web analytics

12 THINGS NON-RON PAUL VOTERS ARE SAYING

By Pete Moore On March 3rd, 2012

The best explanation yet!

Great stuff from Tom Woods, who just gets better and better. Ahead of Super Duper Mega Tuesday the historian, author and senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute attempts to answer the unanswerable and reveals himself to be a first class piss taker along the way. It’s particularly recommended for Republican drones.

NB: Tom Woods’ explanation for the rotten state of our economies is still the clearest one out there.

17 Responses to “12 THINGS NON-RON PAUL VOTERS ARE SAYING”

  1. yes indulge in the Ronbot brainwashing

  2. Troll –

    You comment too soon, meaning you haven’t watched it.

    Go, click play and see yourself.

  3. The guy reminds me of Mr. Rogers right down to his wool sweater and enthisiastic demeanor entertaining a bunch of 4-year olds who are sitting, mouths agape, in front of the telly.

  4. EDDIE –

    Well what’s the point if Republicans don’t understand?

  5. I like this one better.

  6. I’d never heard of Ron Paul until about two years ago. Then I learned that he followed the American constitution, was an Austrian economist, a practicing obstetrician for a living, a family man, and uniquely in politics, had a consistent voting record supporting all these attributes. Eureka! Donner und blitzen! No thinking American would ever have to agonise about who to vote for again.
    Next thing you know even the republicans wanted any clown around rather than RP.
    I call it the Gaderede syndrome, and it fits well with what’s happening all around us, “How the West was lost”.

  7. OK, Pete – I listened to the whole thing. It’s interesting enough although I much prefer actually hearing Ron Paul’s opinions on the Fed, limited govt. , constitutionalism – Ron Paul is brilliant in many ways; I am not alone in thinking this.

    The problem is that Ron Paul is bat shit crazy when it comes to foreign policy.

    This video “addresses” Ron Paul’s foreign policy by assuming that his detractors think that ME boondoggles are the answer or that we think bringing the Enlightenment to Afghanistan is right and worthy. This is misleading – most Republicans would like us to leave Afghanistan and recognize that it was/is a mistake to carry on there.

    I fear Ron Paul’s dirty little secret is that he does not have a well thought-out foreign policy -So far, all we have is Ron Paul saying things like he blames America for 9/11 and that he thinks a fence on our Southern border is a mistake.

    Ron Paul has not yet bothered to flesh out his policy — that’s why people don’t take him seriously as a candidate. He’s either to the Left of Obama in the foreign policy areana, or he isn’t — and if he were serious about the Presidency, he would address this. SO far he hasn’t – and people are not going to vote for him.

  8. Patty –

    I’m sure the media will faithfully very soon report Ron Paul’s millions of words about the Federal Reserve, limited gummint and the constitution. Just as soon as they stop ignoring him.

    Yes, you’re right to be a pliant citizen and look away from the Ron Paul. The talking heads, insofar as they mention him at all, are right that his foreign policies are mad. As Tom Woods says, far better to spend trillions and wreck millions of lives in replacing a secular Baathist regime with an koranic one friendly to Iran.

    That’s not a batshit crazy foreign policy!

    Would most Americans like your forces to leave Afghanistan? Well vote for someone who’d do that. Ding dong, no-one else will. Obama was going to do that as well as close Gitmo. I cannot tell you how shocked I am that this puppet didn’t mean it. Do you think Romney or Santorum will?

    Patty, once more, Ron Paul is not to the Left of Obama on foreign policy (as if the moniker matters as long as it’s sensible). You’re even more stubborn than Phantom, and he’s fucking bovine. It’s the current foreign policy which is Left Wing. In fact its roots are Progressive and Trotskyite. Why do you want a radical Leftist foreign policy bent on permanent revolution paid for by you?

    Here’s a tip for you: a southern fence is pointless. We have a sea around us and that’s useless with a ruling class intent on fillung up every square inch of soil with a immigrant. Bring your military home and and make them useful down south.

    And stop being told what to do by the government media.

  9. I would like Ron Paul to tell me – a potential voter – how he squares his isolationism with his Constitutional (if President) obligation to provide national defense.

    That’s all. No need to get hysterical or to name call or carry on in a hyperbolic fashion.

    It’s not satisfactory for Ron Paul to throw it back in my face comments about what a disaster the Iraq War was or r such.

    “Bring your military home and and make them useful down south.” not a bad suggestion. But it’s yours – not Ron Pauls. Ron Paul is never this sensible.

  10. Would it be too much for Ron Paul to stoop so low as to comment on our present foreign policy and describe how his appeasement/isolationism will be different?

    all Ron Paul does, Pete, when faced with a foreign policy question is to comment on the stupidity of what was the Bush foreign policy – or to make flippant remarks about the uselessness of a fence on the Southern border.

    He lives in Texas for goodness sake – you would think that he would take this seriously – I have far more confidence in Gov. Perry’s comments regarding the border than Ron Pauls – and Perry didn’t believe that a fence was the entire answer, either. But Perry didn’t flippantly wave off the question – Perry bothered to answer it in detail. something Ron Paul refuses to do.

  11. Patty –

    If you want to know about his non-interventionist foreign policy and national defence, go read it on his election website. While you’re doing that, think about how 90 per cent of countries on the planet are non-interventionist and yet manage to avoid being bombed or invaded.

    Hang on …

    “Bring your military home and and make them useful down south.” not a bad suggestion. But it’s yours – not Ron Pauls. Ron Paul is never this sensible.

    Patty, that’s exactly what Ron Paul has said in almost all the debates.

  12. Pete, you can wave your hands in the air and call me almost Phantom-like bovine (God forbid) but Ron Paul has not sold himself to enough voters.

    You hear him say things that I don’t hear. And I hear him blame America for 9/11 and you don’t hear it.

    It’s not my problem. It’s his problem if he wants to be President.

    But, as I said, I don’t think Ron Paul is serious about the actual job of President in 2012.

    He’s serious about building the Ron Paul/Rand Paul movement, however, and this is certainly not a bad thing.

  13. Patty –

    “Would it be too much for Ron Paul to stoop so low as to comment on ..”

    We’ve just ascertained you don’t listen to him anyway. You’ve attributed to me something he is pretty well known for saying.

    I often hear “I like Ron Paul’s domestic policies but not his foreign policies”. Why do people like you never give the corollary, that you like (say) Romney’s foreign policies but not his domestic policies. You cannot like both Paul’s and Romney’s domestic policies because they are almost completely different. Paul is anti-central bank and fiercely pro-free markets and liberty.

    Romney is pro-central banking and crony bailouts to special interests (his main backers are Wall Street oligarchs) and pro-State control of health rationing.

    If you “like Ron Paul on the economy”, as people say, you must not like Romney, or Santorum, or Gingrich on the economy because his policies are very much different.

    So why don’t people like you say so?

  14. He is the most over-exposed fringe candidate in the history of American politics.

  15. Great post Pete.

    The neo-cons’ lust for war will never be satisfied. The lies about Iraq WMD are forgotten as they scream for an immediate attack on Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons. Santorum is certainly in this camp, but Gingrich and Romney aren’t far behind.

    Simmon Jenkins has a thoughtful piece on this, reviewing a book by the arch Tory, Andrew Alexander:

    “Andrew Alexander gazes down from his Daily Mail column like a stern and scholarly heron. No one could possibly call him leftwing, let alone a pacifist appeaser. He has no illusions about the evil of Stalin or Mao, any more than he has about Saddam and al-Qaida. But he combines cussedness towards conventional wisdom with historical scepticism. In a sensational but little-noticed book, America and the Imperialism of Ignorance, he marches to the conclusion that most recent foreign policy has been based on systematic ignorance. We were duped – and still are.”

    I intend to get that book asap.

  16. Peter –

    It’s an interesting review. Andrew Alexander is certainly a conservative, and a real one at that, not some phoney Right Wing blowhard.

    The ignorance theme I’ve seen before, and his explanation for American foreign policy in the immediate post-war period chimes with what I’ve read in Murray Rothbard’s “The Betrayal of the American Right”.

    (Rothbard was of the Old Right, and an Austrian economist and historian for whom I have the very highest regard. In fact my 7.15pm above links to one of his succinct and clear explanations for the rise of the neoconservatives).

  17. Pete – Americans are addicted to foreign military adventurism: just look at the commenst of Patty who, compared to Troll, is almost sensible.

    Q. Do you want America involved in overseas wars?

    A. No.

    Q. Then why not vote for the candidate who will end them – Ron Paul?

    A. I don’t like his isolationism and appeasement.

    For Americans, NOT being involved in foreign wars is isolationism and appeasement. These people have been consuming too much of Rumsfeld’s aspartame in their food and fluoride in their water, their brains are dying and their IQs are shot to pieces.