"That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."
-- President Abraham Lincoln - 1864
"The supply-side claim is not a claim. It is empirically true and historically convincing that with lower rates of taxation on labor and capital, the factors of production, you'll get a bigger economy."
-- U.S. Rep. Jack Kemp
In a fight between Jim Webb and Ollie North, who would win? Oh, that's right, we already know the answer to that question.
Potential 2012 Convention Cities:
Republicans
Democrats
Potential 2012 Presidential Candidates:
Redskins Insider Latest from RPVJust hit my inbox:
October 16, 2007
We need people to volunteer to help our Virginia Volunteer Ballot Access Coordinator to gather more than 400 signatures in each of the 11 Congressional Districts in Virginia to get Ron Paul on the Virginia Ballot.
Please email me with your phone number if you can help get Ron Paul on the ballot in Virginia.
Mike McHugh
National Ballot Access Coordinator
Ron Paul 2008
Mike.McHugh@ronpaul2008.com
Filed under: Virginia Politics
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
-- President Ronald Reagan from "The Speech" - October 27, 1964
Grand Ol' Gang
by Andy Thomas
RedStormPAC
A.G. Gilmore
ConservativeFembot
Ignatius
Jason Kenney
Jay Hughes
KFD4EDU
Light Horse
Major Kong
Proud Republican
Riley
The right-wing liberal
VA Patriot
Vespasian
CONTRIBUTOR EMERITUS:
Hirons
 | Ken Reynolds on Does PWC Have Its Own Jim and … |
 | bob on Tell DirecTV You Want Your FOX… |
| bob on Tell DirecTV You Want Your FOX… |
| Ken Reynolds on Does PWC Have Its Own Jim and … |
 | Sargon the Great on Scott Rigell Joines The Race A… |
Latest from The Jeffersoniad Blog Coalition
I wonder if this is the same Mike McHugh who is President of the VA Gun Owners Coalition?
With all due respect, why would any conservative worthy of the name support Ron Paul? When the Good Doctor announced that he would pull out of Afghanistan if elected President and blamed the United States for the events of September 11, I no longer viewed him as a kooky Libertarian with some ideas that I could get on board with, but rather an avowed America-hater no better than the most despicable member of MoveOn.org. Nothing he has said in the aftermath has done anything to alleviate that perception.
Frankly, I am stunned that this blog is giving him or his supporters a platform to spread views that to a large degree would better fit with the folks over at Daily Kos, but such is the way of the world.
On the brightside, if the soon-to-be ex-member of Congress decides to run as a third party candidate, I think it actually helps Republicans, as the vast majority of his supporters are closer ideologically to Democrat base on the most important issue of the day then they are to the Republican base.
My problems with Paul are similar to yours, Rittinger. The Libertarian Party-style of foreign policy won’t keep the Islamo-fascists from still wanting to kill us and doing everything in their power to do so.
I like what he has to say on economics. That isn’t enough to get me to support him, though.
As a contributor, Major Kong, just like the rest of us here, has the freedom to support any GOP candidate of his choosing. Well, except for John McCain…
I suggest that rittinger study the philosophy of Sen. Robert Taft Sr. of Ohio, who barely lost the ‘52 GOP presidential nomination to Eisenhower.
I deeply resent you calling Congressman Paul an “America-hater” and comparing him to those jerks at MoveOn.org.
I consider the life issue rather important too. Ron Paul, unlike Julie Annie, Romney, and FThompson, is a lifelong defender of innocent human life.
BTW: The law does not forbid Rep. Paul from simultaneously seeking re-election and running as an independent or third party nominee for president.
I am quite familiar with Taft, however, we are not living in the age of Bob Taft Sr. We live in a world where being an isolationist will only serve to let a nihilistic, fascistic movement that will never be satisfied with what it has, to grow unchecked. The idiocy of Ron Paul and his supporters is their failure to recognize that whether you pull out or not, they are still coming here. I’d just assume fight them now.
And you know what I deeply resent? A moron, crackpot congressman and his idiot supporters telling me they are not “America-haters” when they blame the United States for 9/11. Let me tell you something Steve Rankin, I was living in Manhattan and a few blocks from the towers when they fell. I smelled the burning metal and God-knows-what-else was floating around in the air, and I saw the devestation and the deaths of more innocent people then I could wrap my head around at the time, and you know what? If you and Congressman Moonbat do not want to fight the scum and vermin who did that, then you and your precious Congressman are both America-hating vermin and if there is any justice in the world, when the next inevitable attack occurs, will bear the brunt of it. And let’s be clear, I am not talking about Iraq. I may disagree with the surrender lobby with respect to Iraq, but at least the position can be defended with a semi-rational argument (even if the surrender lobby has done a terrible job artculating that movement). We are talking about the Taliban and Al Qaeda. What Paul and his moonbat supporters want us to do is the equivalent of withdrawing from Hawaii after Pearl Harbor.
As for how your moonbat, idiot congressman positions himself on the ballot, I could care less. I was referring to the fact that he is as good as gone from the Congress in 08, as he has an approval rating in his district that would make Harry Reid (an ideological fellow traveller I might add) wince. And is expected to get obliterated in the Republican Primary in his district.
As for Guiliani’s personal position on abortion, I could care less so long as he appoints justices like Alito and Roberts (or Ted Olsen, who is likely to be his first pick and whose wife was murdered by the killers you and you despicable ilk would have us take our foreign policy marching orders from). If he does that, his own personal opinions mean absolutely nothing. Given Ron Paul’s fondness for Osama Bin Laden (or at least his willingness to follow bin Laden’s advice with respect to foreign policy) I would expect that a President Paul would appoint Wahhabist Jihadis to the court.
I think the conservative movement is reaching a Buckley against the John Birchers moment with respect to Ron Paul and the moonbats who support them. The conservative movement was undeniably strengthened when Buckley et al. purged the insane Birchers. I have no doubt that purging the Paulnuts will have a similar good effect. Ronald Reagan always said “Thous shalt not attack fellow Republicans.” Fortunately, I can still adhere to that adage because Paulnuts are in no way, shape or form Republicans or conservatives.
rittinger said: … we are not living in the age of Bob Taft Sr. We live in a world where being an isolationist …
Please show us where Paul has ever suggested he was an isolationist.
…will only serve to let a nihilistic, fascistic movement that will never be satisfied with what it has, to grow unchecked. The idiocy of Ron Paul and his supporters is their failure to recognize that whether you pull out or not, they are still coming here. …
This is NOT an argument for preemptive action based on erroreous intelligence. It IS an argument for a strong border policy.
…I’d just assume fight them now….
Why? Because Bin Laden had his lackeys blow up the WTC? They were operating out of Saudi Arabia, which Bush is still treating like an ally. And what happened to Bin Laden anyway? If he is the true culprit why did the Bush Administration abandon its military pursuit of him?
…And you know what I deeply resent? A moron, crackpot congressman and his idiot supporters telling me they are not “America-haters” when they blame the United States for 9/11. …
You have obviously not been listening. Or perhaps you have been listening only to what Rush Limbaugh has to say about Ron Paul. Paul has simply been observing that when you mess with somebody else’s beehive you are going to get stung. This is cold logic. It has nothing to do with loving or hating America.
Finally, I’d be very careful about throwing around the fascist label. Today’s neocons have more in common with Mussolini than they want to admit.
Another Paulnut crawls out from the fever swamp! LOL, I have read your Moonbat Congressman’s literature. He is exactly what I have reported him to be.
Second, how was Afghanistan based on an intelligence failure? You want to conflate Iraq with Afghanistan…either because you are dishonest or an imbecile and I don’t know or care which. Your evil, cowardly Congressman wants to run from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda, under the protection of the Taliban, ran their operations against the WTC, the African Embassies and the USS Cole. To what purpose? We were not in Afghanistan..in fact, we let the Taliban have a free hand under the Clinton Administration. This generosity was rewarded with the murder of 3000+ Americans.
And finally, you are concerned with labelling Al Qaeda nihilistic and fascist? I can not sugar coat this, but you Sir, are an imbecile. Linking “Neo-Conservatives” to Al Qaeda demonstrates that you are both severely lacking in intelligence and are a few beers short of a six pack. I would recommend that you start taking medication and move out of your parent’s basement before posting anything further.
rittinger says,
“Another Paulnut crawls out from the fever swamp!
LOL, I have read your Moonbat Congressman’s literature. He is exactly what I have reported him to be.”
Hmmm. I asked you to “show us”. Must have missed that part, huh?
“Second, how was Afghanistan based on an intelligence failure? You want to conflate Iraq with Afghanistan…either because you are dishonest or an imbecile and I don’t know or care which.”
Anyone who reads what I said originally will easily see this is a frivolous accusation, a shameless ad hominem attack on someone you know next to nothing about, designed to solely inflame the casual reader. It’s even beside the point.
“Your evil, cowardly Congressman wants to run from Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda, under the protection of the Taliban, ran their operations against the WTC, the African Embassies and the USS Cole. To what purpose? We were not in Afghanistan..in fact, we let the Taliban have a free hand under the Clinton Administration. This generosity was rewarded with the murder of 3000+ Americans.”
And so, given that Afganistan is such a terrible place with or without Bin Laden, why did the Bush administration turn its energies and resources to Iraq? And since Saudi Arabia is deeply implicated in the attacks on Americans throughout the Middle East, why hasn’t Bush sent troops in there as well?
“And finally, you are concerned with labelling Al Qaeda nihilistic and fascist? I can not sugar coat this, but you Sir, are an imbecile. Linking “Neo-Conservatives” to Al Qaeda demonstrates that you are both severely lacking in intelligence and are a few beers short of a six pack. I would recommend that you start taking medication and move out of your parent’s basement before posting anything further.”
Uh, lessee, … If you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that I linked the American neocons to Mussolini, not Al Queda. So, aside from making yet another inflamatory ad hominem attack on a virtual stranger, what was your point?
Is Dr. Paul on the Virgina ballot yet?
Oh yea, I trust our intelligence community. Didn’t we go into Iraq because of their reports of “weapons of mass destruction” which are still to be found? Look up Paul’s May 7, 07 speech to the House on Pariotism. It’s well thought out and describes his desire to get back to the Constitution which is what made our country great. Its why we have our freedoms which are slowly being eaten away while we glory in watching our government police the world and put our sons and daughters in harms way for oil. Why are we going into Afghanistan? What has Afghanistan done to us that we should attack them? Why aren’t we searching for Bin Laden? Why did we invade Iraq other than erroneous intelligence? Why are we still there and thinking of expanding into Iran? Corporate greed for oil. I don’t want my sons going to fight for that. Do you?
And one more thing — how can you talk about
our country’s security with people crawling over our southern border by the drovesevery day? Any body can walk over . . . and they do. This whole “war on terror” is a ruse to take over the Middle East for their oil. Open your eyes!
The moonbattery on display by these two Paulnuts is both fascinating and terrifying. richard and sirdh are both either congenital liars or simply nuts.
First things first, Al Qaeda operated out of Afghanistan under the auspices of the Taliban. Only the most idioctic and insane of “truthers” denies this fact. Pointing out the idiocy of richards delusional rant is not an ad hominen attack but rather calling a spade a spade. I have no love for the Saudis and hope that we will one day settle the score with them, but the truth is that the House of Saud is the mortal enemy of Al Qaeda and vice versa. In the past they have tried to buy off Al Qaeda, but to suggest they control a group that has sworn to destroy them is laughable.
As for siridh, if we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to control Middle East oil, we should actually, you know, start seizing oil fields? Have we done that? I don’t think so.
And here’s anothr tip, Dr. Paul’s interpretation of the Constitution is idiotic, which is unsuprising because (a) he is completely insane; (b) he is an idiot; and (c) he has absolutely no idea what the constitution actually says. By Paul’s reading, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe all eviscerated the Constitution by taking military action without obtaining a Congressional declaration of war. Fortunately for the Founding Fathers, you know, who actually authored the Constitution or were there to consult with the authors about the plain meaning of the document, Paul’s reading is without merit. Indeed, James Buchanan is the only U.S. President who operated in a manner consistent with Paul’s reading of the Constitution. Simply stated, the only President who passes muster with Ron Paul is the guy who sat around and let the Civil War begin (and please spare me any comments about the War of Northern Aggression).
Thankfully, Mr. Paul will soon be nothing more than a bad memory. He is doomed in both his presidential quest and will lose the primary for his congressional seat. He can then go back to doing what he does best–hanging out with Neo-Nazis and slandering the United States. I do wonder what my firends richard and siridh will do with their spare time. Probably return to their parents basements only to emerge for the next Lyndon Larouche campaign.
rittenger rittenger….
Such caustic and extremist anger my son. Why? Your ignorance of the Constitution is plain by your answer “plain meaning”. It is a true reading that one looks for. And if ambiguous, a true interpretation. Crawl back to your pillow, lay your head down, and pray that you are not embarrassed further.
***A gentle breeze and soft voice: $$$6 million….just come on home……****
Now now…sh sh sh….Be a good little RINO rittenger. Barry Goldwater, Jr., endorsed Ron Paul. You’re clearly not a conservative and probably never will be. Sh…sh….sh…Pipe down and return to your folly as a dog to its vomit. It’s our turn now.