other stuff the Fed has got into “in the name of the people” is up for debate, which is where the Tea Party is coming on. If Ron Paul wants to help, then he can. He is a U.S. Congressman of standing, but I stare at him in bewilderment when he speaks of foreign threats against our security and our sovereignty. That’s right I said it! Our Sovereignty. (and thank you Mr. Levin)

    • Anonymous

      and operation gun runner, and our open border policy that is currently being condoned by both our liberal and neo-con administrations is any better????

      Maybe you should save your bewilderment for what is already happening on our own border??

    • Israel is our Border now?

      The Middle East is our Border now?

      hmmmmm

  • Anonymous

    You are spot on!

  • I like Levin on 99% of things, but on Ron Paul he is just wrong and instead wants to keep the never ending wars going to advance the war complex in this country. I am no pacifist and neither is Ron Paul. I would vote to destroy anyone that openly attacks the United States with a declaration of war as the Constitution requires but chasing after demons in the night and dragging on undeclared wars is both financially and morally bankrupting. It definitely makes me less Levin a lot less…

    Remember these words:
    “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. ”
    –John Quincy Adams
    US diplomat & politician (1767 – 1848)

    http://www.nutmeg-state-conservative.blogspot.com

  • So you’d just give them a nuclear weapon…after them threatening to wipe Israel off the map? Not to mention it could be sold to a terrorist and smuggled across our border or launched from mexico.

    • Anonymous

      you want another war?? Is that it then??????????? Are you prepared to go die yourself to prevent this bomb? If not, shut up!

    • Anonymous

      you want another war?? Is that it then??????????? Are you prepared to go die yourself to prevent this bomb? If not, shut up!

      • We don’t need to go to war to stop a nuclear bomb from being made. The Israeli’s are working on doing this now without our help. If we are not pro-active, we then must be re-active. He HATES us, and wants “the great satan” to be destroyed. So my question holds..would you rather deal with a nuclear bomb going off in your neighborhood or head off the threat before it can happen?

        • Anonymous

          so then you do agree with Ron Paul, we need to stay out of it and let them deal with it….

          • Your funny. Israel may even be able to defend themselves, but to say that it is not a risk to us as well and “stay out of it” is laughable. I needed a laugh today. We work with our allies to obtain national security and sovereignty for our nations. An Ally means, if an enemy is at war with them, then we are at war with the enemy as well. Otherwise the word “Ally” is hollow

            • You say Ron Paul’s foreign policy views have no basis in the early days of this country. Did you know non-interventionism (not isolationism) was the basic foreign policy back then? Check out the history of the Republican Party until about the ’50’s and the 60’s.

              You may say that the world now is too complex for such a “simplistic” world-view; but the complexity is only due to our many entanglements in affairs that we as a nation simply have no basis to be in. In fact, it would make more sense for us to be non-interventionist today, both for financial reasons and because the world IS more complex today.

              • What did we do with the barbury pirates? There are numerous wars during that period of time that had even less to do with our shores that we were involved with in a time where it would be very difficult for someone to launch an attack on us.

              • What did we do with the barbury pirates? There are numerous wars during that period of time that had even less to do with our shores that we were involved with in a time where it would be very difficult for someone to launch an attack on us.

                • Anonymous

                  These folks know about Washington’s use of the word “entanglements” and have built up a mythos about it that has nothing to do with what Washington said.

                  Alliances are necessary and proper among sovereigns, just as they are among individuals. Sometimes they get messy. If so, like a good businessman, you can pare them back until they resolve to less messy arrangements.

                  But these “Neocon!” ranters demand no military alliances at all, and lay the blame at Washington’s feet, as though he were never happy to have help from Lafayette, and would have opposed the Treaty Of Alliance with France. It’s as if all of early American history were condensed into a small part of Washington’s Farewell Address.

                  All so they can abuse terminology and declare Conservatives to be Neocons and war mongerers, or something.

        • Anonymous

          Joshua, it’s useless trying to convince paulbots. They are as closedminded as most Libs, probably more so.

          addendum – but I do like you trying 😉

          • I know this..I am not so much trying to convince them as I am the people who might be swayed by the argument.

        • Anonymous

          Joshua, it’s useless trying to convince paulbots. They are as closedminded as most Libs, probably more so.

          addendum – but I do like you trying 😉

        • Anonymous

          See , parker just proved my point , when they can’t debate or discuss they attack ! ( Just like Obama -ites)

          You’ve made some great posts , but remember the saying about casting your pearls before swine ?
          Talking to these people is a waste of time

          • Its not about those people who have their mind entrenched. It is about others who may not have formed a political opinion as of yet that come across this page and read the comments primarily.

            • Anonymous

              Also for people who can think critically (changing one’s position for another).

              BTW Joshua ive been reading your comments and welcome to the site. Respectful and intellectual rebuttals are always welcome (even when we disagree) 🙂

              • I appreciate the welcome. I do understand that people are going to agree to disagree, but political debate that is respectful is heartening, because it means that people care about their country.

              • I appreciate the welcome. I do understand that people are going to agree to disagree, but political debate that is respectful is heartening, because it means that people care about their country.

            • Anonymous

              Well then you deserve a pat on the back for your efforts !

              ________________________________

          • Its not about those people who have their mind entrenched. It is about others who may not have formed a political opinion as of yet that come across this page and read the comments primarily.

        • That is correct, it is up to ISRAEL to defend her self, it is not up to the USA, Ron Paul nor any libertarian is claiming the Israel should just lay down and die We are stating that is NOT the place of the USA to commit Men, Equipment or Money to the defense of other nations. We do not have them to commit.

          Every nation, including the USA, the right to self defense, just as I have the right to self defense.

          Ron Paul wants the USA to stop being the world police force, the self proclaimed “keepers of peace” by force. We should have a VERY VERY strong defense and make sure the world and nations know that if you attack the USA you will be destroyed in the most powerful manner outside of that we could care less what you do.

          • KenInMontana

            I haven’t heard anyone calling to send our troops into Israel (aside from the occasional lone nut), so far I have seen people state their support for Israel but, not a one calling to send in the troops. Our government has offered direct military assistance in the past and Israel turned it down flat. Israel has defended itself since it’s inception and aside from asking for some materials have done it on their own. Hell they don’t even buy equipment from us anymore, they build their own, have for some time now. That said I believe that as a friend and ally that standing beside them at the UN for example is the right thing to do. But, myself my first concern has always been this nation, after my own family. That said, I hail from a place (and a time) where a man’s word is his bond. If I say I will do something ,I will and I believe that value should be reflected in a nation, if we give our pledge of support we should honor it, at the same time though that pledge should never be given lightly.

            • You are either very naive or ignorant.

              First the US 6th Fleet’;s defacto mission to the patrol the Middle East and “Maintain stablity” if you think for one second that is Iran, Jordan, Libya or now Egypt were to start military actions against Israel that the US 6th Fleet would not be deployed in response your not a good study of history.

              As to the “honor” part, this may come as a shock to you, but I actually agree with that, to the extent that we have defense pacts with other nations we have to honor them AND/or attempt to renegotiate them, we however should not do back on our word, however we should attempted to change the terms of those agreements.

              • I don’t like the idea of changing the terms of an agreement during the time when your friend may need you most, on a metaphorical level here.

              • KenInMontana

                Actually I’m neither, the 6th Fleet has been assigned to the “Med” since it’s creation, in 1946. It’s original assignment was to support NATO forces in the defense of Europe against Soviet and Warsaw Pact threats, along with preempting any moves against Africa. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/c6f.htm

      • KenInMontana

        The last time I checked Military service was not a requirement for the rights of a citizen. We have had an all volunteer force for quite some time now, those young folks that serve now volunteered as did I in my youth. That’s a key word there, volunteered, you should look it up. I think perhaps some of you have read a bit too much Heinlein, or watched Starship troopers once too often.

      • KenInMontana

        The last time I checked Military service was not a requirement for the rights of a citizen. We have had an all volunteer force for quite some time now, those young folks that serve now volunteered as did I in my youth. That’s a key word there, volunteered, you should look it up. I think perhaps some of you have read a bit too much Heinlein, or watched Starship troopers once too often.

      • So Josh states an opinion, and you reply by insinuating that he’s a warmongering chicken-hawk and tell him to shut up…

        Classy.

  • Anonymous

    Gotta love, Levin!

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul: the only GOP candidate who actually served in the military. Maybe he knows a few things about foreign policy.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul: the only GOP candidate who actually served in the military. Maybe he knows a few things about foreign policy.

    • Anonymous

      Ron definitely put his life on the line fighting for this country. He was a Flight Surgeon.

      Flight surgeons are medical doctors, either MDs or DOs who are primarily responsible for the medical evaluation, certification and treatment of aviation personnel — e.g., pilots, USN and USMC Naval Flight Officers, USAF navigators/Combat Systems Officers, astronauts, air traffic controllers, UAV operators and other aircrew members. They perform routine, periodic medical examinations (“flight physicals”) of these personnel.

      I’m very impressed with his bravery. Never know what can happen evaluating aviation personnel.

      • Han Solo

        I bet it’s a hell of alot more service than you have ever done.

        • Anonymous

          I spent 8 years in the military and it was all active duty, not 2years active and 3 years National Guard. None of it was asking a guy to turn his head and cough.
          I won’t retaliate by calling you names. That’s a Ron Paul supporter issue. BTW,I haven’t discovered if any of his service was overseas. Could you tell me where he did his time?

          I served one tour in Korea in the Air Force.

        • Anonymous

          I spent 8 years in the military and it was all active duty, not 2years active and 3 years National Guard. None of it was asking a guy to turn his head and cough.
          I won’t retaliate by calling you names. That’s a Ron Paul supporter issue. BTW,I haven’t discovered if any of his service was overseas. Could you tell me where he did his time?

          I served one tour in Korea in the Air Force.

    • That’s nice, but not true. Rick Perry served in the Air Force.

      • Anonymous

        At the time I posted that comment, Rick Perry had not entered the race.

  • Anonymous

    Mark Levin is a war mongerer!

    • jparker70 is a purple dinosaur!

      It’s not true? Neither is that.

  • Anonymous

    BTW….all you Ron Paul supporters who think he is so “above” politics – take a look at his ability to get pork in his district! I like what he has to say. I even like the way he votes most of the time, but he is dead wrong on foreign/military policy. Just because you think that we are in too many wars now, doesn’t mean that you abandon all foreign policy and become isolationist.

    • Anonymous

      okay, but you can send your tax money to fund your ideology, but don’t send mine!!!!! I don’t want to pay for war or welfare!!!!

      • Fair tax would solve that..as you’d only pay taxes when you purchase something giving you the ability to abstain from funding government.

        • Anonymous

          This guys smart

    • Ok, so you like the path the country is on? You want to police the world, disregard the Constitution, bail out banks, impose Unconstitutional healthcare on hard working Americans, ban all unregulated farming and pave the way to bankrupting America so the globalist Elitist can have their way with the world? I don’t. I believe in America. RON PAUL ALL THE WAY 2012!

      • Anonymous

        That’s a false choice.

      • Straw man argument. Has no basis in anything whatsoever. You can believe in the constitution, in the overturn of the healthcare, freedom to farm, and economic realism, believe in America, and still not want Ron Paul. This is laughable. The worst argument I’ve seen yet.

        • What is YOUR solution, big man? I’m sorry to start off confrontational, but what other Republican candidate does not stand for the status quo? Who??? And PROVE IT!!! I didn’t VOTE last time around because the choice was Obama or McCain. Can you imagine if the choice this time is Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Huntsman or Obama vs. Pawlenty? My God, it’ll be 2008 all over again! I guess Rep. Bachmann could have a chance of winning Iowa, which could spell big momentum for her, donor-wise, but look at what the biased media did to Gov. Palin. They EVISCERATED her, and you know what? It’ll be 10 times worse for Bachmann!!!

          MAYBE you’re right. Maybe Rep. Paul ISN’T the right leader for our country, but who IS then? The only non-politician in the field is Herman Cain, but it really seems like he’s talked himself out of any chance he had. The funny thing is that it WOULD be refreshing to have a non-politician AND a businessman running our country, yet look at how Cain is polling. He likely has no CHANCE, so where do we go from here? Not to mention, aren’t CEOs an awful lot like politicians? They are, so we’d probably be screwed with a CEO as President as well.

          Now, you can call me crazy ALL you like, and while I haven’t made up my mind 100% to back him yet because I’m still doing research, there is a certain amount of things that Rep. Paul says that just ring true. Hell, who ACTUALLY admits, as he did last night, that Gov. Perry entering the race would likely further dilute the vote and give him an even better shot? NO ONE SAYS THAT! At least, no “regular” politician. I think that the “hope” and “change” that people were so craving from Obama last time around was the hope that a politician would come along and just be honest and speak PLAINLY about things without any hidden agenda. Maybe I’m just a sheep or so tired of normal Democrats and Republicans, but when I listen to Rep. Paul speak, I hear someone who doesn’t have an agenda any more than righting this country Constitutionally.

          What you have to realize is that just because he wants to enact a policy doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll be able to carry it out immediately, nor that he would want to either. The whole notion that we’d be out of every country around the world the day after he is inaugurated SO disingenuous when I hear people say it that I don’t even know how to respond. Of COURSE he’ll take the advice of his generals in any world-wide troop withdrawals. In all likelihood, it would take an entire four-year term to bring all of our troops home to be re-deployed along our northern and southern borders — HELL, it might even take EIGHT years, but, damn it, at least you know he’d try!

          As for Israel… I don’t even know how to say this without getting angry. The disingenuous-ness of people on this subject simply knows no bounds. When has Rep. Paul ever said that he hates Israel or Jews? When has he ever said that he does not support Israel and the Jews? Please, bring out the quote and I will shut up. What people seem to equate is that, somehow, by NOT wanting to send foreign aid to other countries when we are BANKRUPT, Rep. Paul is somehow against Israel? OR By suggesting that MAYBE sanctions against another country, do NOTHING to the government of that country and EVERYTHING to the PEOPLE of that country, further ingrains a hatred of our country that they might otherwise forget as their own government beats in their skulls, is somehow supportive of regimes like the one in Iran. People like you either need your head examined OR you need to go back and take a logic class. Rep. Paul pointed it out quite clearly last night in the debate: American involvement in picking winners and losers in other countries’ governments has lead to NOTHING but trouble for us, or have you forgotten that we SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran? God, I hate to agree with a Lib, but Noam Chomsky may have been right about the United States of Amnesia. Read some DAMN history! You sound like Sen. Santorum incorrectly tracing our history with Iran back to 1979! Back to Israel, though. I DO support Israel. I DO support the Jews! I have nothing against Jews. I’m a Christian and happen to believe that the Jew is my BROTHER, and as such, I will do everything humanly possible to make sure that another Holocaust NEVER happens again. HOWEVER! This does not mean that the United States of America has to fight Israel’s battles for it! I don’t know if you remember a little thing called HISTORY, but Israel has already won two wars against Muslim countries, and it kicked their asses… BOTH TIMES! We have been funding Israel for how many decades now? We’ve given them our older military gear. Are you telling me that Israel doesn’t have its OWN CIA to take care of Iran? PLEASE! Their CIA is probably more disciplined than OUR CIA! It would have to be with the threats that exist all around them. Last time I checked, I haven’t heard Israel asking for the USA to fight its battles for it. In FACT, I bet they’d be happy if our President simply kept his trap shut about Israel and “Palestine” altogether! (Thank you very much, President Obama) I have kind of taken a round about way to get to my main point, but here it is: I think Israel can take care of its own DAMN SELF! Hell, if America didn’t keep on sticking its damn nose in the “peace process,” Israel probably could have FORCED a peace accord DECADES AGO!!!

          I’m sorry I just went off on you like that, but I am soooo sick and tired of people making Israel out to be a scared, sickly, INCAPABLE younger, red-headed step child to the USA. If I was an Israeli, I’d be so sick of America’s involvement in OUR treaties… I’d say “OYE!”

          • Well sir…unfortunately you are right. But Michelle Bachmann has as much chance as Ron Paul at winning the nomination and has much better foreign policy stands in my book. I’d prefer Sarah Palin. They are eviscerated in the same way I would be if I ran for office (which I’d probably never do). My solution? Work to get good people in congress for a solid deficit reduction plan, and try to get someone at least somewhat conservative as president. Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Romney are the worst candidates outside of Ron Paul. And yes, I am saying that I’d vote for Huntsman before Ron Paul. Problem is the president is commander in chief and therefore has powers to change foreign policy and deployments. He does not need congress to do so just to declare was (constitutionally anyway libya and the other 3 wars this president has gotten us into are unconstitutional). For Israel..did I say that he hates Israel? I don’t recall, nor do I read that he said that. I said simply that his policies would be leaving Israel to fend for itself. It has a great military and great technology, but they are a tiny country surrounded and infiltrated with people dedicated to their destruction. I am not comfortable with having combat troops deployed inside of the country for border security. It sets up a truly bad scene that could end very badly for U.S. citizens on the border. More bases near there? Maybe. A fence, border patrol actual increases, and crack down on business’s that hire illegals is how I’d approach that. The economy is already having them leave some states to sneak back into mexico (namely california) so I know that it would work if we took away the work availability. I am not for forced peace accords as the past few administrations have attempted to do them. In short..I’m not willing to sell out national security because I have a choice. Congress controls spending, the president controls the military.

        • Anonymous

          I guess I am just part of the grand conspiracy because I don’t want to vote for Paul! 🙂 LOL!

      • Anonymous

        David – you need to read my comment again. I never said any of the things you just said. The fact that you think there is only one person who can solve America’s problems doesn’t speak highly of your faith in Americans. It is also a tad bit scary. I don’t understand the worshipping of Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous

    Eyes Wide Open, my friend –

  • Anonymous

    You are very correct. Hilter’s machine was working very hard to develop jet engine missiles that would reach England and beyond. Many of these German scientists were proudly part of the US Space Program after WWII.

  • It’s funny how Mark Levin talks all that smack and yells at soundbites (who does that?) when Dr. Paul isn’t in the room or on the phone to defend himself and his positions. After 3 years of listening to his show, I’ve also realized that he only has discussions with people he agrees with; he shouts down or hangs up on anyone else with a dissenting opinion. Sounds like something Hitler would’ve done if he had had a talk show.

    • He’s starting to turn a little into Michael Savage in a way…but the crazies that call in don’t have any argument and just try to scream over him and not answer questions. I do not blame him for hanging up on them. There is no point to that.

      • Anonymous

        That’s a complete lie.

    • He’s starting to turn a little into Michael Savage in a way…but the crazies that call in don’t have any argument and just try to scream over him and not answer questions. I do not blame him for hanging up on them. There is no point to that.

    • Mark Levin is nothing but a Republican Gas Bag & Shill….

      He claims independence from the Republican Party but that is only during Primary season, ever other time he is 100% republican and if any disagrees with him they are a “moron”

      He has zero ability to debate anyone with out using childish rants and the mute button on is “I am god” radio show.

    • It’s his show. There are others to listen to.

      Hitler’s big thing was not ignoring dissenters, it was killing them.

  • Godwin’s law on display – by invoking Hitler, Mark Levin has lost the argument. Considering how hysterical Beck and Limbaugh were earlier, I guess the Hitler card was the only one left in the deck.

    • Anonymous

      Misapplication of Godwin’s law. There are times when it’s legitimate to bring up Hitler sir.

      • Anonymous

        Ever notice how often Ron Paul threads and hijacked threads end up with references to Hitler? It’s probably a corollary to Godwin now.

    • Anonymous

      Misapplication of Godwin’s law. There are times when it’s legitimate to bring up Hitler sir.

  • As I sit here reading this page from my government trailer in the Middle East, it dawned on me that I absolutely hate it when people say “we” when referencing war. If you’ve never put on a pair of combat boots to go to work, then you have no idea. If you want to know why more service members support Ron Paul than any other candidate, then I urge you to walk a few steps in OUR boots. Put up or shut up.

    • Anonymous

      My mother and father were WW2 vets and they never voted for Paul, so I guess not all service members are for Paul.

      God Bless you for your service, we are eternally grateful!

    • Ron Paul gets more support from our soldiers than from all the other Republican candidates combined. Those who see what is going on first hand respect him on the issues. Ron Paul is also the only presidential candidate who has served.

      To quote the detestable Sean Hannity – you are a great American. Thank you for your service.

      • Anonymous

        “Ron Paul gets more support from our soldiers than from all the other Republican candidates combined.”

        What’s your source friend?

      • Anonymous

        Anyone who refers to Sean Hannity as “detestable” is not dealing from a full deck.

        As far as this ludicrous narrative the Paulnuts are spreading on this thread about Ron Paul having more support from military members than other candidates? Just one more example of Paulnuts being nuts.

        Ron Paul was drafted. Ron Paul hates the United States military. The notion that a majority, or even a sizable minority, of our volunteer forces have any respect for Ron Paul is bat sh*t insane. But, what else is new with the Paulnuts?

        • Sean Hannity is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Republican party. He has a pretty haircut and very little substance. His attacks on Ron Paul at the debates four years ago were hysterical and ridiculous. However, to see Hannity’s morals and intellect on full display, take 4 minutes to watch “Hannity’s Gospel” on Youtube.

    • KenInMontana

      Thank you for your service Christian. However many of us here “rucked up and put up” in our youth as you are now. That said you are entitled to your political opinion as am I and others, that those opinions do not “mesh” all the time is not as important as the fact that we can express them.

    • Anonymous

      I grew up with a Father in the Navy and a now am married to a Navy man. Lived on more military bases that I can count. I just don’t hear support for Ron Paul from people. But, you are certainly are entitled to your opinion. As I mentioned before – you can be against our policies in the Middle East or anywhere else, but still not be completely isolationist.

      With all due respect (which is a lot), I think people say “we” because most people stand behind our troops. I understand your frustration though as I know military life is so unique (even from branch to branch) and is hard to explain to people who haven’t been there.

      Christian – thanks for your service. We all appreciate it! You are the reason we remain free and able to disagree on these issues.

    • Anonymous

      Well I have served and their are plenty of other Conservatives who have as well. It still does not make Ru Paul’s foreign policy any less foolish. A nation cannot bury its head in the sand in order to protect its interests.

      Alexander Hamilton was right, and Ru Paul on this topic is comically wrong as always.

    • Christian – thank you for your service. I believe our soldiers understand Ron Paul’s stance a lot better than radio talk show hosts because our military personnel see what is going on first hand and apply that context to Ron Paul’s statements.

      Our soldiers see with their own eyes that we have too many bases and are wasting our money policing areas of the world where we have no business. That we are invading countries for political reasons and not defense reasons as some would have you believe. And they understand that when Ron Paul talks about defense spending cuts he is talking about reducing worldwide bases and getting out of these wars. He would never underfund the military – by that I mean take away their funding and expect the same number of bases, activity in conflict, etc. I think the military knows that Ron Paul is the one candidate they can trust to only send them in if it’s necessary and, should he have to send them in, support them 100%.

      • Unfortunately, with Dr. Paul’s stance we wouldn’t fund the military enough to have the troops available to send over. The only reason the miliary members that are over there like the idea of being non-interventionist/isolationist means that they don’t have to go over there and do their job. I know it’s tough. I was in the Air Force. While I wasn’t part of the ground troops going to Iraq or Afghanistan, I know that if we didn’t go there to slow them down they’d eventually make their way over here and it would be 100x worse for us if they did make it here.

        • Han Solo

          That’s crap. You have no idea what your taking about. With Ron Pauls plan we could take all the money we waste playing in Germany and everywhere else in the world and instead use it here at home to build the best fast reaction military units in the world.

          • Anonymous

            Doesn’t take much “fast” when your universe of reaction is inside your own borders. Just let the cops handle it.

            Remember folks, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your service

    • Amen, and thank you for your service

      I love how Republicans are soo flippant with OTHER peoples lives…..

      Must be nice to send others to die for your perceived safety.

      I hope and pray you return home safe and soon.

      • Anonymous

        Accusation uber alles!

  • As I sit here reading this page from my government trailer in the Middle East, it dawned on me that I absolutely hate it when people say “we” when referencing war. If you’ve never put on a pair of combat boots to go to work, then you have no idea. If you want to know why more service members support Ron Paul than any other candidate, then I urge you to walk a few steps in OUR boots. Put up or shut up.

  • Anonymous

    Go ahead, vote for an establishment republican this year. Then when he screws up because the economy plunders due to our militarism, vote for a democrat. Then, after him, when entitlement programs plunder the economy, vote for a republican. Then after our militarism plunders our economy, vote for a democrat…

    And on and on the status quo continues to destroy our country.

  • Anonymous

    Go ahead, vote for an establishment republican this year. Then when he screws up because the economy plunders due to our militarism, vote for a democrat. Then, after him, when entitlement programs plunder the economy, vote for a republican. Then after our militarism plunders our economy, vote for a democrat…

    And on and on the status quo continues to destroy our country.

    • Anonymous

      There are plenty of “non” establishment republicans to vote for, plenty who are not crazy as junkyard dogs. You Ron Paulbots always draw the wrong conclusions. And who said it would be a HE? Ron Paul is NEVER going to be President. Good luck with your Titanic-Presidential Candidate.

      • Anonymous

        I agree. Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain are “non-establishment.” As would be Palin. All three are solid and genuine conservatives who would stand on their convictions and all three lack Ron Paul’s serious foreign policy flaws and nuttiness.

        • Herman Cain is as establishment as they come. He is an ex Federal Reserve Chairman. Ever wonder why the TV never mentions that?

          • Anonymous

            exactly. Notice too, how in the debate when they were talking about “fixing or changing” the FED no rebuttals or comments made or provided by Cain.

          • KenInMontana

            Cain served on the “C” Board at the KC Branch. You do know enough about the Fed to know how it is set up don’t you? Apparently not since you are still playing that debunked meme. The “C” board is the lowest rung board at any branch, it is comprised of local business people from the area the branch serves. This board is an advisory board with no vote or say in Fed policy, this is the board that Cain served on and was chair of, all together, for three years. It never gets mentioned because it is a non issue.

        • As for Bachmann… her voting record shows no consistency of principal. If I showed you voting records and asked you to pick out which representatives they belonged to, the only one you’d be able to pinpoint would by Paul. Bachmann’s record may as well be Obama’s.

        • Anonymous

          A karrot dressed as a cucumber is still a karrot.

      • The latest CNN poll shows Ron Paul to be the number one candidate among male voters. It also shows that among declared candidates, he is number one among voters under 50 years of age. Poll after scientific poll has also shown that when the various candidates are put up against Obama, Ron Paul has the best chance of winning in a general election. This is simply because supporters of nation building and of pre-emptive intervention in general like yourself are in the distinct minority in this country at this time in history. It doesn’t matter of Bush is doing it or if Obama is doing it. People are tired of it, and this kind of foreign policy cannot win in a general election when it is placed up against Paul’s. You can argue all day about what you think the merits are of your personal position, but the electorate stopped agreeing with you some time ago.

        • O yes, the Communist News Network, very good – You and all of your Socialist Democrat friends who vote Republican in Caucauses to thwart conservatism and then vote Democrat in the elections, will still fail, as Conservative Christians are continuing to wake up more and more to the fact that to keep our Republic we must have MORAL leadership. and Ron Paul is anything BUT. The Libertarians saw the Tea Party rising with its emphasis on small government, spending cuts, tax cuts, debt cuts, and has been trying to hijack it for their own purposes much like mob gathers up people who are unaware of what is happening hoping they will join them in their efforts. They have mostly just ganged up on straw polls to shape opinion deceitfully because they can. But once the people have fully educated themselves on Ron Paul, they will not give him a second tho’t and move onto REAL conservatives like, Bachman, Santorum, West, DeMint, Pence, Rubio, Christie. But Cain, Paul, Romney, McCain are not Conservative and will not be allowed to ruin our last best chance to restore our republic. (=o)

        • Anonymous

          Polls? you are using CNN or any other POLL to prove how popular Ron Paul is as a candidate? LOLOLOLOL
          Polls are now used for only ONE purpose– to “manipulate and formulate” opinions. They are, in and of themselves, so sullied, tarnished and without integrity or honesty, as to be unreliable sources of information about anything except how far the mainstreammedia will go to LIE, CHEAT, and STEAL.
          All you have to do is pad the grouping of persons being polled to include “more” supporters of one person or political group than the others and VOILA! you have a poll that appeals to the enormous EGO of the candidate.
          Scott, sorry but you are being bamboozled by the Crazy Uncle himself. Good luck with “polls show Ron Paul as the number one candidate” schmear but you are being played.

          • Interesting position to take considering how strongly you believe Ron Paul has no chance. From where, exactly, did you get your strong belief? Is it because you personally disagree with him? Or is it because some poll or some talking head told you what to think? By your logic, nobody should have any opinion of what anybody’s chances are… because there is no worthwhile evidence to consider until there is a real election. Perhaps we should all sit around and not think at all.

        • If you could link to these polls, that would be much nicer. Media pollsters and professional pollsters aren’t saying that at all, but maybe those are too scientific.

  • Regardless of anyone’s beliefs,the Iranian bomb is on the way and MUST BE DEALT WITH.

    • Let Israel make the pre-emptive strike when they are ready and are threatened. Iran would have a hell of a time dropping a bomb on our soil in the US. The middle east is full of madmen full of paranoia who are usually content killing each other until they find a common enemy who occupies their land (e.g. USA). We are making ourselves the target. These wars of aggression do not benefit America or Israel in the long-term and will only stir up more animosity towards both countries. At some point, they will acquire nuclear technology as a defensive measure as they are also continuously threatened with being wiped off the map. I’m sure Russia very shortly will make friends w/ Iran and trade oil/weaponry. Why does Pakistan not fall into the same category as Iran? Why has the US not pre-emptively fired on Pakistan? Plenty of muslim extremists reside in Pakistan who decry Death to Israel, but Pakistan has nuclear capabilities and still exists. I doubt the sincerity of those saying an Iran with a nuclear weapon means death for Israel. They are plenty capable of leaving a crater in Iran, and I’m sure they have their finger on the trigger as we speak. Iran is simply posturing, and they are full of political zealots who pander to certain bases of people who love anti-Israel propaganda. I’ve had co-workers from Pakistan who say the political classes continually use propaganda to get elected to office against Israel but are only in the system to benefit themselves financially. (sound familiar?)

      • Pakistan is allowed to exist insofar as it sets itself up as a counterweight to India, which China and Russia love. Again, there is an oversimplification of the threat both Pakistan and Iran present. Why do you not discuss the very real possibility that either of these countries proliferate nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations? Tell me how Israel is supposed to preemptively prevent that with its superior firepower.

        You’re a little late to the party; Russia and Iran are already palling around plenty.

        Also, do you really believe that the rest of the world wouldn’t be outraged at Israel trying to defend itself? They would be wrong, but they would be outraged nevertheless.

  • Anonymous

    I think you are touching a nerve RS. I don’t always believe in invoking “Hitler”, but that is an appropriate point that Levin made.

    • Anonymous

      I would think our foreign policy of preemptive war would be closer to Hitler’s position. Or more directly, taken straight from his playbook.

      • Anonymous

        Preemptive war is sometimes necessary. If you wait till after you’ve been attacked that is too late, i.e. 9/11

        • Anonymous

          9/11 was a result of preemptive war. Osama said over and over again that until we leaved the Middle East where we had set up military bases we would be attacked because infidels were not allowed there.

          If we had minded our own business, 9/11 would never had happened. It is crazy to think that preemptive war could make our national security more secure, because preemptive war creates more enemies. How is a troop in Iraq or Afghanistan affective when it comes to stopping a terrorist plot on our soil thousands of miles away. It just doesn’t.

          • Anonymous

            You said if we minded our business 911 would not have happened. You missed the first Twin Towers, USS Cole, the Embasy bombings and the list goes on. Since we stopped minding our business we have not had a successful terrorist attack on our soil.

            • No we have not, we have just given up a crap load of Liberty, destroyed countless lives, and spent our selves in to bankrupts. GO USA!!!!

              • Anonymous

                So your response is that we should have allowed ourselves to be attacked again? Tell me what liberty you have personally lost? You can worship, speak, print, trial by jury and the lis goes on . Obviously by your posts you still have free speech and the right to run down your country. Let me save you some time so you can save a reply: The Patriot Act is the standard reply or dentition for terrorists or the lack of Constitutional rights for terrorists pick your gripe. I don’t have time to debate all that here.
                Yes go USA we don’t always get it right but at least we can fix it through the best system of government in the world. I have lived and worked in hell holes all over the world and I thank God everyday (yes we still have that right) for the greatest and most free nation in the world. The danger now is making sure we elect a President that will reflect the values that made this nation great and undo the damage of Obama. We don’t need Ron Paul’s insane and dangerous foreign policy as a reaction to Obama’s dangerous foreign policy.

              • Anonymous

                So your response is that we should have allowed ourselves to be attacked again? Tell me what liberty you have personally lost? You can worship, speak, print, trial by jury and the lis goes on . Obviously by your posts you still have free speech and the right to run down your country. Let me save you some time so you can save a reply: The Patriot Act is the standard reply or dentition for terrorists or the lack of Constitutional rights for terrorists pick your gripe. I don’t have time to debate all that here.
                Yes go USA we don’t always get it right but at least we can fix it through the best system of government in the world. I have lived and worked in hell holes all over the world and I thank God everyday (yes we still have that right) for the greatest and most free nation in the world. The danger now is making sure we elect a President that will reflect the values that made this nation great and undo the damage of Obama. We don’t need Ron Paul’s insane and dangerous foreign policy as a reaction to Obama’s dangerous foreign policy.

              • Anonymous

                So your response is that we should have allowed ourselves to be attacked again? Tell me what liberty you have personally lost? You can worship, speak, print, trial by jury and the lis goes on . Obviously by your posts you still have free speech and the right to run down your country. Let me save you some time so you can save a reply: The Patriot Act is the standard reply or dentition for terrorists or the lack of Constitutional rights for terrorists pick your gripe. I don’t have time to debate all that here.
                Yes go USA we don’t always get it right but at least we can fix it through the best system of government in the world. I have lived and worked in hell holes all over the world and I thank God everyday (yes we still have that right) for the greatest and most free nation in the world. The danger now is making sure we elect a President that will reflect the values that made this nation great and undo the damage of Obama. We don’t need Ron Paul’s insane and dangerous foreign policy as a reaction to Obama’s dangerous foreign policy.

                • Let see, The Militarization of the Police Force, the Loss of 4th amendment Protections has a direct result of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, The loss of privacy from government intrusion, the loss of private property rights (not really a result of the war on terror but still a lost freedom), the loss of the freedom of travel with out being treated as a criminal (TSA Searches) .. shall I go on?

                • Anonymous

                  Only if you’re sure it’s safe.

        • 9/11 was result of the policy of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and terrible immigration controls. That is all

          Bin Laden was CIA Trained to fight our “enemy” at the time.

          Dont rewrite history

        • Anonymous

          No, no, no. See, when a guy threatens you, you can’t just assume he means it. And obviously, when he pulls a gun, that doesn’t mean he plans on actually shooting it. So clearly, if he does pull the trigger, you also have no way to tell if the bullet is actually going to hit you, or just the guy next to you. So your job is to take that bullet, so you can be sure.

          Then you can pull out your gun, which had better be in it’s holster, and you’d better have a permit.

      • No. Preemptive war is as old as power and war themselves. Hitler didn’t invent it.

  • thatsme11

    Levin is a fool to think that we can do anything about Iran eventually getting nukes. How naive he is to think we can eternally keep Iran from getting nukes. Ron is dead on as usual-dealing with reality of the next decades instead of the next two years or so. Some, ahem, LONG TERM solutions pahleez???
    Is Levin really just afraid of us stopping sending money to Israel? We should not spend another dime overseas. We need to develop strategic defense systems that can intercept nukes. With all the money spent on these ridiculous wars so far we could have a fine one in place by now-a solution for the next century.
    Levin needs to stop making up this stuff about us calling them neocons due to Jewish affiliation. BS. We call them neocons because of foolish strategies of defending America by sending troops all over-hacking at branches of enemies instead of striking at roots.
    Sorry Levin, you could not cut me off before I had a chance to finish speaking here.

  • Anonymous

    Heh! Linked by ‘The Great One’ himself on his FB page!!

    Mark Levin

    Our friends at Rightscoop

    Feel free to comment at the Rightscoop website

    Nice RightScoop!!

    • Thanks!

      • Anonymous

        lol…these Paulistas are the same ones that generally infect the Levin Fan website…and his facebook page. It’s like Attack of the Sand Fleas.

        • Anonymous

          We are regular people and so are you. Treat us with the same respect.

          • KenInMontana

            Perhaps if your fellow Paul supporters followed that same rule…..

            • Anonymous

              They would if they weren’t mistreated by RS leaving out Paul on the voting poll. Its no different than leaving anyone out of the poll, there will be supports who are pissed off regardless of who it is.

              • Anonymous

                Can we use that excuse, too? Because it seems to cover a lot of nasty behavior, and an excuse like that just doesn’t come around every day.

              • KenInMontana

                That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard, no offense but that sounds like a child’s reasoning ” I hit Johnny because he wouldn’t give me a lick off his ice cream cone”.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s my impersonation of a Ron Paul supporter:

    RON PAUL HERE AND RON PAUL THERE AND RON PAUL RON PAUL EVERYWHERE!

    Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul……..blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

    You people are like salesman that don’t know when to quit talking.

    • Anonymous

      you are deranged!

      • Anonymous

        No wait, let me tell you how Ron Paul invented the atom…

      • Anonymous

        No wait, let me tell you how Ron Paul invented the atom…

      • Anonymous

        No wait, let me tell you how Ron Paul invented the atom…

    • Truth hurts.

      • Anonymous

        truth is supposed to hurt sometimes

    • Truth hurts.

    • Anonymous

      Funny, I usually hear people say they don’t know who he is. We are trying to get the word out. I doubt if you can make a good argument that Ron is all over the press and media like you say. I think you just lack exposure. Most people are not real familiar with him for a reason. There is a joke, “who is Ron Paul”? (Atlas Shrugged)

      ..Or I am guessing the neocons are arguing both sides of the mouth on this one.

    • Anonymous

      Funny, I usually hear people say they don’t know who he is. We are trying to get the word out. I doubt if you can make a good argument that Ron is all over the press and media like you say. I think you just lack exposure. Most people are not real familiar with him for a reason. There is a joke, “who is Ron Paul”? (Atlas Shrugged)

      ..Or I am guessing the neocons are arguing both sides of the mouth on this one.

      • Anonymous

        That wasn’t the point. When supporters make every sentence they write or speak with the words “Ron Paul” in it, it begins sounding like a cult.

      • Anonymous

        That wasn’t the point. When supporters make every sentence they write or speak with the words “Ron Paul” in it, it begins sounding like a cult.

        • Anonymous

          And what have you done. You have said his name far more than anyone else. But regardless, who cares dude, chill out. Its not like Ron Paul is favored by the media other than independent ones.

        • Anonymous

          And what have you done. You have said his name far more than anyone else. But regardless, who cares dude, chill out. Its not like Ron Paul is favored by the media other than independent ones.

        • Anonymous

          We were going to call him “The Great One”, but it was already taken.

        • Anonymous

          We were going to call him “The Great One”, but it was already taken.

  • thatsme11

    Levin is a fool to think that we can do anything about Iran eventually getting nukes. How naive he is to think we can eternally keep Iran from getting nukes. Ron is dead on as usual-dealing with reality of the next decades instead of the next two years or so. Some, ahem, LONG TERM solutions pahleez???
    Is Levin really just afraid of us stopping sending money to Israel? We should not spend another dime overseas. We need to develop strategic defense systems that can intercept nukes. With all the money spent on these ridiculous wars so far we could have a fine one in place by now-a solution for the next century.
    Levin needs to stop making up this stuff about us calling them neocons due to Jewish affiliation. BS. We call them neocons because of foolish strategies of defending America by sending troops all over-hacking at branches of enemies instead of striking at roots.
    And Ron Paul had a lot more influence on developing the Tea Party than Levin. If you don’t believe that you had better tell Wikipedia.
    Sorry Levin, you could not cut me off before I had a chance to finish speaking here.

  • This is where “common sense” should step in. Herman Cain discusses issues in terms of common sense. I thought he was dignified, had quick, concise answers, and the hosts generally tried to ignore him.

  • This is where “common sense” should step in. Herman Cain discusses issues in terms of common sense. I thought he was dignified, had quick, concise answers, and the hosts generally tried to ignore him.

  • This is where “common sense” should step in. Herman Cain discusses issues in terms of common sense. I thought he was dignified, had quick, concise answers, and the hosts generally tried to ignore him.

  • Anonymous

    RS called Levin the “great one!” And the call Ron supporters dumb… lol

  • Anonymous

    RS called Levin the “great one!” And the call Ron supporters dumb… lol

  • Anonymous

    RS called Levin the “great one!” And the call Ron supporters dumb… lol

  • Anonymous

    It is flat out NOT OK, for Iran to have nukes. Their goal clearly is not for self Defense., but to use them as a Offensive Weapon, to Kill Folks they don’t like!

  • Anonymous

    It is flat out NOT OK, for Iran to have nukes. Their goal clearly is not for self Defense., but to use them as a Offensive Weapon, to Kill Folks they don’t like!

  • Anonymous

    It is flat out NOT OK, for Iran to have nukes. Their goal clearly is not for self Defense., but to use them as a Offensive Weapon, to Kill Folks they don’t like!

  • Garbage Dump

    Who the hell is Mark Levin?

    • Anonymous

      I think he’s a guy a bunch of nutbag isolationists like to bring up now and then so they can register displeasure. Or something.

  • Garbage Dump

    Who the hell is Mark Levin?

  • Garbage Dump

    Who the hell is Mark Levin?

  • Garbage Dump

    Who is this Mark Levin? He sounds like he’s holding his nose.

    • Anonymous

      Only when talking about Ron Paul.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you think every Republican other than Paul is a war monger? Are you nuts! Of course they are not war mongers, only a sadistic fool would be pro war! Republicans are for Peace; Peace through superior firepower!

    • KenInMontana

      It is all most of them have is to run about the threads hurling logical fallacies at anyone who dares to have a different opinion. I’ve seen threads where they will toss out 95% of all the variations. It makes a great time killer when you’re bored.:)

    • Anonymous

      Because our current foreign policy involves preemptive war, we as a country are a war-mongerer. We need to understand that we are not the police of the world. Many of us would like America to be, and we like to feel like the country that sets other people’s free, but the end result is endless war.

    • Trade is the only path to peace.

  • Anonymous

    Why do you think every Republican other than Paul is a war monger? Are you nuts! Of course they are not war mongers, only a sadistic fool would be pro war! Republicans are for Peace; Peace through superior firepower!

  • Levine likes preemptive, undeclared, wars that never end…he is a NeoCon of the highest order. America wants all of these trash wars to end, and the NeoCon warmongers like Levine to take a look in the mirror. They will not like what they see. They certainly will not see anything resembling a non-interventionist foreign policy. Let’s bring our troops home by electing Ron Paul the next president. If we are ever attacked, then Congress will vote to declare war. That is what the Constitution states. Levine is the one living in a dreamworld.

  • Anonymous

    I served in the military but I have yet to see anybody braver than radio talk show hosts and people who post on blogs.

  • Anonymous

    Iran, unlike China or the Soviets, have shown a total disregard for the consequences of their actions. The leaders see world chaos as furthering their political and religious aims. Iran would use their nukes against Israel because they see the American military at max deployment. They see Obama (and the west) with weak leadership as well as weak economies and a growing lack of will to get more involved in the Middle East. Any candidate that does not understand this is delusional.

    • Anonymous

      If Iran used a nuke against Israel they would be wiped off the map in a matter of minutes and they know it. They might not be the friendliest people in the neighborhood, but they at least have a survival instinct.

      • Anonymous

        You think people that believe suicide bombers go to heaven and are rewarded with 72 virgins have a survival instinct? They see the destruction of the Jewish state as their political, and religious duty. They everyday Iranian people are not the problem it’s their leaders that slaughtered them in the streets who will use the weapons through 3rd parties like Hamas.

    • this show how much you do not know about what is going on

      Iran would not have any military at all, and certainly no nuke if it were not for china and soviets.

      They (the Communists in both nations) see Iran as having the ability to Draw the USA in to a HUGE fight in a foreign land, they could then use that as an advantage to attack the undefended USA

      • Anonymous

        Nothing like taking a post out of context. Slow down and think before you respond.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul can get 5,000 people or less for something. Anything beyond and the Ron Paul Ground well becomes the 3 to 10% Nationally. He has been doing this for almost 5 Darn Years and his cult is about the same.

    • Do you prefer the Goldman-Sachs-backed puppets we have had lately like Bush and Obama? Puppets have strings, and the strings are being pulled by the banksters. The banksters own the President and Congress except for Ron Paul

  • If it weren’t for his views on drugs and on defense, RP wouldn’t be so bad, but as it is he’s a loon. His supporters are also extremely annoying — not a recommendation for their man.

  • Anonymous

    You RuPaulers would do well in the 19th century. Get with it; it is a much smaller world and we’re all connected. You can’t ‘ignore’ the threat from Iran, and decriminalizing drugs would just mean more people would be on them. No offense, but I don’t want to be dodging more whacked out nuts on the road than I already do now.

  • I agree with you on that. Our border is ridiculous and this is the lynchpin in my opposition to rick perry.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is a piece of crap and his supporters are cowards and losers and nutjobs. Hope, Ron Paul is dead by 2016, so we don’t have to watch this clown run again.

    • Anonymous

      Funny those cowards and losers in the military supported Ron Paul with more money than any other candidate last election. I am one more ex-Levin listener-because of liars like you. Career military, I am no coward but I hold people accountable for what they say and if wrong, I dump them. Bye, Levin.

      • Anonymous

        Never mind that all of them added up would probably buy only one plate at an Obama fundraiser.

        According to these numbers, it’s clear that the vast majority of active duty military don’t engage in political contributions of any kind. With the pittance we pay them, who would expect more?

    • Do you prefer the Goldman-Sachs-backed puppets we have had lately like Bush and Obama? Puppets have strings, and the strings are being pulled by the banksters. The banksters own the President and Congress except for Ron Paul

  • The video below is going to shock Neoconservatives who think it’s OK to have over 700 bases in over 130 different countries around the world (can you even name 130 countries). This is the truth which they have been failing to admit. We can’t do whatever we want around the world and not expect negative consequences. That is not reality. We need to mind our own business like the founding fathers wisdom suggested. History is simply repeating itself.

    Warning: this video contains truth.

    • Anonymous

      Terrific video. Thanks for the link.

    • Anonymous

      Can we at least get some spooky music here? Some zombies and caskets, and maybe a small graveyard with skeletons dancing? That would be nice.

  • JeanAnn Hurst

    Here we go again. Picking at Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy ideology. I simply do not believe his statement was being made in a literal sense. He’s too right on the money about so many other critical issues, I refuse to believe Ron Paul as the US President would be so foolish as to allow these rogue nations to have nuclear weapons!

    • Anonymous

      I don’t get it – so you’re either being facetious, or you are admitting that you refuse to deal with the reality of Paul’s positions?

    • Anonymous

      I don’t get it – so you’re either being facetious, or you are admitting that you refuse to deal with the reality of Paul’s positions?

    • Anonymous

      These neocon fools actually think the US can stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons. What fools! They will get them whether we like it or not. Wake up and smell the coffee, right wing nutjobs. Give me one good argument that states there is something we can do to stop them. America is bankrupt and lost in reputation. Iran can make enough money in oil.

    • This is the argument a friend of mine has made, unfortunately I can direct you to his website, and his speeches and debates on the subject to say that it is quite literal.

  • Anonymous

    Listening to Mark Levin is like listening to the commercial channel with little bits of show in between the commercials. The sheer stupidity and constant repetitive nature of the sponsors makes listening to him difficult or impossible for anyone of any intelligence. What kind of listeners are we dealing with? Apparently people who cannot manage money are a huge majority-most commercials deal with selling products to people who lack the most basic common sense in finances. Makes me wonder about his numbers.
    I think I could respect the man more if his “capitalistic” system could attract some sponsors of repute. And it would say a lot about his so-called “intelligent” audience.

    • Anonymous

      Then download his show for free and listen to it on your phone.

    • Anonymous

      Then download his show for free and listen to it on your phone.

    • If that is what you believe you might go educate yourself and look at Levin’s Arbitron ratings. Maybe you don’t like the purchasers of advertising on his show but he is a huge commercial success. Doesn’t get more “capitalistic” than that.

      • Anonymous

        You are not addressing my post. You are avoiding it. Re-read it and address the point I made. I educate myself in college, thank you, and I do it with adequate reading comprehension skills.

        • Anonymous

          You educate yourself in college? Oh, man, I hope you’re paying your own tuition and not letting your poor parents waste their money.

          By the way, as M_J_S says below, you can listen to Mark’s show free online and commercial free anytime you want to. I’d provide a link for you but since you’re so good at educating yourself I’m sure you can figure it out by yourself.

    • If that is what you believe you might go educate yourself and look at Levin’s Arbitron ratings. Maybe you don’t like the purchasers of advertising on his show but he is a huge commercial success. Doesn’t get more “capitalistic” than that.

  • Anonymous

    Listening to Mark Levin is like listening to the commercial channel with little bits of show in between the commercials. The sheer stupidity and constant repetitive nature of the sponsors makes listening to him difficult or impossible for anyone of any intelligence. What kind of listeners are we dealing with? Apparently people who cannot manage money are a huge majority-most commercials deal with selling products to people who lack the most basic common sense in finances. Makes me wonder about his numbers.
    I think I could respect the man more if his “capitalistic” system could attract some sponsors of repute. And it would say a lot about his so-called “intelligent” audience.

  • It was just an excuse..they believe their Koran tells them to kill the infidel no matter where they are. They hate us because of who we are, not what we do.

  • It was just an excuse..they believe their Koran tells them to kill the infidel no matter where they are. They hate us because of who we are, not what we do.

    • So do you suggest that we are going to be fighting all Muslims for the rest of our lives if your above statement is true?

      Watch this video, please.

      • Yes, we will be fighting Muslims for the rest of our lives. We will be fighting Socialism, too. I guess you don’t realize Evil never dies.

      • Yes, we will be fighting Muslims for the rest of our lives. We will be fighting Socialism, too. I guess you don’t realize Evil never dies.

        • orthodoxyordeath

          I do think we need to refine our rhetoric on that a bit more. We will be fighting Islam itself for the rest our our lives. Not all Muslims will be our enemies, but Islam is Satan incarnate on earth.

      • All Muslims? When did I say that all Muslims believed that way. Don’t put words in my mouth.

      • Ok..so Ron Paul believes as I do that we mishandled the Shah, and the rebellion to them in Iran. I can do that, but what I cannot do is deny the existence of Jihadist, and deny the realities of the rhetoric coming out of Iran today.

        • I agree with you here. We cannot deny the existence of Jihad nor the rhetoric of radicals. We must be strong in will, available military power (ie let them know we have it), and resolve. They must know that any manifestation of aggression will be dealt with quickly and severely. And should we ever (God forbid) have to defend ourselves against attack we must go in with one united, focused agenda and do whatever it takes to destroy those who attacked us.

          I just would not do this preemptively. They have to attack first. But make sure they know full well the consequences (and they should be severe) of that first attack.

          • How do you propose to react to a decentralized movement with the amount of shock needed to deter the action? Especially considering the fact that they believe they die as martyrs for it. I’m interested to see.

      • Ok..so Ron Paul believes as I do that we mishandled the Shah, and the rebellion to them in Iran. I can do that, but what I cannot do is deny the existence of Jihadist, and deny the realities of the rhetoric coming out of Iran today.

  • Levin and the neocons are right! Lets borrow more money from China so we can start yet another war with Iran or whatever country we ‘feel’ is a threat. Now there’s a winning policy for 2012.

  • The way I see it, and I know people will call me a dufus, but, how will we be with a strong economy, no fed, smaller government (which I am all for) but who have the same kinds of daily threats that Israelis face every day? Make no mistake, when Iran gets their nukes, and add to that the capablitites for long range missiles, EMP’s and dirty bombs, they will be willing to sacrifice all for allah- not being content to wipe Israel off the map, they will go for the US as well. Sure, a good economy and smaller government is great, but if we’re all dead- what’s the point?

    • Are you suggesting that we are going to be fighting them for the rest of our lives considering that they are defending their religion? They hate us because we intervene in their affairs.

      Watch this video, please.

      • They hate us because we’ve not been conquered by them. Until they have conquered the world for islam, they will fight against freedom. We are in their targets not for us “intervening” we are in their sight because of our freedom.

        • Please watch this video. Never be afraid of the truth…

          • Post the video once. Don’t troll it around the thread.

            • Its the truth which all of you Neoconservatives fail to comprehend and recognize which is dangerous to me and my fellow countrymen.

              “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”- Ron Paul

        • This is correct. People do not understand world domination is part and parcel of that “religion”. Charles Martel, anyone?

  • With such intellectuals in politics and viewers, no wonder I made an Aliyah (Israel Citizenship).

  • With such intellectuals in politics and viewers, no wonder I made an Aliyah (Israel Citizenship).

  • Anonymous

    To Ron Paul fans let us just call a truce and agree to disagree on foreign policy…we have bigger fish to fry and the media will do its best to create a wedge in the movement so let us focus on Obama cos the ego has go to go…

    • It’s tough when Mark Levin and the rest of the neoconservatives call Dr. Paul supporters “nutjobs” for knowing our history as well as understanding human nature in the fact that no one likes another intervening in their personal affairs.

      The truth on why Iran hates America is rooted in this, and we have to admit it.

      • I won’t call you a nutjob, but the hatred goes back a lot farther than that, by oh, some 1400 years. Their religion is not even really a religion as it is more of an all encompassing ideology- but they see America as a Christian nation, and they have hated Christianity for as long as they have hated Jews- but their hatred of Jews is stronger.

        • So should we just nuke them all to end the mess? How come they weren’t a threat to the US but after 1953?

          Please watch this video:

          • Anonymous

            no one is talking about nukes…we just dont want them to have nukes…i dont think u want a bully to have a nuke…if a bully picks on a weaker kid what would you do? not intervene?

          • I told you to stop trolling that video around. Post it once or be banned.

            • Its the truth which all of you Neoconservatives fail to comprehend and/or recognize which is dangerous to me and my fellow countrymen.

              “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”- Ron Paul

            • Its the truth which all of you Neoconservatives fail to comprehend and/or recognize which is dangerous to me and my fellow countrymen.

              “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”- Ron Paul

              • KenInMontana

                Perhaps if did a little research on the term “NeoConservative” it’s origins and just who NeoCons were instead of bandying it about like some undereducated morons do with fascism as the insult of the day you might find people around here a bit more willing to discuss things with you. But to expect us here to react favorably towards you and your fellow Paul supporters when 90% of posts are personally derogatory towards others and often laced with profanity is kind of ludicrous. If you want respect you have to give it as a guest in order to receive it from a host.

                • Personally derogative, lol? I guess it’s OK for Levin to call Ron Paul supporters “Brown Shirts” lol. Too funny.

                  I suggest you research the term Neoconservative as well, lol. Ron Paul stands for the old right where the neoconservatives are the new right. Limited government vs. big government.

                  And I never swore.

                  “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”
                  -Ron Paul

                • KenInMontana

                  I know what NeoConservatives are, they aren’t Conservatives at all, well maybe “luke warm” Conservatives, they were cross-overs or defectors if you will from the old Democratic party, they tend to be reactionary in their views as well as a bit over zealous in their approach to Conservatism. Ron Paul is a Libertarian which is not the “Old Right”, what the old “right” was were Classic Liberals (Our Founders) not Libertarians and as for “full tilt” Libertarians, well the correct term for them would be “Libertine”. Go back and read my previous post slowly, one word at a time and you will find that I did not state anywhere that you personally used profanity. If you want to go after Levin, fine I could care less. My point is that if you don’t understand a term look it up before you use it, or apply it indiscriminately on everyone who doesn’t happen to support your candidate. You gain no converts by demonization, but you will stiffen the resistance of those you seek to convert.

    • Anonymous

      Levin loves to fight. He fights like a madman. He supports wars that drive us bankrupt costing thousands of lives in Pyrrhic victories. He fights Michael Savage for no apparent reason. He fights Ron Paul. Always fighting-and throwing childish insults (eg “weiner”). I have had it with him. Grow friggin up, Levin.

      • Michael Savage and Ron Paul have something in common. They both believe they have a monopoly on being the only “Real Conservative”. Levin is right to mock them as well as the Left.

        • Anonymous

          Levin lives in a tiny world then. Most people think he is a nut. At least most people that know him. Levin and Rush are about to see a huge drop in numbers. I know I am canceling stamps.com and my reason will be Mark Levin.

          • Anonymous

            You’re right as rain, puddin’

            I used to eat food, but ever since Limbaugh started talking about his diet, and the great meals he’s had, and then started gaining weight again, I’ve decided to stop eating food.

            If Limbaugh likes it, it can’t be good.

    • Anonymous

      @odin147 “To Ron Paul fans let us just call a truce and agree to disagree…”

      What are you, an isolationist? If we allow the neo-cons to have an ad hominem attack they will use it. I suggest that all Ron Paul supporters attack them BEFORE they mention Ron Paul, just to be on the safe side.

    • Our foreign policy is the biggest fish to fry. 900 bases in a 120 countries plus ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. 1+ Trillion dollar a year for this crap. Undeclared wars that never end. We have been taken over by the military-industrial complex. Believe it. Ron Paul will end of this crap.

    • Our foreign policy is the biggest fish to fry. 900 bases in a 120 countries plus ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. 1+ Trillion dollar a year for this crap. Undeclared wars that never end. We have been taken over by the military-industrial complex. Believe it. Ron Paul will end of this crap.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul is pretty crazy; but not nearly as crazy as Mark Levin.

    • Ron Paul is crazy about supporting and following the Constitution. On that point, you are correct.

  • Anonymous

    Ha ha ha ha! There goes Levin and his “Hitler” crap again. Look Levin, If the middle east, i.e. Israel, Saudi Arabia, et al don’t want Iran to have nukes they are more than capable of handling it.
    What you mindless NeoCons fail to realize is that we are on to you. And Ron Paul is our voice. 700,000 troops in 135 countries is absolute nonsense and we are going to stop it in spite of you idiots. And I am talking to YOU Levin.

    • Anonymous

      I know a whole lot more troops that like Ron than Levin.

    • Anonymous

      I know a whole lot more troops that like Ron than Levin.

  • Ron Paul does NOT support the idea of Iran having nukes. He said no such thing. And, no, he certainly would never give them a nuke (grow up commenters!). He simply said he understands why they would want them. And he does not believe it is the United State’s role to play “pre-crime cop” and bend every country we don’t like to our will. He does not believe we should send our soldiers – our sons and daughters – six thousand miles away to be put in harm’s way and potentially die just because someone in a foreign country someday MIGHT be a threat to the US. But as his vote on Afghanistan demonstrated he is more than willing to use a Congressional declaration of war to fight back when we are attacked.

    Mark Levin said “Would we like China, Russia and Pakistan to not have nukes? Sure, but what can we do about it at this point?” To which I say – should we have done anything about it at any point? Are you advocating that we should have invaded Pakistan or China and overthrown their government just to keep them from getting nukes? Excuse me Sir but who made you Supreme Ruler of the World?

    I used to like Mark Levin a lot but his attacks on Ron Paul are starting to sound like Levin has some huge grudge against him. I understand that Levin does not agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy. But it is fishy for Levin to not give Ron Paul credit for advocating constitutional ideas for so long in the face of opposition from his own party. Particularly when those ideas are now so much in favor.

    • You apparently don’t understand the concept of overstatement. By saying that “he wants to just give them a nuke on a silver platter” is not the same as saying that he is personally going to assemble and deliver a nuke to the iranian government. By not actively trying to prevent a nuke from being accomplished in Iran he is “delivering it on a silver platter” as it is only a matter of time if they are left to their own devices.

      • And you apparently don’t understand that such an exaggeration makes you sound foolish.

        If its only a matter of time before Iran gets nukes (which, btw I agree with you on) then its only a matter of time before Zimbabwe, Somalia, Turkey, and dozens of other countries who don’t like the US get them too. May take those without oil longer but they will get there. What are we supposed to do? Invade them all? Reshape their government to our liking? That is not the America envisioned by our Founders and it is not a country I would be proud of.

        • We do not have to invade a country to keep them from achieving nuclear weapons. Overstatement is a tool used to show a point, that is all. I cannot in good conscience have a policy that I believe in that would make it easier for a rogue government to obtain nuclear weapons.

  • Mark, why aren’t the other candidates followers swamping the polls, if for no other reason that to discredit Ron Paul? I am conservative and Ron Paul most certainly represents me. You’re wrong, Santorum looked foolish. Ron Paul schooled him in history. Are you convinced that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is wrong based on the astounding success of America’s current foreign policy?? I thought everybody knew that Iraq had WMDs too. Iran is not a credible threat to the US with or without a nuke. Israel has enough nuclear and military capability to handle Iran. Ron Paul is not in favor of Iran having a nuclear weapon just because he can understand their desire for one. He is not sympathetic to Iran. I think the ensconced conservatives fear the upset of the status quo that Ron Paul represents.

    • I like the idea of “upsetting the status quo”, but in a responsible, measured way that does not make it appear as if the country is weak, and leaves us in a stronger position.

      • Our country is BROKE! Our currency will be devalued into oblivion to pay off our debt. The time to act “responsible” in your “measured way” is WAY past due. You don’t want us to appear weak, and you want to leave us in a stronger position? So, instead of bending over and holding our ankles, we’ll just be China’s shoe polishers? Yeah, that’s a MUCH stronger “position.”

        • All the wars combined do not hold a candle to a single entitlement program. I am for reducing our spending drastically. Just not in national security and defense.

  • Boy, neocon talk radio had a round table this morning to hit Ron Paul. It does not matter much as they have always belittled Ron Paul for the last 20 something years. They are preparing for the Ron Paul Iowa win. They cannot stand for someone telling the truth about why Iran is not a friend of the US. They are also not happy that he made Rick Santorum look like an absolute fool, and anyone else on stage supporting the standard neocon Israel first foreign policy. The country is tired of these wars, and all of this war propaganda is integrated with religious theology to further entrap the Christian’s to support pre-emptive wars, an invention by Hitler himself. Iran is a threat to Israel, so let Israel deal w/ them as we’ve given them close to 30 billion dollars in aid over the last decade as well as supplying them w/ the best military technology available. If you want to support the insanity of deciding the potential risk to Israel is more important than our domestic policy and well being of your family and neighbors, please move there and declare your holy war on Islam yourself. God willing I will not have my three children dying in foreign wars over political paranoia and the neoconservative ministry of propaganda that has become of talk radio and the fox news cheerleaders.

    Get over it, Ron Paul is restoring the Republican party back to it’s roots.

    The truth hurts. Neoconservatism has run it’s course.

    I’m a Christian, Father, Husband, American, Entrepreneur, Rancher, Engineer, Grassroots Tea Partier, Ron Paul supporter and former Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin/Beck neocon.

    For those of you that typically classify Ron Paul supporters as living in a basement, I don’t fit your labels and live on 50 acres in a home I built myself.

    • Anonymous

      Neocons are lying more and more these days to push their agenda. What disgusts me is that they themselves just went through all this unfair fighting as in Palin destruction etc. and they did not even learn anything from it. They turn out to be just as bad as the left!!! Didn’t learn a da** thing. They make outrageous insults to Ron Paul supporters of equal caliber of what they withstood.

    • Excellent comment, Brock.

      It was Ghandi who said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

      Four years ago, Fox News excluded Ron Paul from debates. Polls wouldn’t give Ron Paul as a choice (a tradition that lasts to this day on this particular website). That was phase 1.

      When Paul got into the debates, the other candidates would giggle as he gave his answers. George Stephanopoulis did his little giggle bit with Paul on his chances of winning. Even this year, “conservative” Donald Trump did the same thing.

      Well, 2008 represented the first two stages of Ghandi’s quote. Now he is beyond that. The establishment Republicans, and their allies on the radio and the web, are in freakout mode that Ron Paul might actually win. So now they are fighting. This is a good thing. It means they’re scared. As Paul gains, more people will take a look at his message. As bad as the people are on this website, some may eventually have their eyes opened as well.

      Either way, this country is about to radically change. We’re broke. The neocon bloodlust of endless wars of aggression against Middle Eastern countries will have to come to an end. One way or the other, the troops will have to come home.

  • Boy, neocon talk radio had a round table this morning to hit Ron Paul. It does not matter much as they have always belittled Ron Paul for the last 20 something years. They are preparing for the Ron Paul Iowa win. They cannot stand for someone telling the truth about why Iran is not a friend of the US. They are also not happy that he made Rick Santorum look like an absolute fool, and anyone else on stage supporting the standard neocon Israel first foreign policy. The country is tired of these wars, and all of this war propaganda is integrated with religious theology to further entrap the Christian’s to support pre-emptive wars, an invention by Hitler himself. Iran is a threat to Israel, so let Israel deal w/ them as we’ve given them close to 30 billion dollars in aid over the last decade as well as supplying them w/ the best military technology available. If you want to support the insanity of deciding the potential risk to Israel is more important than our domestic policy and well being of your family and neighbors, please move there and declare your holy war on Islam yourself. God willing I will not have my three children dying in foreign wars over political paranoia and the neoconservative ministry of propaganda that has become of talk radio and the fox news cheerleaders.

    Get over it, Ron Paul is restoring the Republican party back to it’s roots.

    The truth hurts. Neoconservatism has run it’s course.

    I’m a Christian, Father, Husband, American, Entrepreneur, Rancher, Engineer, Grassroots Tea Partier, Ron Paul supporter and former Rush Limbaugh/Hannity/Levin/Beck neocon.

    For those of you that typically classify Ron Paul supporters as living in a basement, I don’t fit your labels and live on 50 acres in a home I built myself.

  • Anonymous

    I was behind Paul when he wanted to go after the FED , I liked his ideas on a flat tax . But we can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend if we leave the rest of the world alone they’ll leave us alone . Before you know it we’d end up with our heads in the sand and Irans missles up our….
    It’s time for Paul to retire , he should just go home , go fishing , enjoy the time he has left .
    I must say trying to talk to his minions has opened my eyes to even more issues with Paul , they’re like Obama supporters , they try to push everything statement down your throat , they feel the need to shut down every other opinion , when they can’t debate or discuss they attack . Yep , just like just obama-ites . And look what Obama and his followers have done to this country .

    • Anonymous

      I won’t go as far as calling them exactly like Obama supporters, but I agree with what the rest of you comment. I feel the same way. I like Paul a lot on the Fed. He has brought a lot to the debates. I just can’t support his foreign policy positions. My first (in person) experience with the Ron Paul fanatics was at CPAC 2011. They shouted down Donald Rumsefeld while he was speaking as well as other speakers. They acted like a whole bunch of spoiled brats. I have told CPAC that I will never give them money for these Ron Paul freeloaders (most of them don’t pay to go) again. I will not attend CPAC in 2012 if Ron Paul is a speaker.

      • Anonymous

        You had to deal with these folks in person ?  I feel bad for you .
        No matter how you feel about Donald Rumsefelds politics I think after 9-11 he deserves respect . On that day he was a hero , running into the burning pentagon to bring out the wounded. These  Paul fanatics don't seem to have any respect for anyone outside their cult . I'l be glad when they move on .

        ________________________________

  • G A

    If Iran has nukes they are going to nuke Israel …..really?? c’mon they wouldn’t dare

    The U.S. has over 25,000 nuclear devices alone….they would be turned into glass

    • And they would not care. To them they are bringing about the coming of the 12th Imam.

  • On this article I am about done with what I’m going to say about Iran. I do, however, want to use this opportunity to try to bridge some similarities. I see posts by Ron Paul supporters trying to say that more or less that it is impossible to have an aggressive strategic foreign policy and be for limited government. In truth we have something intrinsic in common. At least from myself and those who think like I do. We are for limited government. You may want to go further and go into the national defense and making that smaller as well, which is of course your right even if I believe that is a utopian dream to believe that it could be done without being injurious to us. We both want entitlement reform, massive entitlement reform. We both want to limit or abolish the fed. We both want obamacare axed. We want a more fair tax system, and while we may be fair vs. flat tax either would be preferable to the current system of taxation. We both want more states rights, and less federal interference. We both believe that the majority of the beauracracy in washington accomplishes nothing good (i.e. education/energy/etc.). A few of the candidates believe in this as well. You can vote for Ron Paul, its good to support your ideas, but the utter toxicity that get sparked towards what you call “neo-cons” which are truly just original constitutionalists beliefs hurts your own causes. The problem is not that the spending switches from wars to entitlements and programs and back. Domestic spending has not been truly reduced in my lifetime. Even Reagan who tried failed to do so meaningfully. Like Mitt Romney said “He is looking to restrain the growth of government” he doesn’t talk about cutting government just like this budget deal was no cut in government. Its almost as if some would rather Obama win then say, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, or Herman Cain. What do Ron Paul supporters have to say about this? I’m truly interested to see.

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your post.

      First a small point: there is a difference between defense and militarism. Ron Paul does not want to cut defense, he wants to cut militarism.

      I would like to start my answer with a rhetorical question: who does a better job of recruiting for the conservative cause, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? I would suggest the answer is Barack Obama. I can’t speak for all Ron Paul supporters, but I believe most of them can’t see a 3-inch slice of difference between the other Republican candidates and Obama. What will change? There is a reason everyone else is called status quo candidates. Under the status quo candidates we will still have the TSA enhanced pat-downs, we will still have the violation of the 4th Amendment with the Patriot Act, we will still have endless, unproductive wars and other than the possible exception of Obamneycare they won’t cut a penny of spending. They all try and talk like Ron Paul about limited government in the Primaries, but they govern more like Woodrow Wilson.

      On our current course the dollar will collapse, maybe next year, maybe four years from now, I don’t know, but surely enough it will collapse, and that won’t change whether Michelle Bachmann or Barack Obama is President. During the last election Ron Paul stood on the debate stage and said the housing bubble will collapse and we will be in a recession not for months but for years, while all the other candidates laughed and said, “The fundamentals are sound.” Ron Paul is the only candidate who predicted the economic mess we are in now and he is the only candidate who can fix it.

      The bad news for the Paul-haters is that his numbers are rising fast in the polls and his numbers never go down. There is no such thing as a former Ron Paul supporter. Once you understand the ideas of freedom and liberty you don’t go back. And his victory in the debate last night will give him another boost. But here’s the scary part for the Paul-haters: in the latest Rasmussen poll 49% of Paul supporters said they won’t support any other Republican candidate. That is unprecedented in American politics, especially when up against the worst President in American history. Those numbers may not have mattered 4 years ago, but if 10% or more of Republican voters sit it out that could be enough to put Obama over the top. So Paul-haters need to make a choice, either elect Ron Paul or get 4 more years of Obama.

      How do these numbers of people sitting it out matter? Take a look at this map: http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11 This is the Fox News online poll of the debate last night. There was no cheating, they logged in everybody’s ISP and put them on the map according to their county. So this is not just a handful of college kids in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Look at the map. Ron Paul is represented in green. The whole friggin’ map is green! From Honolulu to Bangor, Maine the whole country is moving towards Ron Paul. And half of them are not going to support the status quo candidate.

      Finally, to end on a humorous note, this 3 minute video explains the Ron Paul Revolution in a nutshell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V74AxCqOTvg Imagine Ron Paul as the crazy dancing guy and remember that we, the Ron Paul supporters, are the ones who transform the lone nut into a leader.

      • Your first point with Mitt Romney? Absolutely. He is nearly as liberal as the current administration as I have said. Bachmann? I want you to back your assertions up with facts. To my study of voting records she is a staunch fiscal conservative. Ron Paul believes that defense is only done inside of the countries borders, and I will agree fiscally he is the most decorated conservative. But I cannot compromise what I view as a fatally flawed position on foreign policy for a slightly better economic candidate. Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum are all economically conservative candidates. Ron Paul has gained in popularity, from 5-6% to 8-9% at this rate he’ll get the nomination if he runs another 5 times if he gains that popularity every time. I know two ron paul supporters in very conservative circles personally, and one of the two of them acknowledge the reality of my real concern about his foreign policy while the other avoids the subject. His followers are very energetic, often young (28 or less which happens to be my age group), very conservative and tend to want legalization of one drug or another because they have partaken or would like to. Is this a blanket statement saying everyone is? absolutely not, but averages still apply. These people are far more active and outspoken, just like young liberals are. Young conservatives are rarely as outspoken as I am. I believe if Ron Paul supporters sit out of an election they are injuring themselves just as much as they are injuring anyone else in this country. This country cannot survive another four years of Obama. It is not my choice, but yours to sit out the election. I must vote my conscience, and I must stand for what I believe. If it were Ron Paul vs Barack Obama I would hold my nose and vote just as I did for John McCain to vote for Ron Paul, and then immediately start praying for the security of the country (not that I don’t anyway)

        • Anonymous

          You asked how Ron Paul supporters viewed voting for other candidates and I told you how I believe they feel.

          You want a fact to support my belief of how other Ron Paul supporters view Michelle Bachmann? Kind of an awkwardly worded question, but here’s the answer: she voted to violated the 4th Amendment by supporting the Patriot Act. She supports an insane foreign policy. What will change with her? Will the TSA pat-downs stop? No. Will she end the wars? No. Will she work to repeal the Patriot Act? No. Will she cut, for example, the Department of Education? No. Will she end the ridiculous War on Drugs? No. Ergo, Ron Paul supporters view her as no different than Obama. Whether they are correct or not was not the question (but they are correct).

          Let me get this straight: we borrow billions of dollars from China, give it to Musharraf, who was a military dictator who overthrew an elected government…in order to support democracy in Iraq. We borrow billions dollars from China, give it to Pakistan…and then bomb them. Is that the foreign policy position you are supporting? Is that the foreign policy you think is not fatally flawed? I just want to be clear, because that is the foreign policy position the status quo candidates are supporting.

          Palin supported the Wall Street bailout, Cain doesn’t believe we need to audit the Fed, etc., etc. Ron Paul is not “a slightly better economic candidate”, he is the only economic candidate. That is like saying the Beatles were a slightly better band than the Jonas Brothers.

          The last two polls that came out, Rasmussen and Gallup, showed Ron Paul at 16%, which is almost double the numbers you cited. That is what I meant when I said his poll numbers are increasing rapidly. Polls aren’t completely accurate of course, but they do show trending.

          I hope you do vote your conscience and I would not encourage you to do otherwise. I wasn’t passing a judgment on whether Paul supporters should sit out or not, I was answering your question of how Paul supporters feel, and the Rasmussen poll suggests half of them will sit it out if he’s not the candidate. Since they can’t see much of a difference between the status quo candidates and Barack Obama they don’t feel they are injuring the country, because the country would be doomed either way.

  • This is Ron Paul’s political weakness and political moment of Truth. He is the Neville Chamberlain of America..!! and that is a political death wish, for any truly strong Conservative Patriotic American leader. He just doesn’t get it !!

    • Anonymous

      We can’t forget that the French in the 1930’s tried to have a policy of stay at home, hide behind walls and be always on the defense. How did that work for them? Obama is more of a Chamberlain I would think.

      • Obama is not a Libertarian, like Ron Paul.. and as such, Ron Paul is an appeaser.. Obama is an appeaser, only to those he likes, and as such, he is a Socialist-Marxist, and allies himself, with other such people and Nations.. punishes those he does not like..

        • Anonymous

          I agree with your reply but if we’re stating the obvious I would add that Chamberlain was not a Libertarian.

        • Anonymous

          Since we are bringing up the marxist card….

          Ron Paul’s philosophy can be traced back in lineage to classical liberals like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises.

          Care to guess where the neo-con lineage can be traced back? Check out my screenname for a hint….

          • Yes well, Libertarianism is a policy and ideology of isolationaism and appeasement.. It would be fine if we were Lichtenstein, or something.. but we’re not.. we’re America..

            Now, this Obamacratic liberalism, is the foundation of Socialism, which is the foundation for Marxist Communism.. aka, collectivism.. It all strings together, and is why one leads to another..

            Where on the other hand, American Constitutional Conservative Capitalism, and Individualism, Rights, Freedom, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our land of opportunity, in our Republic called America.. which is the complete opposite of Socialism and Marxism, ie; collectivism, and thus, is immuned from their ideology.. but it’s this Anti-American Liberal Socialist-Marxist Obama, and his co-conspirator crony puppets, that is steering America away from the American Independent Self-Reliant, Free Market, Free Enterprise, Capitalism – and into his Socialist-Marxism..

            If I, and all Patriotic Constitutional Conservative Americans, have anything to say about it, it will be stopped and reversed.!!

      • Anonymous

        Only after the French and Wilson, who should be an interventionist hero to neo-cons, intervened to the point of forcing Germany into bankruptcy and starvation leading to Hitler taking power out of desperation.

        How did that intervention work out for the world? It is a good thing that intervention elsewhere does not have any similar effects, right guys? Now let’s all go eat some freedom fries!

  • I’ve had comments removed or censored now numerous times. This site encourages absolutely no debate except the standard neocon line of reasoning. I wonder how many thousands of comments have been removed. the right scoop should be called the censorship central to protect their televangelists like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity and Beck from real criticism.

    • Anonymous

      whatever dude no one cares what you have to say

    • His site bro. He pays all of the bills. You come here and play by his rules. Don’t like it? You can go elsewhere.. Welcome to the USA.

      • Anonymous

        He is just doing the same thing Levin did after Thomas Woods destroyed him. Why debate the truth when we can simply censor it, pretend it didn’t happen, and listen to others in talk radio scream the same talking points over and over?

    • Neocon? You really are mad. BTW, I want to thank all of the Paulbots who have commented here lately. I don’t think Ron Paul himself could have shown how nuts his “movement” is. And the greatest part is that you don’t need to convince me or even believe what I say. You can disagree all you want, but it won’t change the fact that the Paulbots are not helping their man. AT ALL!

      • Vorlath, I guess you think everyone is mad who does not agree with either Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin. I’ve listened to Rush for years and had to turn him off in 2008 after being a neoconservative myself since the 90s. Rush is a great entertainer, and his Paul Shanklin parodies are classic. Neoconservatism has been a cancer to America. If you cannot see this you are the one who is mad. Our country was in a sad state of affairs before Obama. Neoconservatism has only produced more debt, welfare, nation-building, inflation,and a police state at home. Obama has the same neoconservative foreign policy Bush had. It does not serve the interests of the people, only the interests of internationalists and a larger central government to consolidate more power through militarism and intimidation. I am personally offended by many of the anti-paul comments as many of us were neoconservatives in the past. I have a family, job and pay my bills. I’m not some dude in a basement with a tin-foil hat as many of us have been categorized for years by the talk-radio establishment. We’re sick of being marginalized, by both the media and neoconservatives for our principled views.

      • Anonymous

        I’d say the Thomas Woods destruction of Lewhine showed exactly how quick he and his ilk were to censor anyone even discussing it.

        http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/mark-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/

  • Without reading the 200+ Paul bot messages, let me just take a stab.

    Hitler would never have existed if it wasn’t for the U.S. involvement in WWI. Is that about right?

    • I agree with you. Like I said in another post, think about a world under Ron Paul. Von Braun, nope. Rocket technology? Nope. Going to the moon and the space race? Nope (and the other guys get ICBMs and the US doesn’t). The cold war? Nope. Computer technology? Nope. It’d be all British, but without US help, I don’t want to think about what would happen to the people that worked at Bletchley Park in WWII. And let’s not forget how many countries were helped with their financial system by the US just so that they wouldn’t fall into despair and under enemy control. And the hiring of foreign scientists who work for oppressive regimes. No, let’s butt out of that so they can devise advanced technologies to be used against the West.

      Sorry Paulbots, but your guy is certifiably nuts.

      • Anonymous

        The concept of opportunity cost not existing to neo-cons is the only thing that is nuts. Your implicit claim is that the private market could not create things without the government spending, right?

        I guess you are 100 percent behind obamacare by that logic, since it is the exact same argument used by its supporters.

    • Anonymous

      Let me take a stab at your other views:

      government intervention in the economy has bad side effects when it is against things that i like such as free market businesses being told they can’t operate in a non union state, or regulation/taxes forcing businesses to leave the nation because of all of the unintended side effects.

      the state’s intervention does not have unintended side effects as soon as it leaves its own borders — and the cia is wrong for saying things like blowback exists. We were attacked on 911 because terrorists in caves half way around the world sat around and became furious to the point of giving up their lives over the fact that we have democracy!

  • There is no money guys. We are coming home no matter what. It’s better to do it voluntarily with Ron Paul as President rather than when we are bankrupt.

    Moreover, the idea that Iran is a threat to Israel if the United States doesn’t help is moronic. The United States often puts conditions on Israel that PREVENT them from taking action against Iran. If the U.S. gets out of the way, Israel will be more free to deal with that threat, if it exists, and they are vastly superior in military and intelligence. Iran is a joke as a threat to Israel. If they point a finger towards Israel, Israel could easily wipe them out.

    • We should definitely get out of the way as far as what you are talking about is concerned. Israel should not be held back by us, but it is important to account for all the wars and national security don’t even get the amount of money of one of the entitlement programs. We can cut domestic spending enough to pay for the best national defense without borrowing again.

      • Ron Paul is the only one who will get out of the way of Israel. If you want to see how Ron Paul’s position translates in practice, recall 1981.

        “When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself. Remember, this was the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan that had condemned Israel, a coalition that included the most hawkish anti-Communists and the most fervent Christian conservatives.”

        Paul is the only one who will refuse to condemn Israel or interfere when they try to defend themselves.

        • I don’t believe that. And of course he won’t interfere as he does not believe in any foreign policy outside our borders. Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin both would not condemn Israel in that. I’m not sure about Santorum but I dont think he would. Herman Cain on the other hand…my only hesitation is that I do not know his foreign policy views as he does not seem to have a whole lot of them so it would depend on his choice of running mate and cabinet appointments.

  • Mark Get Well Soon and thank U very muck LUV!!! We shall over come!!! YA! God bless America!!!!

  • Guest

    Mark Get Well Soon and thank U very muck LUV!!! We shall over come!!! YA! God bless America!!!!

  • jabdwb

    Here is my observation of what has gone on in the world in the realm of government and war, frankly everywhere else. I come back to it over and over as truth at the heart of it all. It is a moral issue in the heart of every human being. If one does not have a core belief in the struggle between, here goes, good and evil, within the realm of humanity, then, collectively, those people go off in directions which may seem moral, but are actually deceitfully destructive to all of us in the end.

  • Anonymous

    All through this thread I keep seeing Paul supporters referring to “neocon” this and “neocon” that. What’s up with that? Neocon is another word for “Jew,” is it not folks? It is a bit disturbing; there seems to be a lot of anti-Semitic, anti-Israel sentiment surrounding Ron Paul, and I’m not the only conservative who has noticed it.

    • No. The “neo” in neocon refers to a new type of conservative, different from an
      “Old Right” conservative like Robert Taft. One of the differences is that the neocons support a form of Wilsonian foreign policy, as opposed to the old right conservatives who favor following the advice of the Founders of staying out of entangling alliances. Robert Taft didn’t even want the U.S. to be in NATO. The neocons have a different foreign policy.

      • Anonymous

        Why is it that anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul’s disastrous foreign policy is given this necon label? Ron Paul’s policies would cut off all aid to Israel and pretty much throw them under the bus, don’t you think? Is anybody who supports Israel considered a “necon” by Ron Paul supporters?

        • I just wanted to correct your smear that neocon is synonym with Jewish. I’m done with the neocon topic.

          Regarding “throwing Israel under the bus”, Ron Paul will cut the aid to EVERYONE. That means he will also cut the aid to Israel enemies, who receive seven times more money than Israel. This doesn’t like “throwing Israel under the bus” to me. It’s the opposite, it will help Israel.

          • It is worth noting that I would also be stripping support to 80-90% of the countries that receive it if not all, but that does not effect deployment at all.

            • Money is fungible. Giving money to be used for food allows money that would’ve otherwise been used for food to be used for military purposes.

              • Its not the governments job to feed the world. The same people we fund these national grants to buy up our debt as well. So we are paying for them to loan us money and they make money off of it. If someone wants to donate money to a charity that helps out a country? Absolutely great I’ll support you on it. The government should not be in the business of charity. The use of government for charity is to escape personal responsibility for taking care of those less fortunate for themselves, and keeps others who intend to penniless to do so. the population is 100 times more efficient at charity then the government would ever be.

      • Anonymous

        We know what actual Neocons are. So does anyone who can use a search engine. That’s why this bizarre push by Ronulans to label everyone who isn’t a Ronulan as a “Neocon” is irritating, but hilarious.

        The only reason anyone brought up “Neocon” as a perjorative before the Ronulan’s latest abuse of terminology, was to slam Jews. It’s been going on for a long time, and regular Conservatives are well aware of it.

        Ron Paul Libertarians are not going to take over the Conservative movement any more than Wiccans are going to take over the left. The more they cry “Neocon!” the more pathetic they seem. Maybe that’s why they haven’t taken over the Libertarian Party.

    • NeoCons like undeclared wars that never end. They like big government. Religion is irrelevant.

      • Anonymous

        I think you miss a lot of why we support Israel as an ally. And it’s not about big government or undeclared wars, but it is about religion and shared principals of religous freedom not recognized by the enemies of Israel who would gladly launch a second holocaust if left unchecked. And that’s according to their own words. That is indeed their Qu’ranic goal. Christian are next after the Jews, because Paradise only comes to Earth when all upon it believe in Islam and all Infidels are decapitated. Again, that’s in the Qu’ran.

        • Anonymous

          The same mindset leads to things like obamacare. Sure, it may not be authorized in the constitution, but it is a “good idea” to do it.

          You seriously don’t think the socialist state of Israel could defend itself if we followed what the founders of our nation advocated and were neutral? If anything, our aid ties their hands and allows them less freedom to do what they need to do to defend themselves.

          • Anonymous

            Check your history and your map. Despite being surrounded by hostel countries who have pledged to wipe them from the face of the earth, Israel has cleaned the clock of the Arab states several times, but not without our material assistance from allies, because their enemies were backed by the Soviets. Yet Israel allows Muslims to live in its country. By the way, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Go read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. It may clarify your thinking on what the Constitution allows.

            Israel has not allowed our aid to tie their hands. Netanyahu did not kowtow to Obama. (Obama kowtowed to King Abdul-Aziz, though) Israel has exercised its own defensive moves. But part of our economic trade with Israel is weapons that are needed to defend against the Arab nations who years ago pledged not to recognize Israel (even though they have the longest history of ownership of the land known the as Judea), not to negotiate with them, and to wipe them from the map.

            Finally, you have mentioned Mr. Madison’s stand against war. Interesting. Heard of the War of 1812 dubbed “Mr. Madison’s War”. His approach worked so well that 1) the British were able to burn down the Presidential Mansion, which became the White House and 2) at the war’s conclusion we got nothing. James Madison was a great man. A great Founding Father. But his policies were not flawless. Isolate yourself and the enemy usually ends up coming right to your home to knock on the door. The Founders advocation of no entanglements must be placed in proper historic perspective. At that point in time, we were the little guy on the block seeking trading partners, while the big players in the world frequently were at war with one another – to choose sides would mean we’d lose a trading partner when that was our life blood. Times are a little different now. an ICBM can travel a great distance to neutralize an isolated country. Jefferson didn’t take anything from the Barbary Pirates, Madison would have. So who is right? Why would the constitution call for the creation of a Navy if not to protect the country’s interests aboard? A Coast Guard would suffice if pure defense were the only intended goal, right?

            • Anonymous

              1812 was far more of a legit war than the nonsense going on in the middle east, and certainly his extremely correct statements about war being the largest threat to liberty of the people and the easiest method for the state to grow in power have been proven completely correct both here and in Israel. Israel is basically a socialist economy, and we are fast on that way as well. Things like the patriot act — government being able to search without warrants, the same sort of thing that caused the founders to revolt against the british — are a direct result of us engaging in foreign affairs that are none of our business.

              Regardless of there being some merit to 1812 because of the attacks, the interesting thing with you bringing up the negative consequences of the war is that there were a good many war advocates, especially in certain northern parts of the country, who wanted to invade canada and all out war with britain. Those who are itching for war, as apparently you are, and made damn sure it happened. I guess they were the predecessor to Wilson and the modern day neo-cons like you.

              That is incorrect about aid not having strings whether it is domestically or overseas. I can tell you don’t have much experience with government if you honestly believe that. Netanyahu also thinks we should free the spy we caught giving some very high level secrets to Israel about our military, so he isn’t exactly agenda free or someone to trust

              Besides, if we are going to get into attacks though, I don’t think you really want to bring up the USS Liberty to any of the survivors or family of the victims. Jefferson and Washington both advocating entangling alliances with none, and peaceful trade with all, or John Q Adams saying that we could slay the mighty european dragon abroad, but that it would be a horrible idea, are all perfect examples of why we should let the middle east be the middle east. Israel can more than handle itself — so we shouldn’t be giving them hundreds of millions worth of aid every year, nor doing the same with other nations who harbor those who attack Israel. It makes as much sense as us giving Pakistan aid, then having them turn around and screw us over by hiding bin laden for years.

              • Anonymous

                I should also add that your belief that the no entangling alliances “should be put in its proper context” is literally the same sort of arguments used to shred the other parts of the constitution. Whether it be obamacare, the drug war, the patriot act, banning guns, banning political speech, etc — the exact same arguments are used. If you don’t like how the constitution was written, then it has to be changed, not simply ignored because “we know better now.”

                By the way, when we overthrow a nation’s leader, bomb them, launch predator drone attacks, launch raids, etc they are all considered acts of war. You should read the constitution for what it says about war — it is very clear that only the congress can declare war. Period. Yet we routinely do these things without the consent of congress. Why? Because the same arguments you made against what the founders explicitly stated are being used.

            • Anonymous

              1812 was far more of a legit war than the nonsense going on in the middle east, and certainly his extremely correct statements about war being the largest threat to liberty of the people and the easiest method for the state to grow in power have been proven completely correct both here and in Israel. Israel is basically a socialist economy, and we are fast on that way as well. Things like the patriot act — government being able to search without warrants, the same sort of thing that caused the founders to revolt against the british — are a direct result of us engaging in foreign affairs that are none of our business.

              Regardless of there being some merit to 1812 because of the attacks, the interesting thing with you bringing up the negative consequences of the war is that there were a good many war advocates, especially in certain northern parts of the country, who wanted to invade canada and all out war with britain. Those who are itching for war, as apparently you are, and made damn sure it happened. I guess they were the predecessor to Wilson and the modern day neo-cons like you.

              That is incorrect about aid not having strings whether it is domestically or overseas. I can tell you don’t have much experience with government if you honestly believe that. Netanyahu also thinks we should free the spy we caught giving some very high level secrets to Israel about our military, so he isn’t exactly agenda free or someone to trust

              Besides, if we are going to get into attacks though, I don’t think you really want to bring up the USS Liberty to any of the survivors or family of the victims. Jefferson and Washington both advocating entangling alliances with none, and peaceful trade with all, or John Q Adams saying that we could slay the mighty european dragon abroad, but that it would be a horrible idea, are all perfect examples of why we should let the middle east be the middle east. Israel can more than handle itself — so we shouldn’t be giving them hundreds of millions worth of aid every year, nor doing the same with other nations who harbor those who attack Israel. It makes as much sense as us giving Pakistan aid, then having them turn around and screw us over by hiding bin laden for years.

            • Anonymous

              1812 was far more of a legit war than the nonsense going on in the middle east, and certainly his extremely correct statements about war being the largest threat to liberty of the people and the easiest method for the state to grow in power have been proven completely correct both here and in Israel. Israel is basically a socialist economy, and we are fast on that way as well. Things like the patriot act — government being able to search without warrants, the same sort of thing that caused the founders to revolt against the british — are a direct result of us engaging in foreign affairs that are none of our business.

              Regardless of there being some merit to 1812 because of the attacks, the interesting thing with you bringing up the negative consequences of the war is that there were a good many war advocates, especially in certain northern parts of the country, who wanted to invade canada and all out war with britain. Those who are itching for war, as apparently you are, and made damn sure it happened. I guess they were the predecessor to Wilson and the modern day neo-cons like you.

              That is incorrect about aid not having strings whether it is domestically or overseas. I can tell you don’t have much experience with government if you honestly believe that. Netanyahu also thinks we should free the spy we caught giving some very high level secrets to Israel about our military, so he isn’t exactly agenda free or someone to trust

              Besides, if we are going to get into attacks though, I don’t think you really want to bring up the USS Liberty to any of the survivors or family of the victims. Jefferson and Washington both advocating entangling alliances with none, and peaceful trade with all, or John Q Adams saying that we could slay the mighty european dragon abroad, but that it would be a horrible idea, are all perfect examples of why we should let the middle east be the middle east. Israel can more than handle itself — so we shouldn’t be giving them hundreds of millions worth of aid every year, nor doing the same with other nations who harbor those who attack Israel. It makes as much sense as us giving Pakistan aid, then having them turn around and screw us over by hiding bin laden for years.

    • Anonymous

      Nope — has nothing to do with jews. If you think it does, then you are in for a rude surprise when you realize the biggest critics of the neocons in america are usually related in some form to the mises institute. Care to guess the ethnicity of Ludwig von Mises or many of its prominent members? Don’t be like al sharpton or jesse jackson — it instantly destroys any credibility you once had. Of course, it isn’t your fault — the communists were the original ones who used the race card angle in the modern age, and neo-cons like levin can trace their lineage back to trotksy via William F Buckley and Irving Kristol, the founders of the movement.

      The reason neo-con is used as opposed to conservative is that the word has been completely devalued and changed, sort of like how “liberal” used to mean Thomas Jefferson, now it means Obama supporters.

  • Anonymous

    “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Trust in temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies… steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” (President George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797)

    “Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” (President Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801)

    • Anonymous

      I am sure mark lewhine and his followers would ask Washington and Jefferson why they hate America if they were alive today. Or they would at least call them “naive” on how the world works. lol

  • wow..wow…wow! Ummm, I really like Ron Paul. My question is simple, if you have a friend getting beat up, do you stand and watch or do you intervene!?! And do you intervene by quelling the situation, or do you throw the first blow and say they were about to do something so we reacted!?

    The Forefathers warned “If Tyranny & Oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    And….

          I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.  Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

          America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

          Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776)

          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, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison

          The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. – George Washington

          The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. – James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President

    REAGAN & PAUL

  • wow..wow…wow! Ummm, I really like Ron Paul. My question is simple, if you have a friend getting beat up, do you stand and watch or do you intervene!?! And do you intervene by quelling the situation, or do you throw the first blow and say they were about to do something so we reacted!?

    The Forefathers warned “If Tyranny & Oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

    And….

          I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours.  Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823)

          America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821)

          Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. – Thomas Paine (1776)

          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, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison

          The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. – George Washington

          The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature … the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. – James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President

    REAGAN & PAUL

  • You neocons need to wake up and start thinking for yourselves…..otherwise you are no better that the left-wing sheeple who blindly follow BO and his minions.

  • We are already on the Titanic. Haven’t you noticed? Ron Paul will get us off of the sinking ship of debt that we are on.

  • Anonymous

    the ron paul kucinich supporters are like peas in a pod…that should tell us something…just tune these folks out, they are too small in number to debate with anyway…

  • Anonymous

    You want to offensively attack a weaker nation because you’re scared. You cowards. Let them point a nuke at my face, i wont blink.

    • Anonymous

      Just flash your eye spots at them.

  • appliedsuccess

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is isolationism. Our military is overcommitted, because we have a know-nothing weakling as Commander-In- Chief. But Paul’s suggest to withdraw from areas we’ve operated in with a strategic plan would be foolish. Pulling out of newer areas in which we have no clear cut goals is a good idea, combined with re-evaluation of who truly is an ally. (Pakistan, you’re off our list. Syria, you are too.) Paul’s isolationism swings too far in a direction of the naive. Whether we like it or not, we have enemies. We’re on the top of the heep and someone will always want to knock us off. (Dr. Paul takes a similar naive approach to drugs, like many Libertarians, advocating legalization. Look at Holland if you want to see how well that worked.) He has a point that our borders have been ignored to our detriment long enough and need to be sealed, which will require troops and UAVs. But part of our presence overseas is to fight the fight there and prevent it from coming here. He seems to miss this point and the point that we will have enemies with global reach to harm us if we don’t deter their development of nuclear weapons. Sitting at home with sealed borders will not make us safer. Our Founders knew we had to take the fight to the Muslims on the Barbary coast when those pirates became one of the first threats to our young nation. Yeah, the Barbary Pirates were the Muslim treat of the day – some things never change. Cowering will not do as a foreign policy for America.

    Dr. Paul’s value to our nations comes in what he has to say about the Federal Reserve, budgeting and spending (with the exception of the part about bring all our troops home to save money), and our fiat money system. He gets the Constitution better than 99% of the people on the Hill. But being naive in foreign policy matters will not endear him to true Conservatives who this time seek a strong President with a love of country and an understanding and commitment to return it to its glory by adhering to the Founder’s principals. I hope Dr. Paul continues to expose spenders and taxers in Congress and continues to voice the sound economic principals we need to adopt. But President is not a title I believe he will wear well in light of his naive ideas on foreign policy. Nor will any candidate weak in this area be a viable choice.

  • So he is wrong on the Economy? He is wrong on the Constitution? Wow….

  • Anonymous

    “They do not need a reason to hate us. They hate us because we exist.”
    – Joshua Saunders

    Perhaps the most ignorant and ridiculous statement I’ve ever read on the subject.

    • Anonymous

      No, I think you’ve got it beat by a mile.

  • Wow what have I learned tonight from reading the comments on this thread, apparently if anyone dare to disagree with the great Ron Paul we are instantly a NeoCon that supports war mongering and big banks no matter how much or how little we disagree with Paul on. Come on Paulites seriously you make yourselves look stupid when you result to name calling like that just because someone doesnt hold the same belief on a candidate as you do. Posting the same come back verbatim (copying and pasting) to multiple people is just dumb and makes you look like you are completely stuck on talking points.

    • Anonymous

      When you repeat the arguments verbatim of neo-cons like lewhine, what do you expect? And speaking of “talking points,” why do ALL of the talk radio “conservatives” like Rush, Lewhine, Hannity, etc all say the exact same thing about Paul?

      Glass houses, stones, yada yada yada….

  • Anonymous

    It’s pretty funny how often the word “neocon” is abused by the RP folks. It’s like the cartoon image of “The Jew” that always gets trotted out to scare the children in places where overt, anti-Jewish sentiments are acceptable.

    I suppose it’s nice to have lofty ambitions, but trying to hijack the word “conservative” isn’t going to work out for anyone coming from a group that has failed to build up it’s own party.

    I can almost empathize, since I’m probably closer in spirit to libertarian philosophy than Conservative. But RP has damaged the LP brand, just like the other isolationists have. When they get serious about national defense, maybe they can get somewhere.

    • Anonymous

      Shorter version of K-Bob “I can’t argue logically, so here is a half-assed Godwin.”

      • Anonymous

        Offer some actual premises, instead of the usual basket of accusation, defamation and hyperbole, and we’ll talk “logic.” This is a corollary to Godwin: All Ron Paul threads end up dying a Godwin-style death.

        • Anonymous

          That first sentence of yours is addressed to mark levine, right?

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, sure, whatever.

    • Anonymous

      Nope — has nothing to do with jews. If you think it does, then you are in for a rude surprise when you realize the biggest critics of the neocons in america are usually related in some form to the mises institute. Care to guess the ethnicity of Ludwig von Mises or many of its prominent members? Don’t be like al sharpton or jesse jackson — it instantly destroys any credibility you once had. Of course, it isn’t your fault — the communists were the original ones who used the race card angle in the modern age, and neo-cons like levin can trace their lineage back to trotksy via William F Buckley and Irving Kristol, the founders of the movement.

      The reason neo-con is used as opposed to conservative is that the word has been completely devalued and changed, sort of like how “liberal” used to mean Thomas Jefferson, now it means Obama supporters.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry, I don’t have enough tinfoil in my hat to follow that train of “logic.”

        I think my credibility is far safer than yours.

        Neocons! Hey, everyone, you’re all neocons! Surprised?

        I’m not sure why you don’t just go with something tried and true, like Neo-Fascist, or hell, just call us all Nazis. It would fit right in with the crazy crap the RP folks are shilling these days.

        • Anonymous

          Considering that you are attempting to pull the race card in the same way that liberal democrats do anytime someone disagrees with them, I wouldn’t say you have much credibility with anyone outside of mark levin style listeners.

          I apologize if the documented lineage and statements of the founders of the philosophy mark levin follows is too complicated for you. Perhaps you would be better served by listing to his show and maybe some screaming about how evil democrats are for the same sort of things republicans do when they get in power because of the influence of neo-cons.

          Maybe just forget all this complicated word stuff happened and make some freedom friesm crank up the mark levine, and turn on some foxnews. That will show people who do not think america has the right to bomb the hell out of the world, and if they get upset or respond to it that they must hate us because of their religion and that we can vote. And don’t give me no quotes from washington and jefferson about war! Who cares what those idiot founding fathers say? They aint no mark levine or rush limbaugh!

          USA!!! USA!!!! USA!!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            Anyone able to translate that into English?

  • It’s strange to me that conservatives, who have knowledge of government incompetency, can believe that the government is somehow wise when in comes to foreign policy.

    There’s plenty of evidence that they blunder and distort regularly. Might the fact that it leads to unimaginable suffering of millions make the war supporters less hesitant to support every military adventure? It seems not.

    It seems to me they harbor a deep fear, one that is satiated by hoping a huge bureaucracy can make better. Listen to that muffled voice in the back of your mind, telling you that violence and murder is wrong, then you might have eyes to see what’s really going on, and why so many hate the warfare and interference that the US perpetrates around the world.

    • Anonymous

      Thomas Woods completely destroyed Lewhine in that exchange. It was like the Green Bay Packers vs a local high school team. No wonder why Lewhine had all posts merely linking those Woods responses deleted on facebook….

  • Anonymous

    It’s interesting that you have no qualms about parading “important voices” against Ron Paul, but ban his name from your polls and chastise his supporters without reservation. If you truly had the courage of your convictions and trusted the integrity of your arguments, you would welcome Ron Paul’s rebuttals and those who advocate for them.

  • Han Solo

    People to Levin: Hitler would have wanted an all encompassing dept of homeland security and a rights violating TSA too. But you supported that asshat big govt loving Bush.

  • Anonymous

    The Manhattan Project was created to counter Nazi Germany’s efforts to get a nuclear weapon.

    It doesn’t matter whether an enemy attacks you with bare hands or a knife or a pistol or a rile or a machine gun or a flame thrower or a RPG or a tank or a 250 lb bomb or a 500 lb bomb or a 1,000 lb bomb or a 2,000 lb bomb or a nuclear bomb. If your enemy kills you, you are still dead.

  • Love that small smulch of spittle that builds in the corner of his mouth and the Dear in the Headlights look Crazy Uncle Ron gets when on a tirade concerning his passivity and contempt for Iran. Isn’t Crazy Uncle Ron’s foreign policy the same as B. Hussein O.’s, “Hide under your desk and hope the threat goes away?”

    • Anonymous

      If I was a fan of Levin, I wouldn’t be bringing up the appearance issue. I also wouldn’t bring up the speaking issue, considering that he whines sort of like a high pitched 12 year old girl through her nose at a boy band concert with the constant nasal screaming.

      But the interesting thing is that Obama’s policies on unconstitutionally launching wars and keeping troops in an indefinite state of war with no objective is pretty much what the neo-cons like Levin advocate.

      I also see you call yourself a patriot. Are you aware of what the original patriots like Washington said about foreign wars?

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone. It is a vollenteer only service

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone. It is a vollenteer only service

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone.

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone.

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone. I served in the 60’s and had to enlist. to get in.

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force has never drafted anyone. I served in the 60’s and had to enlist. to get in.

  • Anonymous

    The US Air Force does not draft. Never has and never will.

  • The problem is that many modern-day Americans have become so comfortable and soft and it’s like they are scared of their own shadow when war-mongers keep presenting boogy-man scenarios like Iran.

    The US outlasted the USSR, remember them you know … the big bear .. the “evil empire” that supposedly had the “doomsday” bomb, and Iran is no comparison to the former USSR.

    Geez … what would George Washington be thinking now ?

    You think the Iran government is not worried about Israel’s 300 or so nuclear warheads ?

    There is no point in theorizing about “threats” and effects on “allies” whilst the US is potentially on the road to bankruptcy. “Fat” America needs to wake up and realize the WORLD has changed. Do the numbers, e.g., the cost of maintaining a world-wide militaristic presence is unsustainable.

    Iran, as others, have the right to develop an alternative scaled-up energy infrastructure (solar, wind, nuclear) so that when their oil runs out they will be ready to take advantage of these scaled-up alternative energy sources.

    Contrast this with the US approach during the last few decades ….
    i.e. Rather than laying the foundations for future use of scaled-up alternative energy sources, the US has concentrated on costly foreign policy scenarios thinking that it was always going to be easy to absorb a foreigner’s resources; do you like the “honest” relationship with Saudi Arabia ?

    Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
    China is the proverbial monkey on the US’s back.
    The Chinese have become remarkable capitalists with enough cash to make resource deals around the world in competition with the US (US not cashed up like China).

    • Anonymous

      We know what Washington said about entangling alliances….

      Hint: It isn’t what Levin and other former liberals/communists/socialists who are now classified as neo-cons advocate…

  • Anonymous

    Jews are the bane of the world, didn’t you know that? Let Iran have their “Precious” nuke, we all know that government is not morally bankrupt….why they’ll just keep it in the closet and take it out for show now and then….imagine it being the center piece of a nice parade put on by islamist terrorists. Better yet, they could always lend it to some nice islamist terrorists.
    Paul and his supporters live in an alternative universe, wish the mother ship would come back for them.

  • Mark Levin is a stupid douche. Santorum didn’t “school” Ron. Ron handed him his ass by noting that our overthrowing of Mosadek and installing the brutal Shah was responsible for the Islamic Revolution over there.

    • Anonymous

      Yup — the look on Santorum’s face when Paul brought up the coup and the eventual blowback was priceless. I guess that was something he couldn’t learn from neo con talk radio types, so he might not have even been aware of it.

  • Why is it wrong that every other country has or wants nukes but it’s fine if we do? Take a look at todays leaders in DC and tell yourself you’re happy that Obama controls a nuclear missle program. I couldn’t care less if EVERY nation had nuclear weapons. If they shoot at us we shoot at them. if they don’t we don’t. Simple…like that right to “keep and bear arms” we all love. It works.

    Ron Paul is the only real Patriotic candidate. ALL of the other “conservative” candidates are business as usual mainstream republicans.

  • You just lost one listener ….not that i cared for your radio show all that much anyway. It was just slightly better then the garbage on the other stations.

    • Anonymous

      In the old days when I still listened to Rush and he would come on, I could last just a few minutes of hearing that horrible nasal voice and the high pitched screaming before turning the station. And that was before I realized how full of it neo-cons and their trotsky lineage were…

    • Anonymous

      Check out the podcasts on lewrockwell.com if you want to hear some quality radio.

  • Mr. Levin: who the hell are we to decide which countries do or don’t have nukes? The Constitution doesn’t put us in charge of the world! It doesn’t even make provision for a standing Army! It provides for a Navy which protects us in case we are attacked by sea. The “modern” invention of the airplane could logically cause the Navy to include airplanes as well. We the people can organize an Army if we are attacked, we did that in WW2. A standing Army looks for something to do…it’s called the Middle East. Japan and Germany surrenderred 66 years ago, we do not need a military presence there but we still do. Total waste of taxpayer money.

  • Mr. Levin: who the hell are we to decide which countries do or don’t have nukes? The Constitution doesn’t put us in charge of the world! It doesn’t even make provision for a standing Army! It provides for a Navy which protects us in case we are attacked by sea. The “modern” invention of the airplane could logically cause the Navy to include airplanes as well. We the people can organize an Army if we are attacked, we did that in WW2. A standing Army looks for something to do…it’s called the Middle East. Japan and Germany surrenderred 66 years ago, we do not need a military presence there but we still do. Total waste of taxpayer money.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you to all those who have posted thoughtful ideas. I’m off..can’t take anymore Ron Paul talking points ie: The fed, neo-con, isolation foreign policy and on and on.
    The truth of the matter is that there is no way for him to be President. I like some of his ideas but he will never be elected sorry. He may win straw polls (who cares it’s Iowa) but well it’s straw. I watched the debates with an open mind and I need more information to make a choice. But I did learn how long old Uncle Ron’s meds took to wear off until he went bat-crap crazy. I am going on to a more reasoned discussion on foreign policy elsewhere so reply (vent) if you must but don’t wait for a reply.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you to all those who have posted thoughtful ideas. I’m off..can’t take anymore Ron Paul talking points ie: The fed, neo-con, isolation foreign policy and on and on.
    The truth of the matter is that there is no way for him to be President. I like some of his ideas but he will never be elected sorry. He may win straw polls (who cares it’s Iowa) but well it’s straw. I watched the debates with an open mind and I need more information to make a choice. But I did learn how long old Uncle Ron’s meds took to wear off until he went bat-crap crazy. I am going on to a more reasoned discussion on foreign policy elsewhere so reply (vent) if you must but don’t wait for a reply.

    • Anonymous

      If you really want to read more about this issue, then check out the complete destruction Thomas Woods gave Mark Levin on this issue. Levin was humiliated so badly that he deleted any references to it on his facebook page, even mere links being posted.

      It wasn’t a fair fight though — a true historian vs a talk radio host who likes to scream a lot and read off the neo-con talking points. And if you REALLY want your mind blown, check out the origin of neo-conservatives….

    • Anonymous

      Shorter version of aeistotle “whaa whaa whaa”

  • Well said, Sir. Thank you for saying it. I have been thinking for some time that there are often several candidates being portrayed as Conservative Republicans who seem far more like Democrats or even Socialists. Wouldnt you agree also that McCain, Huntsman, Romney, Giulianni and Pawlenty are not adequately conservative to be worthy of our vote? At the very least, I am convinced that our founders would have disqualified them – tacitly by not supporting or voting for them – based on their lack of Moral Fortitude and honesty. It was their determination that the leaders of the nation as well as the populace must be dedicated to Moral lifestyle, patterned generally according to the tenets of the Bible, in order to REtain their freedoms under the Constitution. I highly recommend to all patriots the book, “The 5,000 Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen. It details the 28 Bible-based Principles that the founders used to guide them in writing the Constitution to protect our Republic, with great deal of documentation. I would like to require every candidate to read it, every high school student, every college student. And Every member of the government whether in an office of Public Service, or in the bureaucracy to read it once a year.

  • How many countries has Iran attacked in the past 30 years?…. zero.

    • you r a moron

    • Iran doesn’t attack directly. It attacks by proxy.

    • Anonymous

      Hezbullah just called. They thank you and Ahmadinejad for the support. They wanted to promise to kill you last, but I told them this is not the forum for such things.

  • Anonymous

    What’s a Levin?

  • Anonymous

    Iran is not a threat to the United States. Americans who feel differently must be living in the neighborhood of make-believe.

  • Well-said…. I love Mark Levin

  • You need a little history.

    • Anonymous

      Here’s an even better one that ties it to more recent events…

  • Anonymous

    I’m curious as to why this loud annoying weasel voice thinks we can’t do anything about China and Pakistan having nukes. What is he, some kind of weakling? I’ve never heard such asinine wuss talk from someone who acts so tough. What a useless ninny this guy is.

    He should join some coalition of weepers and whiners or something. His voice would be perfect for it. He’d certainly be a lot more useful there.

  • Vincent Fincher

    And yet, if we had someone like Ron Paul during the 1930s and 1940s, we’d never have entered WWII because the Japanese wouldn’t have been provoked to attacked us due to the oil embargoes. Instead, we’d be enjoying a strong economy which is far more important than saving the lives of a bunch of European idiots.

  • Why do people so readily swallow the propaganda that the establishment dishes out for them? A small amount of research will reveal that the available intelligence on Iran’s foreign policy positions and on their nuclear weaponry aspirations does not at all infer that they are a clear and present danger to our national security or to Israel’s.

    Ron Paul references the CIA’s own intelligence assessments as support for his position. Mark Levin and other’s like him who do all the thinking on behalf of the mainstream elements of the tea party and republican party cite only sensational news headlines.

    The quote about wiping Israel off the map was itself a quote of an ancient Farsi idiom the translated meaning of which is not so clear. It is not prudent or intellectually honest to use that one quote to create a foreign policy of preemptive aggression. The comparison with Hitler is a logically fallacious appeal to emotion.

    The idea that the United States can use force to control the behavior of all the nations of the world in order to protect our interests and security is profoundly absurd. It will not work but is in fact counter productive and will lead to our ruin. What is worse is that our blood and treasure is expended primarily for secretive economic motives that are masked with more noble sounding pretexts such as national security and humanitarianism. Don’t be so naive as to think that special interests only secure the misuse of federal money and power in the realm of domestic policy. There are very wealthy and powerful special interests who vie mightily for the commencement of these wars in order to protect not the lives and liberty of the American people, but to ensure the security of multi-billion dollar investments and business opportunities.

    • There is a difference between using force and having force to use. The difference between nations like US, U.S. and Iran is we position force to prevent radicals like Iran from using force. The rest of your diatribe was pretty much a rambling incoherant mess. “VOTE UNCLE FESTER, eer, I mean Crazy Uncle Paul…

      • Anonymous

        Why do we not care that a nation like China that just a few decades ago murdered tens of millions of its own people have nukes? Hell, Nixon went out of his way to give them recognition and make them legit in the eyes of the world. When did anyone in Iran murder 50 million plus?

      • Anonymous

        And Levin looks a lot more like Uncle Fester than Paul….maybe if Uncle Fester swallowed the air from a hot air balloon and then started speaking through his nose they would be impossible to tell apart.

  • Levin is a Jew and an Israel Firster/ America Seconder. Levin believe American lives and money should be used to protect Israel. Why would a resonable non-Jewish American share his thoughts?

  • Anonymous

    I get tickled to hear Americans afraid of Iran with or without nukes.

    Really?

    I’m afraid of the Progressives. That’s what scares me to death.

    Americans always in the past has met ANY CHALLENGE. But Progressives are our cancer.

  • I forget, what country dropped a Nuke in that war and destroyed two large cities?

    • Anonymous

      If the US hadn’t dropped those two bombs, we’d still be fighting the Japanese.

      • Anonymous

        If we had not engaged in intervening with their affairs by freezing their assets in the US and cutting off their oil supplies with the sort of neo-con interventionism you are in favor of, they wouldn’t have attacked us in the first place.

        • Anonymous

          wow it’s amazing how the logic of blaming America first keeps going back ignoring all the other factors surrounding those decisions.
          I bet given the chance you could make Abe Lincoln the neo-con interventionist for not letting the south secede from the union. Oh and how only Ron Paul was the only one who knew that the south wouldn’t win. Oh wait he wasn’t alive back then right….darn

          • Anonymous

            Considering that all of the founding fathers, including even the most pro centralized government of them all — hamilton — said that all states should be able to secede much as they had just done against britain, then it is no surprise you are a fan of levine. After all, every colony signed a peace treaty with king george separately, and each one had decided to disband the articles of confederation agreement. It was considered ridiculous at the time to argue against any state leaving the agreement, which is why the supreme court never tried jefferson davis or lee for treason — the north knew they would lose.

            Let me guess another thing. You probably think the emancipation proclamation “freed the slaves,” don’t you? When you actually read the thing, you realize just how much propaganda goes on with government schools and the media to indoctrinate the people into the almighty power of the state.

  • kermit2011

    Thing is, would Germany have been a problem if the rest of the world had not forced them into poverty after WWI? Their restrictions were too much for the people to bear, and so they reacted the way they did. It seems to me that if the sanctions against Germany had not been so severe, there could have been a far different outcome, and the possession of nukes would be a moot point. As Paul noted, who wants to go to war with a good trading partner?

  • Anonymous

    Paul’s comment and apparent stance on Iran has erased him from my short list!

  • desmarsol

    While there are some areas I can agree with Ron Paul on his naive approach to foreign affairs make him unelectable. It’s not at all surprising that his widest group of supporters seems to be among the very young where idealism overpowers realism.

  • Every time Crazy Uncle Ron Speaks the American Public should be issued a Rape Kit.

    • Anonymous

      Add a hearing check done for those who listen to Lewhine. The constant high pitched screaming can’t be good for the ears!

  • Anonymous

    I won’t abuse Levin too hard here considering that he is much like a boxer after a brutal knockout with his current fragile state of mind and consciousness after the humiliating beating he took at the hands of Woods, but I would like to address a few things.

    If we are going to make analogies to famous figures of history, especially a communist and a fascist, let’s compare policies. Ron Paul adheres to what Washington, Jefferson, and the other founders said: “peace with all, entangling alliances with none.” Hitler not only approved of aggressive foreign wars and invasions of other nations, but he also was responsible for a police state — I am sure he would love the patriot act were he alive today — and a similar relationship to big government and big business that we see today that is favored by neo-cons and the GOP establishment with things like TARP and QE1 and QE2.

    So on the one hand, you have someone who is only for defensive wars and against the corporatism of big business and big government, also against police state measures like the Patriot act, is against a large and powerful state, yet on the other hand you have people like Levin who are in favor of all those things. Thanks for bringing up the Hitler connection because his actual policies and beliefs in the power and role of the state come very close to mirroring what neo-cons (and the gop and democratic establishments think, for that matter) advocate, because it gave me an excuse to point out who the real national socialists are.

    And I don’t even have to get into the ideological roots of neo-cons like levin, do I? You realize how much Irving kristol and WFB, both of the founders of neo-conservatism, were heavily influenced by Trotsky?????

  • Anonymous

    While we are playing videos, everyone should check this out. Amazing how Ron Paul knew Iraq didn’t really have weapons of mass destruction when neo-con fools like Levin probably still think they are being hidden someplace, that Bin Laden was in pakistan in 2007, that Fannie and Freddie and the whole housing bubble was about to burst in 2001 while the establishment types like barney frank laughed at the idea, etc.

    Maybe Ron is the one guy who remembers what the founders said about war being the biggest threat to liberty and the easiest method for government to grow? Or how the founders learned not to pick sides because they watched Europe destroy itself from doing so? Or maybe Ron Paul learned from the cia head that what Bin Laden did was a direct result of our presence and wars in the middle east, not to mention taking sides?

    Nah, it couldn’t be. He must be just like hitler. Because neo-cons like levin, who follow in a long line of people that trace back to Trotsky, couldn’t ever possibly distort or lie about things in order to justify more power for the state, could they?

    • Anonymous

      Wait wait. so the entire world thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. mostly because he used them on his own people. But Rue Paul was the only one who knew the truth.
      And Rue Paul was the only one who saw the fannie/freddie housing bubble coming . Even though the Bush administration had hearings on the hill warning of this starting in 2001.
      And only Rue Paul knows the real reason Bin Laden hated America.
      Don’t get me wrong I do agree there are things we have a nose in that we don’t need to be doing but sticking our head in sand in foreign policy just won’t cut it.

      • Anonymous

        No, not just Ron Paul, but the followers of austrian econ. The keynesians and monetarists sure didn’t see it coming — krugman was calling for slashing the interest rates in 2003, for instance. Show me who else was saying in 2001 that a housing crisis was coming, in particular with fannie and freddie. There were very, very few people who predicted this taking place. People say all of the time that “everyone else was saying it, too” but usually get very silent when asked to provide proof. I knew it was coming because I follow the same line of economics as Paul, so I made a large amount of money on gold and waiting to buy a house until the market crashed. I made the friends of mine who listened to me even more money.

        Your neo-con talking heads who scream about how we are hated by islam because we have a democracy sure weren’t saying anything because they simply don’t understand economics well enough — sort of like the foreign policy issues, though they do choose to comment a great deal on that issue. In fact, the neo con talking heads laughed and laughed at peter schiff on fox news and the other networks for saying what would happen. There are some hilarious youtube videos showing this. Anyway, I will be patiently waiting for sources on who was saying in 2001 that there would be a huge housing crash like ron paul did — a very small number of people did, but the vast amount did not. Thanks in advance!

        The entire world did not think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — but our government sure did a good job of making it seem that way as an excuse for war. The British have even concluded that the british government did not actually think there were weapons, but blair wanted to go along with the war anyway.

        Nope — but the biggest expert in the world on Osama, the head of the CIA task force, completely agrees with ron paul’s views on osama and not what levine says.

        I realize you are a fan of Levine so you rely on neo-con talking points instead of actual research, but check out that video link i posted sometime inbetween the high pitched, nasal screaming of levine to see some actual proof of just how right he has been, and how wrong the establishment on both sides have been.

  • Anonymous

    And finally, the ultimate irony: Had America and Wilson not intervened in WWI with terms and conditions that forced Germany to hyperinflate and put the nation in a state of chaos and starvation, guess who wouldn’t have come to power?

    The problem with neo-cons is that they will sometimes give lip service to the fact that when the government intervenes in the private sector business world, there are all sorts of unintended consequences that result in disaster. However, that same view certainly doesn’t carry over to state sanctioned activity outside of american borders, where they believe the state’s actions outside of the borders cannot possibly have any sort of unintended consequences.

    Here is the typical neo-con position:

    Saying that the government forcing an american plant to only exist in union states is harmful to the economy and freedom is ok.

    Saying that the military invading and occupying a nation for years will result in some of negative side effect = unpatriotic terrorist speech that will hopefully be banned in the future with an updated version of the patriot act.

  • Anonymous

    Of course he understands the constitution better than anyone in DC — and he understands what they all thought of war and entangling alliances. He also knows that people like madison viewed war as the greatest threat to liberty and the easiest way to grow the state.

    He was 100% proven correct.

    • Anonymous

      Mr. Madison’s War, the War of 1812, was not a wildly popular war. Madison could not get the country behind it. For a guy who hated war, he surely didn’t play his cards right. He was burned out of the presidential mansion. And the U.S. ended up with nothing at the war’s conclusion. The biggest threat to any free country’s liberty is an invading army against which appropriate measures were not taken. History is full of that proof.

      • Anonymous

        Exactly — he had too many people who influenced him and helped push him into war. Those same people would be called neo-conservatives today.

        No, the biggest threat to a powerful empire whether it be america, britain, the romans, etc is taxing its people to death, bankrupting itself on foreign war, and in the process losing liberty via the welfare/warfare state. But Madison’s specific quote had to do with liberty of the people — which I don’t thin any honest person could deny given the loss of freedom in the last few decades.

  • It was the United States Eugenics League that funded Hitler and made him what he was. We essentially did give him the money and power that he needed to carry everything out. Without the wealthy American Industrialists that funded Hitler, he would have remained an unknown German senator.

  • Anonymous

    Look Ron Paul seems like a good man. I really don’t have anything against him other then I don’t like his views on Foreign Policy.
    He would be a hell of a lot better than we have now and a lot better choice than Republicans were given last time.
    Paul supporters seem to be an intelligent bunch that I wish would spend more time knocking down the libs instead of finding ways to blame American foreign policy for the world’s problems.

    • Anonymous

      In all seriousness, thank you for the kind words. Unfortunately, the power of the state and the liberty of americans are greatly affected by war as madison warned us about. I used to not be anti-war, but after years of studying the issue, i realized the single greatest impact on things like civil liberty, the purchasing power of a dollar (inflation, aka taxation), and the power of the state are all greatly changed with war for the worse. As bad as things like entitlements are, war is even worse.

      I don’t blame anyone or take it personally at all for those who are pro war, since those are the establishment, media, and government schools official positions.

  • Anonymous

    The question about the Islamic Republic of Iran is if Iran has nuclear armed inter-continental ballistic missiles, is that a threat to America’s national security interests and if so how should America respond?

    We know that:

    – Iran has inter-continental ballistic missiles, because they have told us as much, and because the Chinese are supplying them with the needed technology; and

    – Iran, according to the IAEA, is moving ahead with nuclear weapons technology development.

    So, the question becomes what, if anything, should America do about the situation?

    The comparison to Hitler, Nazi Germany and pre-World War II Europe is appropriate.

    Just as Nazi Germany wanted to become the dominant power in Europe and was prepared to go to war to achieve its objectives, while having plans to murder the Jews, Iran want’s to become the dominant power in the Middle East, its leaders do not believe in the Holocaust, refuse to recognize Israel and Iran continues to build up its military.

    Israel and America are allies. From the best I can understand, Paul has no interest in furthering this relationship and would rather treat Israel as just another nation.

    The argument that Iran will not attack Israel, because Iran knows that Israel has nuclear weapons is not the issue. Israel has been able to survive because of its ability to defend itself.

    With Iran having nuclear weapons, Israel would be constrained, and thus open to combined attack from its neighbors, Egypt and Syria. Syria is an ally of Iran and depending on the results of the upcoming elections, Egypt may end up being an ally of Iran.

    Oil is a a strategic commodity, and America imports a significant portion of the crude oil it needs. The present regime in Iran considers America to be the enemy and wants to destroy America’s economic power. The Middle East is one of the major sources of crude oil in the world. Manipulating global oil supplies to harm America’s economic power would be very easy, if Iran is the dominant player in the Middle East.

    If you think that given these facts, the situation does not pose a threat to America’s national security interests, you take Paul’s approach.

    If you believe that given these facts, the situation does pose a threat to American national security interests, then you take a different approach.

    To me the answer is fairly straight forward. It is not in America’s national security interests that Iran have nuclear armed inter-continental ballistic missiles.

    • Anonymous

      Not to put too fine point on it, but Paul’s foreign policy views are isolationist, because the end result is that America will abdicate any responsibilities that it may have in the world and would simply retreat unto itself.

      Nice in theory, but the present reality is that the American economy is integrated with the world economy. When the tsunami hit Japan this disrupted the supply chain for the American auto industry and had an impact on that sector of the economy. The unrest in the Middle East caused a spike in crude oil prices and because of America’s reliance on foreign imports, again this had an impact on the American economy. As such, for no other reason than to protect the American economy, the United States has to remain engaged.

      The question is not should it be engaged, but rather what approach should America take. The reality is that sometimes intervention is necessary to protect vital American interests, the question being when and on what basis.

      The Jacksonian Foreign Policy Option
      http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/08/the-jacksonian-foreign-policy.php

      • Anonymous

        Actually, trading with all nations in true free trade is not isolationist. The irony here is that those advocating sanctions also claim to be free traders — which is much like those who call themselves pro life sending young american men off to die in undeclared and pointless wars indefinitely.

        The other points you bring up are economic related — which of everyone running, ron is by far the most pro free market and free trade candidate. It is accurate to say he is a non-interventionist though, since he follows the original intent of the constitution on that issue and the others. As washington, jefferson, etc of the founding fathers advocated, peaceful trade with all, entangling alliances with none. We would be doing a lot better had we listened to their advice.

  • Anonymous

    I’d also have to say that as usual, in addition to many other areas, levin sure was wrong about support for ron paul not increasing. Losing to Bachmann by only 152 votes in her native state, next door to her district, with all of the negative attacks on paul by the media and neo con talk radio? Very impressive.

    He is polling nationally according to usa today/gallup at 14% for the primary and in third place only behind romney and perry, at least as of four days ago. Perry, the former al gore state chairmen, was only three points higher, so this news will only help Paul as he continues to move up in the polls.

    This must really feel bad to watch for the nasal voiced, high pitched screamers like Levin who have attempted to spend so much energy attacking and destroying the views of Ron Paul, yet his views are becoming more popular. Talk about a failure on levin’s part both in his efforts and in his prediction ability!

    • Anonymous

      You are my new favorite commenter. I loved the way Tom Woods absolutely destroyed Levin by exposing the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about, and that Levin was so embarrassed he removed all links to the discussion. I can’t say as I blame Levin, I would have tried to bury it, too. The link has already been posted in this thread so I won’t re-post it.

      The most ridiculous part of Levin’s rant above is the assertion that Santorum somehow schooled Ron Paul. Did Levin even watch the debate or did he just get the memo that went out to Beck and Limbaugh? The oddest thing about the exchange between Santorum and Paul is how Santorum just made stuff up. He declared that Iran had killed more American soldiers than Iraq and Afghanistan. Huh? When did that happen? Sorry, Santorum, you can’t just make up facts to suit you. Well, I guess you can because you will always find somebody like Levin to agree with you.

  • ru paul has no brain

  • Hitler was trying to get Nukes. We beat him to it.

  • What is a “Neo-Con” is this a distorted label for “Jew”? Islam has been a threat to all non-Muslims since 622. Heck it not only says it, in numerous areas throughout their sacred texts but also through their deeds turning over 50, once non-Islamic, nations from Asia to Spain. Heck I don’t think Mr. Paul understands this and why Constantinople is today Istanbul or why the Churches of St. Vincent and St. Sophia, amongst numerous others, inclusive of Jews’ synagogues and pagan shrines, into bloody Mosques. If one reads up on the Barbary Wars the Muslim representative while meeting in London also states this plundering and war of the infidel through Sharia is a blessing as did Timurlane whom, in 1398 invaded “Hindustan” massacring masses building pillars of skulls to which India today has their own “Palestinian” State called “Pakistan”.

    Levin is right on this, I think the only differences I’d state is that we were the ones who gave Russia and China nuclear weapons and other advanced technologies. It is terrible that Clinton didn’t get taken down, with all his cohorts over Chinagate. Heck, they’d not even have been Communist countries today if it weren’t for the Anglo-American elites assistance, financing, support and recognition. If it weren’t for insane “globalist” corrupt financing using American’s Tax dollars all of these bloody Communist/pseudo-Socialist dictatorships would be rice paddies and paddocks for their camels… Edward M. House, “globalist” adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, wrote a good “fictional book called “Philip Dru Administrator” which seems to be the “globalist” portrayal of Orwell’s “1984”, Bradburry’s “Fahrenheit 451”, A Clockwork Orange and Bill Clinton’s mentor Dr. Carrol Quigley’s works “The Ango-American Establishment” and “Tragedy and Hope” both dry “Elitist” Academic writing…

    Keep up the good work Mr. Levin…

    Regards…

  • One thing I really liked about conservative commentators was their minimal use of Godwin’s Law. It was usually invoked by progressives, statists, leftists, liberals, etc., to quash an argument. That seems to be changing to some degree within the conservative community I’m sorry to say.

    I like Ron Paul because he is a real republican and constitutionalist. His ideas are based on the Founders’ ideas; liberty and the freedom to own property. That is from the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s founding document. He’s a firm believer in the 10th Amendment; the amendment that upholds the idea of federalism. Instead of giving some political hack within some department of the federal government the power to make decisions that affect us after being paid off by some lobbyist, that job is left to the leaders of the several states. I leave you with this quote from the great Patrick Henry: “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.”

  • Levin is dead on “as usual”? Mark I-Heart-Orrin-Hatch Levin? The Mark Levin who argues like a leftist? (Oooh, this guy knows people who write for such-and-such website, and they say blah blah blah…. Or: Ooooh, Ron Paul says things that our official media and political classes wouldn’t have said, so he must be stupid and evil! It can’t be that the establishment is stupid and evil, or that people have been propagandized on foreign policy. No way!)

    THIS Mark Levin? http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods168.html
    Or THIS Mark Levin? http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/83536.html

    You’re judging people based on the comments of this neocon fake?

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know if you are the real Tom Woods, but if you are, then welcome!

      Your smackdown of Levin is now legendary.

      I loved your comment on the recent debate and would like to post it here:

      “Ron Paul said the CIA helped impose the shah on those poor people in 1953. Rick Santorum’s non-response to this was to say he wouldn’t apologize for spreading freedom. The shah and his police state were freedom, you see, and to the boobs who can’t think outside the ideological prison camps the media and the regime have placed them in (i.e., “I’m conservative, so that means USA, USA, baby, and I will defend to my last breath everything my wise overlords have ever done to any foreign people on earth, even as I myself criticize everything they do to me at home”), that nonsensical statement constitutes winning the debate.”

    • Anonymous

      Freakin awesome videos. I didn’t, I admit, know who Tom Woods was until I saw your links. Guy is good! I like his style.

    • Anonymous

      Freakin awesome videos. I didn’t, I admit, know who Tom Woods was until I saw your links. Guy is good! I like his style.

    • Anonymous

      Levin is constantly wrong, whether it is about supporting the police state of the GOP, claiming the president can go to war on his own without congress, or that ron paul is not building up support.

      Latest poll has paul up to 14% in new hampshire, and only four points behind perry. Uh, oh….

      http://nhjournal.com/2011/08/17/poll-romney-rocks-perry-pops-bachmann-doesn%E2%80%99t-bounce/#.TkwGCgbw3iM.twitter

  • Give the Left, Muslims and Ron Paul enough time and they will try to convince you that 9/11 didnt happen just like the Holocaust.

    His crowd is Code Pink, Obama supporters, Truthers, Druggies, and most of all AntiSemetic racist. He doesnt beleive we are at war, he doesnt believe Muslims attacked us 9/11, what he does beleive is Legalize Drugs, give Iran nukes and other wacky things, he is a dangerous person who represents the Fringe on BOTH SIDES!

    I think he uses Drugs himself.

    Pulling out and leaving the ME to the terrorist and then fighting them HERE is stupid! or is 3000 civilans not enough? dont you remember what it was like during 9/11, then all the bombings? you want to live in a country like that? you want to have daily bomb exercises?

    Paul is a short term thinker and his ideals arent going to solve it, it is surrender.

    there are other ways if I had all the answers I’d run for President myself.
    But cut and run is why we had alot of problems in the ME in the first place, Carter, Clinton etc even Bush Senior cut and run, the people left behind were slaughtered
    thats why even those who be our allies fight against us, we ABANDONDED THEM in the name of Political expendiency.

    once again so you can hear me, WE FIGHT THEM, THERE, SO WE DONT HAVE TO FIGHT THEM, HERE!.

  • Give the Left, Muslims and Ron Paul enough time and they will try to convince you that 9/11 didnt happen just like the Holocaust.

    His crowd is Code Pink, Obama supporters, Truthers, Druggies, and most of all AntiSemetic racist. He doesnt beleive we are at war, he doesnt believe Muslims attacked us 9/11, what he does beleive is Legalize Drugs, give Iran nukes and other wacky things, he is a dangerous person who represents the Fringe on BOTH SIDES!

    I think he uses Drugs himself.

    Pulling out and leaving the ME to the terrorist and then fighting them HERE is stupid! or is 3000 civilans not enough? dont you remember what it was like during 9/11, then all the bombings? you want to live in a country like that? you want to have daily bomb exercises?

    Paul is a short term thinker and his ideals arent going to solve it, it is surrender.

    there are other ways if I had all the answers I’d run for President myself.
    But cut and run is why we had alot of problems in the ME in the first place, Carter, Clinton etc even Bush Senior cut and run, the people left behind were slaughtered
    thats why even those who be our allies fight against us, we ABANDONDED THEM in the name of Political expendiency.

    once again so you can hear me, WE FIGHT THEM, THERE, SO WE DONT HAVE TO FIGHT THEM, HERE!.

  • Anonymous

    Foreign Policy:
    I think the main point of Ron Paul’s Argument is identifying how you have acquired lung cancer, and trying to convince you to stop smoking. We all know we have cancer… we are just trying to come to terms with how we have acquired it and what the treatment will be.

    The US is not the 1st nation to have lung cancer. But they are the 1st to have so many documented cases of smokers who have died from lung cancer… Rome being the most familiar to us all.

    Cancer = Empire with enemies who see to destroy them.
    Treatment = Apply more force, or change tactics because force has only made things worse.

  • Anonymous

    By the way. I just want to say.
    If you really don’t want Iran to have Nukes… bomb them or let Israel.

    If you like to see us into another “undeclared war” for 10 years… don’t bomb them and keep making Israel’s foreign policy.

    If this were really a problem we were interested in solving, it would be solved by now.
    But that doesn’t make money for anyone now does it?

  • Anonymous

    Nice Right Scoop! Levin gave you props. I love being apart of this blog site. I can’t believe Ron Paul needs evidence that Iran intends to make nukes. Ron’s irrational, let’s wait for Iran to deploy nukes on the West before we acknowledge they are a terrorist nation, statement made me completely dismiss him as an intelligent politician. Now, Ron is in the same category as all the rest of the dummy Washington elitists. What a moron statement. I almost ran off the road when I heard him blather about Iran wanting to be taken seriously by developing nukes. Ron Paul, kick rocks, you little numskull,you!

  • Anonymous

    Here is even more evidence of mark levin and the other advocates of wilsonian foreign policy on this site being wrong when theyy said there is no groundswell of support for ron paul:

    the latest polling data out of new hampshire shows that ron paul has now moved into a strong third place, only four points behind rick perry at 14%. Neo-cons and other followers of the progressive war making to make democracy safe for the world, you better start to get worried. Despite all of your attacks and the mainstream media blackout attempt after iowa, paul is moving up. Uh, oh….

    http://nhjournal.com/2011/08/17/poll-romney-rocks-perry-pops-bachmann-doesn%E2%80%99t-bounce/#.TkwGCgbw3iM.twitter

  • Anonymous

    Now the newest poll in Texas shows that Perry is behind Paul by five points in TEXAS, the same state he has been a governor of for a decade. Wow — when Levin gets it wrong, which is often, he really, really gets it wrong. The Wilsonian neo-con empire is about to collapse.

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-clobbers-rick-perry-in-latest-poll/#ixzz1VJOkExy2

  • We may not have to go to war to keep Iran from having nukes, but we will be going to Armaghetton to take them away once their intentions are acted upon.

    Ron Paul doesn’t have a single ounce of realism in his blood.

    • Anonymous

      You’re truly…and utterly insane. It’s people like you who caused this mess in the middle east.

  • Anonymous

    If the candidates don’t commit to invading Iran, they have the SAME POSITION AS PAUL. There empty rhetoric is useless.

    Understand Iran’s history before you talk like a fool. RP doesn’t want Iran to have Nuclear Weapons, he doesn’t want anyone too. He simply understands why. Iran and it’s people aren’t suicidal. Nor are they even close to a nuclear weapon. Have you even seen the economical stability there, or even the ability to provide oil?

    Stop the f-ing fear mongering already, it’s getting OLD.

    If these candidates and anyone else can’t state they will invade Iran over Nukes, than you all take Paul’s position. How many places would you like to invade?

    We could go into Somalia and clean out al-Qaida and this time or how about North Korea. Don’t they actually have WMD? Maybe Syria is more along your lines? Get rid of al assad.

    We never invaded China ( even when it killed millions of it’s own people ) or Russia.

    Iran isn’t a threat to the U.S. It’s only a threat if let the U.S continue to meddle in their affairs.

    Ron Paul WANTS Israel to handle it’s own borders and enemies. Instead of us always telling them what they can do. Is that extreme too? Let them actually take care of themselves with out U.S permission?

    The writer of this crap and many of you commenting need to stay at home next election.

  • Except he kinda missed the point. Axis Powers with Nazi Germany were aggrevators in wwII. Japan bombed us. Hitler was always working on advanced weapons for world domination. The difference here is there are no declared wars, if we are fearing countries with possibilities of building nukes, what about the countries currently armed with Nukes? Who are we to think because we have nukes, they can’t. That’s like government saying we cant have guns. I think his decision and beliefs are shaped in fear and the unknown.

  • Except he kinda missed the point. Axis Powers with Nazi Germany were aggrevators in wwII. Japan bombed us. Hitler was always working on advanced weapons for world domination. The difference here is there are no declared wars, if we are fearing countries with possibilities of building nukes, what about the countries currently armed with Nukes? Who are we to think because we have nukes, they can’t. That’s like government saying we cant have guns. I think his decision and beliefs are shaped in fear and the unknown.