Hail Paul! Please we don't want a hitler in office that's why we are voting for Ron Paul. He's the farthest from a socialist than any other candidate. He can balance the budget and can create peace and prosperity for the people of our country. He believes in free trade and individual liberty. You may just see that Ron Paul's campaign is more ethnically diverse than any other campaign. Take a look at meetup.com and see the support comes from all over the world. In almost every country. Even third world countries. People love freedom and want to be in charge of their own lives financially and turn over the power to the states to keep the federal government from throwing the whole country into perpetual debt.

And the point you are trying to make is what, exactly?

I report, you decide.

More like what was LGF's point.

I haven't read the reasoning for Stormfront's "support" (my browser history is disturbing enough as is), but I doubt seriously it's because Paul is scheduling his next fund raiser at some Neo-Nazi camp ground. Or at YearlyKos, for that matter.

Cheap shots like this are pretty transparent, and deeply lame. Especially when there are so many valid arguments to be made against a Paul presidency.

I do like Ron Paul's view of the Drug War and posted a video here.

This post was just for fun and to see if I could get a rise out of the Paulians who showed themselves ignorant of history and the Constitution.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/post_486.html

and

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/from_the_wiki_d.html

Ron Paul is the only hope i see for America to be saved from a one world order. I am canadian and i am in the know of reality behind the lies
and evil of theses psychopaths in power. I almost started crying when i saw the soldiers in the metro in from the entrance to my cegep. 17 year old kids for bloody sakes! there were big signs with soldiers holding guns! get the hell out of our peaceful country with your terror and controlled evil plans! Ron Paul has a good soul, i can feel it. Start feeling with your soul and love not
the "ego" thats taking over.

alicia,

I voted for Ron Paul in '88.

I was a hard core Libertarian for about 13 years.

If he got that Islamo Fascism was at war with us and deserved a war in return he would get my vote without question.

In a word - Ron doesn't get the value of military action in a war. Even the Libertarian's Saint Jefferson went to war with the jihadis over shipping (i.e. the US was not attacked). Ron doesn't consider that they just hate us for their own reasons. He assumes if we left the rest of the world and reasoned with them we would be OK. He thinks if we withdrew from the rest of the world we could live with the rest of the world gone fascist. Not even Jefferson was that stupid. In addition freedom of the seas was guaranteed by the British in Jefferson's time. We now have that role in the world. Ron doesn't want that role for the USA. I suppose he would be content with Russia or China in charge.

We have interests all over the world and those interests must be protected. With military force if necessary. Ron is a utopian. Utopians assume that every one thinks (or ought to think) the way they do. Very dangerous people.

In short when it comes to foreign relations Ron is an idiot.

Islamofascism? Oh no, not another concept to go to war with again! Judas Priest, what does that even mean? Is it not a weak, transparent attempt to link certain Islamic states to Hitler, Mussolini etc.? Anyway, what do you mean "Ron doesn't get the value of military action in a war"? I suppose he would get it if it were a war worth fighting for. "Ron doesn't consider that they just hate us for their own reasons." Of course he does. That doesn't mean that we have no influence on them whatsoever though. They'd probably still hate our way of life, but would they go out of our way to attack us if we were not occupying their lands? Say, if they hate freedom (or the western way of life), why haven't they attacked Switzerland in recent years, or other such nations? The reasons they attack us has been clearly laid out by our own government, people like Chalmers Johnson and Robert Pape, and independent studies. So it's not like Ron Paul is alone in the regard; other people also understand that certain actions have reactions. "He assumes if we left the rest of the world and reasoned with them we would be OK." Well, what army, navy and/or airforce would attack us if we enacted Ron Paul's policies of non-interventionism, good intelligence, and strong defense? Would terrorists have as much incentive to attack us as they have now? If yes, please explain to me why so and why you think Ron Paul's administration would be no good at preventing/combatting such an attack. "He thinks if we withdrew from the rest of the world we could live with the rest of the world gone fascist." Ron Paul wants to withdraw from the rest of the world? I don't think that is truly accurate. Even if so, do you agree with the policy of being policemen of the world? I certainly don't. For one thing, it's impratical and I think we could be doing better things with our money and military. For another thing, it's impossible. Some nations will just turn fascist. Others communist. Reality's tough. Sounds like you're more of the utopian in this respect. By the way, the domino theory turned out to be wrong, and history has a way of repeating itself. (Not that I don't condone military intervention is some cases [as I'm sure even Ron Paul would have his exceptions] but we should be extremely careful about when, why and how.) "Ron doesn't want that role for the USA. I suppose he would be content with Russia or China in charge." And I suppose we could do without the fearmongering. "We have interests all over the world and those interests must be protected. With military force if necessary." You know, I kind of agree with you. But I wonder if all the military actions we've taken are necessary, or, more to the point, if those interests are even necessary.

You might want to do an inquiry with the shade of St. Jefferson and find out if his war with the jihadis was necessary.

What the heck does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about now. We're light years ahead of "Jihadis". I don't think we should really be threatened by them. I'm sure some are crazy (and stupid) enough to go around trying to start wars where ever they go (even without the occuption) but how long exactly do you think they'll last? Even Iran, their neighboring countries could crush them. They aren't as barbaric as they used to be. But most acts of [suicide] terrorism today have been mostly because of occupation, and occupation is the reason these crazies [are able to] recruit other, less extreme brethren. There are still ways of securing interests without having to occupy dozens of lands. The current way is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It kind of doesn't work. I think if we enact Ron Paul's policies, which will probably never happen (not because they're utopian in and of themselves, but because our government is extremely corrupt), the threat of terrorism on the US will lessen, but we still have to deal with the reality that it will always exist, however small the threat, as long as there are humans on this earth.

By the way, you might want to do an inquiry of what a red herring is. LOL, I crack myself up... anyway, great arguing with you.

OK. Oscar. I get it.

Jihadis are killing Iraqis in order to make the Americans leave and to prove how benevolent they will be when they become the rulers of Iraq.

I'm told that their strategy is in fact working so well that many of the tribes in Iraq have come to the Americans - primarily and the Iraqi government - secondarily to protect them from the jihadis.

So it must be about the occupation. Otherwise why would so many Iraqis be asking for our help?

What are you talking about? More percentage of the Iraqi population (80%) want us to end the occupation more than the American population does (70%). The Iraqis who do seek refuge do so because they want out of the goddamn war (that's kind of the point), not merely because they're demanding and depending on the Americans work everything out for them. We already took out Saddam and the Iraqi people know we are not staying there to help them out, but instead help ourselves out (what with building bases and embassies, trying to take control of the oil, installing puppet governments throughout the Middle East, generally profiting from it all etc.). Plus, I never said that the supposed jihadists are at all benevolent. I know they're not, so what? My point is not that they'll turn benevolent once we leave them alone. My point it that they will stop attacking us--they'll lost likely turn on their own government.

Well of course 80% want us out.

What you left out was the time frame. Some are for right now, many suggest in a year, some in two years, others in five.

Um we have embassies in lots of countries. Bases still in occupied Germany.

So you propose leaving Iraq so the jihadis will turn on Iraq's elected government? That is smart geo-politics. I guess all the Iraqis deserve is another despotism. It is what they are used to after all. Nice of you to be so culturally sensitive to their history.

"Well of course 80% want us out.

What you left out was the time frame."

So? Obviously it wouldn't be more than a few years. "Yes, I'd like the occupation to be stopped, oh but not for another decade or so." C'mon.

"Um we have embassies in lots of countries. Bases still in occupied Germany."

So? I never said we didn't.

"Nice of you to be so culturally sensitive to their history."

Don't worry, I know my government will make everything in the world all better! Nevermind that they (along with tons of other countries) now hate us and want us out, and the whole occupation has shown little progress the 4 years we've been there. If the way the Iraq war was/is handled and situation there right now is indicative of how the "War on 'Islamofascism'" is going to be like, which they say will last a century if not more, then we have a very bleak future to look forward to. Anyway, there are other countries around it that can and will help out. "Jihadis" wont take over anything. I love how people say we can't let Iran get a nuclear weapon because "they're going to take over the whole world, and impose Sharia law! We must destroy jihadists before they destroy us." I wouldn't bet on it. IMO, the imperialism and military adventurism in the middle east has been the cause of most of our problems there. I don't think the solution is riling things up more and potentially starting WW3. We've been doing that for 50 years and it hasn't worked. I propose we change policy. Unlike you, I don't believe a non-interventionist foreign policy is going to be the end of the world. Given, I'm not a policy maker and don't know how everything will work out. But it's got to be better than the current one which costs trillions of dollars and many lives to be wasted, with no end in sight.

Oscar,

We seem to agree that the American military/State Dept. is no more running Iraq than it is running Germany.

Which is a rather peculiar type of occupation.

The "occupation" is costing us. It is not paying. We are not extracting slave labor from Iraq. Heck, we even pay market prices for the oil we get from Iraq.

So how in any normal sense are we occupying Iraq any more than we occupy South Korea? Other than the conditions are worse and it costs us more?

The occupation was over when the Iraqis elected their own government.

Oscar,

There is an end in sight. We will stay in Iraq no longer than we stayed in Germany after WW2.