Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its “successful experiment” that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.”     Andrew Jackson

July 17, 2007

Tucker Carlson May Be Ron Paul’s Biggest Fan

by Doug Mataconis

At least in the media. For the third time since June, Tucker had Ron Paul on his MSNBC show this afternoon. This time, much of the conversation dealt with the Iraq War.

Congressman Paul is right about one thing. Prior to March 2003, there was no such thing as al Qaeda In Iraq. He’s on less steady ground, though, when he suggests that rational discussions are possible with the mullahs in Iran.

And then there’s the whole Barry Manilow thing.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/07/17/tucker-carlson-may-be-ron-pauls-biggest-fan/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

54 Comments

  1. “He’s on less steady ground, though, when he suggests that rational discussions are possible with the mullahs in Iran.”

    Right, the ground is much steadier under the other 8 Republican candidates, along with Hillary and Obama, all of whom pointedly and repeatedly refuse to rule out nuclear first strikes against Iran.

    I think I’ll gamble on Ron Paul talking and trading with the Iranians — you know, like we do with former archenemy Vietnam now, with excellent results — over Rudy Giuliani shooting first and letting God sort ‘em out.

    Comment by Buckwheat — July 17, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
  2. i’m with Buckwheat.
    Talking and trading will effect much greater and more positive influence on friends and ‘enemies’ alike…cheaper too.

    Comment by michael — July 17, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
  3. Michael & Buckwheat,

    Personally, what I want to see is the destruction of the government of Islamic Republic and liberty for Iran.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean war, unless American interests are attacked or threatened.

    That said, please tell what type of rational discussions or trade negotiations are possible with a man who believes that he is the instrument necessary to bring about the rise of the 13th Imam and the triumph of Islam ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 17, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
  4. Well Doug simple economics… they have the oil and need money(Supply) we need the oil and have money(Demand)you tell me how an agrement cant be reached?

    Comment by Disabled Vet — July 17, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
  5. “please tell what type of rational discussions or trade negotiations are possible with a man who believes that he is the instrument necessary to bring about the rise of the 13th Imam and the triumph of Islam?”

    With him specifically, not any more than are possible with a hardcore Christian conservative from, say, Olathe, KS.

    But there are lots of other people in Iran who can come to political power one day soon, and they want to trade and travel and prosper and they have pro-Western ideals.

    Quickest way to get the moderates in power: pull back our military from the region and offer to trade with anyone who’s got money to spend or products to sell.

    Quickest way to keep the mullahs in power: saber-rattle with 3 (!) aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, provoke a Gulf of Tonkin redux, and elicit a circle-the-wagons reaction from the Iranian people.

    Comment by Buckwheat — July 17, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
  6. DV,

    Given the apocalyptic mindset of the current Iranian PM, and the history between our countries, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

    Personally, I think the regime is far weaker than it lets on. A little pressure — and by that I mean economic and political — along with a little propaganda directed at the population, and the entire regime will hopefully crumble into the dustbin of history.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 17, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
  7. It seems like Tucker has grown up a bit since I last watched him. He used to be such a douche on Crossfire, but he’s actually interviewing people to see what they think now. I appreciate the fact that he asked fair questions and let Ron speak. Ron’s a bit hazy on how to deal with Iran, but I do appreciate the nuance of his argument as opposed to Rudy’s outright belligerence.

    Comment by Greg Thibeaux — July 17, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
  8. Buckwheat,

    Yes, but Ahmenijad and the mullahs are the one’s in charge right now. At least until the citizens take things into their own hands.

    Personally, I’d rather see us just smuggle guns to whatever resistance might exist and let them do what they will.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 17, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
  9. “Personally, I think the regime is far weaker than it lets on. A little pressure — and by that I mean economic and political — along with a little propaganda directed at the population, and the entire regime will hopefully crumble into the dustbin of history.”

    Agree that the regime is weak. So why the need to threaten the country openly with nuclear strikes? Why not just trade like crazy with her until the mullahs fall by the wayside?

    Comment by Buckwheat — July 17, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
  10. It maybe a suitable time to refer back to Ronald Reagan, since he is mentioned so often by the GOP candidates.

    When faced with the Evil Empire, he engaged them with talks, not bombs. Lo and behold, they crumbled under the weight of the invalidity of their world view.

    Iran will be the same. Let the current powers retrogress and stagnate and the country will topple on its own accord. If only the same thing was done with North Korea (instead of providing massive aid) we probably would not have to worry about that country, either.

    On the topic of trade, it should be allowed without government interference on the part of the US. It may be possible that through peaceful trade that the hastening of the destruction of that government and its world view may be achieved, a lot like what happened to maoism and communist China.

    Comment by Daniel — July 17, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
  11. “Given the apocalyptic mindset of the current Iranian PM”

    Come on, Doug, this isn’t exactly a Magic Eye puzzle.

    The apocalyptic mindset of, say, Michael Ledeen is far more potent than that of any mullah.

    Comment by Buckwheat — July 17, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
  12. Doug,

    I think the pressure is better exerted by allowing Iranians to focus on their own internal problems by backing off them than giving them excuses to blame the external world (through sanctions, military pressure). Of course, always be prepared for a contingency, but openly leaning on a country tends to make it more defensive and prone to listen to extremists. Look at what the Arabic world did to America by taking down one of its buildings. We practically gave Bush carte blanche authority to do whatever he had to end the threat. Somehow, I think this sort of mentality is reciprocal.

    Comment by Greg Thibeaux — July 17, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
  13. Also,

    I think the ayatollah of Iran is more moderate than the PM, but as long as there’s a belligerent US, its safest to let the PM rattle the sabers. If we pulled back, we might find the Iranians less hostile than we believe. After all, the PM’s party lost heavily in local elections last year and so he’s got alot less support than people suppose.

    Comment by Greg Thibeaux — July 17, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
  14. Daniel,

    Your memory of the 1980′s is somewhat fuzzy.

    As you might recall, Reagan didn’t just talk with the Soviets….he engaged in an explicit, and deliberate, military buildup.

    He expanded the Navy to 600 ships. He deployed the Trident submarine on the oceans, the MX Missile in silos, and the Pershing missile in Europe. And, he pursued research in missile defense technology that the Soviets could not have hoped to compete with.

    It wasn’t a direct attack on the USSR, but it was a challenge, and one with the clear intent of collapsing the Soviet Empire.

    Of course, in the midst of this buildup, he did make overtures for negotiation. Brezhnev rejected them. Andropov rejected them. Chernenko rejected them.

    It was only when the Soviets — and Gorbachev specifically I would guess — realized that they were beaten, that serious negotiation actually began.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 17, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
  15. Doug says: “Personally, what I want to see is the destruction of the government of Islamic Republic and liberty for Iran.”

    Who are you to want to see the destruction of foreign gov’t be they Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or secular??? Your reeking with arrogance and anti-Semitism.

    Are you recycling the same neocon arguments labeling any foreign gov’t who doesn’t toe the pro-Israeli line as “Islamofascist?”

    You state, “please tell what type of rational discussions or trade negotiations are possible with a man who believes that he is the instrument necessary to bring about the rise of the 13th Imam and the triumph of Islam?”

    The same rationale and trade negotiations that the European Union, Russia, India, Middle East, and other countries do when they trade with Iran…a country that HASN’T INVADED AND ATTACKED ANY 1 OF IT NEIGHBORS SINCE THE ENTIRE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES?

    And what exactly is the US navy doing surrounding and threatening Iran in its backyard including invading Iran…How would you like it if the fascist country of Iran invaded CANADA OR MEXICO on a lie, staged its navy “war games” in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Oceans and put sanctions on America (itself an act of war) for refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

    Iran and the mullahs have be quite restrained if you ask me with deliberate Israeli and US provocations against the Persian people and the deliberate propaganda here in the US amongst right-wing conservatives equating Ahmedinejad with Hitler…

    Lets see where have we heard of that before Saddam?

    Comment by red — July 17, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
  16. Doug,

    Reagan also had an explicit plan to cause the Soviets to overspend themselves and collapse economically. Both Russia and the US had plenty of capability to wipe each other out, but Reagan knew our economy could bear the cost of buildup better than the Soviets, so he gambled that the Soviets wouldn’t be able to resist the challenge and build up the military. I doubt the Soviets yielded to military pressure more than their own economic collapse.

    So I wouldn’t compare it directly to whats happening in Iran. The situations are vastly different.

    Comment by Greg Thibeaux — July 17, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
  17. Red,

    I happen to think that the world, and more specifically the people of Iran who are enslaved by their government, would be better off if the mullahs were gone for good.

    I assume you disagree. In which case, I can talk to my travel agent about getting you a one-way ticket to Tehran.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 17, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
  18. Doug, so clarify for us from your last post: what exactly do you think the US should be doing vis-a-vis Iran to nudge the regime toward collapse?

    For example, would be curious to know your thoughts about the three US aircraft carriers currently in the Gulf, or the constant threats of airstrikes from Israel.

    Can’t we *try* talking and trading first?

    Comment by Buckwheat — July 17, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
  19. No Doug, your memory seems to be a little hazy.

    Your memory of the 1980’s is somewhat fuzzy.

    “As you might recall, Reagan didn’t just talk with the Soviets….he engaged in an explicit, and deliberate, military buildup.”

    But IT WASN’T A MILITARY BUILDUP that caused the Soviet Union to break up, rather dialogue and a weak Soviet leader, who is despised by his people for weakening Russia.

    “He expanded the Navy to 600 ships. He deployed the Trident submarine on the oceans, the MX Missile in silos, and the Pershing missile in Europe. And, he pursued research in missile defense technology that the Soviets could not have hoped to compete with.”

    Your argument implies that the Soviet Union was intimated by the American arms buildup, completely whitewashing the fact that USSR was already weakened and the economy paralyzed by the invasion of Afghanistan.

    And by the way you’ve been going, don’t be surprised if the US economy is also mired in debt and future weakness when the Afghani/Iraqi invasion comes home to roost.

    Comment by red — July 17, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
  20. Doug,

    “I happen to think that the world, and more specifically the people of Iran who are enslaved by their government, would be better off if the mullahs were gone for good.”

    And I happen to think that the world would BE WAY BETTER OFF if the neocons and right-wing murderers and supporters of murderers in Iraq also were gone for good. But I don’t worry, I think the American people are finally waking up to that reality…

    “I assume you disagree. In which case, I can talk to my travel agent about getting you a one-way ticket to Tehran.”

    LoL. A typical conservative, arrogant talking point. Well IF you can talk to your travel agent and get a ticket booked for Iran…I would suggest you opening up your hateful mind and learning about the very people you would ask to kill, maim, and bomb (for revolutions don’t come cheap in these part of the world). The Persians may not like their gov’t, but they certainly don’t want an American “freedom experience” esp. after what they saw in next door Iraq!

    Besides if you’re still up for it, I’m willing to travel to Tehran…a beautiful city far more ancient than any Western nation is.

    My address is 382 Chestnut St., Newark, NJ 07102
    The tickets better be in mail by the end of next week or I think all you neocons are all puff and no action, save when it comes to killing people!

    Comment by red — July 17, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
  21. Sanctions, not talking, and threatening them hasn’t worked for the past 29 years.

    War as foreign policy tool hasn’t worked out too well either.

    I say we try befriending them and see how that works instead of being held hostage to the pro-Israeli lobby who want Iran and Washington to be enemies.

    Comment by Tyler — July 17, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
  22. Doug,

    Thanks for the Ron Paul post on Tucker though.

    Peace

    Comment by red — July 17, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
  23. I agree with the poster who said the reason why we don’t trade with Iran is because our foreign policy is so biased towards Israel, that her enemies essentially become our enemies.

    Let Israel, as the 5th largest military juggernaut, fight her own wars and battles. And not let AIPAC intimidate Congress members with their special-interest dictums and political money.

    As the saying goes, “Follow the money.”

    Comment by zorro — July 17, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
  24. From this post and the previous one, I guess I can summarize your philosophy as “boo, big new post office in Ft. Wayne, IN; yay, trying to start a war with a 70 million person country 10,000 miles away in virtual economic collapse that has never harmed us”. Does this make the least bit of sense?

    Comment by Joshua Holmes — July 17, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
  25. Up until very recently I was filled with anger toward the entire Muslim world for what I perceived as their assault on Western Civilization. I would speak about turning Mecca into a sea of glass, etc., not understanding the real reason for their hostility (our military presence in their holy territories). Ron Paul, by his benevolent, culture-respecting non-nation-building (and NOT isolationist) ideas about foreign policy has enabled me to become healed and pacified of my irrational ire. The man does not have to be all preachy for you to see that he is a true disciple of the Prince of Peace. I pray that the world will be able to see the following kind of a letter early in 2009:

    Dear President Ahmadinejad,

    As the newly elected President of the United States of America I wish to extend, on behalf of the American people, a hand of friendship to you and the great people of the nation of Iran. I offer you my sincere apologies for the reprehensible, belligerent policies of the outgoing American government toward the Islamic world in general, and toward your country in particular. I am bringing our troops home immediately, and henceforth the United States will cease attempting to remold Middle Eastern countries, or any other sovereign countries, in its own image.

    From this day we shall respect the right of all nations to determine their own destinies, their own forms of government, and their own institutions, asking only that such respect be reciprocated. Our government will not be providing aid of any kind, neither military nor “humanitarian”, to any other countries, for such aid always implies some obligation, and is thus a form of the type of controlling intervention that leads to resentment, corruption, tensions, and ultimately conflict.

    Nevertheless, please be assured that my administration will not attempt to interfere with trade between private businesses in both of our countries. Consonant with our preferred system of limited government and free enterprise, American business concerns, while they will not be allowed to deal with other governments, will be perfectly free to deal with the private business concerns of other nations. In particular, private Iranian nuclear energy firms will be free to do business with American suppliers of the technology and materials that might be needed to help your country develop the kind of a modern nuclear energy capability needed to to enhance the prosperity and living standards of the Iranian people.

    May a new era begin – one of peaceful mutual friendship and respect between the peoples of America and Iran.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul, President of the United States of America

    Comment by OurPlan — July 17, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
  26. Does Bush represent your opinions? Are you proud of what he does, or how he acts?

    If not, how can you fault the Iranian citizens for what their leaders say or do?

    The Iranian people suffer from the same problem we have in the United States: Their leaders are nut jobs. They are out of touch with reality and they don’t represent their citizens.

    We’d all get along just find if our damned leaders would get out of the way.

    Down with demagogues!

    Comment by Nathan Wallwork — July 17, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
  27. Oppressive governments always fail. You don’t have to do anything active to make them implode, they’ll do it on their own eventually.

    If anything, but constantly threatening Iran you give the Iranians an excuse to rally behind their leader.

    Honestly now, if China were threatening to nuke us don’t you think we’d be likely to rally behind Bush even though most people can’t stand him?

    Comment by Yeah yeah yeah... — July 18, 2007 @ 12:03 am
  28. As far as Iran goes if people would try to get the inside education as far as how things really are over there they would find that the younger generation in general wants freedom….. when someone comes along and tries to force you into something it doesn’t matter, even if you really want to do it, you’re going to fight against it, that’s the human way.

    Walk up to someone walking down the street and push them. Now! Whats going to happen next?

    Here’s another one….. the more laws you make, the more laws that get broken.

    Quit listening to the “feeling” (Propaganda) they keep selling and just look at the facts!

    Learn Reality…….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rPQCPwdwHQ

    The Old Days…..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEy7DX7OLcE&mode=related&search=

    Part 1 of 6….. Freuds Nephew….. little did you know…..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4&mode=related&search=

    Ron Paul 2008

    Comment by JT — July 18, 2007 @ 3:36 am
  29. Doug,

    I have responded to your recent posts and I must admit your own actions have proven you to be a false supporter of Ron Paul.

    On thing is for sure you have an agenda and it isn’t for the good of Dr. Paul. In the past I have suggested you either get off the fence and support Paul or simply offer the same efforts towards another candidate.

    But, you realize two points:

    1) If you write about another candidate you will not obtain the same number of hits.

    2) You realize Paul supporters will reply to your message… I noticed the number of replies with other candidates is very low.

    So, you will keep presenting your half warm replies until we as Paul supports understand when we are searching for news about Paul that when libertypapers.com pops up then we should ignore the opportunity to read any posts…. I for one have made this decision today and as other Paul supports read my comments I hope they will too.

    You ended your post with two undermining points:

    1) He’s on less steady ground, though, when he suggests that rational discussions are possible with the mullahs in Iran.

    2) And then there’s the whole Barry Manilow thing.

    First, may I ask have you ever visited Iran? I have and for several weeks nearly four years ago with my Church. The people on the street are in many ways no different then our own citizens. But what you fail to realize is the people of the country care deeply for our nation. It’s only the government leaders who show contempt for our nation…. Have you even taken the time to study their own history? It was our nation who installed the primary leader which actually turned the country into a hate filled region. It was our government and the British who actually removed the leader because he would not give up more of his oil to BP.

    SInce I voted for Bush I feel I can share my thoughts…. Early in the Iraq conflict I have always faulted Bush for not working out issues with our so called enemies… Bush has ignored almost every country with terror issues…. Bush has caused our own nation to be in grave danger then at nearly any other time. In fact Putin has decided to remove his nation from a peace treaty which was supported by Reagan.

    By the way why is it in almost every case we install dictators or comment in powerful positions but go into other nations to spread our free ideals?

    You then offer your final one liner about Barry Manilow and why? What does Barry have anything to do with your post and why do you offer it as an implied negative point? Sure, Barry is a supporter. I’m sure if any singer offered their support you would find issues with that as well. In fact I’m sure I could find some singer I don’t like who supports others but this has nothing to do with Paul’s efforts.

    I can only conclude that your actions imply you support another candidate. I predict you will be talking about Fred Thomspon once he runs and state you have now changed your mind to support Thompson…. What do you think people do you think I’m correct? If I’m wrong then I will admit it… If you really do support Paul then support him if not I predict a reduction in your sites hits if you keep writing the way you do.

    In closing to all who support Paul just don’t waste your time with Doug Mataconis and focus on the straw polls…. TownHall.com now predicts Paul will win second in Iowa. As far as I’m concerned a 1-2 position is fine with me that is until he can win the real poll early next year.

    Also, Paul is now at 3% in the Gallup which is a huge gain.

    Again just ignore Doug Mataconis until we know for sure where he stands he is wasting our time.

    Comment by Darel99 — July 18, 2007 @ 5:44 am
  30. Darel,

    I write about Ron Paul more than the other candidates because he is taken to be the libertarian-oriented candidate for President, which makes what he says important for people who believe in liberty.

    I’ve already written about, and rejected out of hand, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. So, no, I’m not shilling for someone else.

    And my argument isn’t with the people of Iran. It’s with a government that has subsidized terrorism that his killed more than a few American citizens over the years and which is clearly intent on obtaining nuclear weapons, a move which would dangerously undermine the balance of power in the Middle East.

    I did not say that we should invade today. But I think Ron Paul’s suggestion that Iran is nothing to worry about is about as naive as the leftists who said the Soviets were nothing to worry about during the Cold War.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 18, 2007 @ 6:16 am
  31. Darel,

    3% in the polls and 1/10 the money in the bank of the frontrunners does not a winning campaign make.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 18, 2007 @ 6:17 am
  32. Personally, I don’t care if a piece is negative or not. I’ve started seeing so much support for Ron Paul, that the negative pieces have better comments. It causes people to respond with facts that support their side.

    All I know is I don’t see this for the other candidates.

    Comment by Matt — July 18, 2007 @ 6:37 am
  33. “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”
    - Issac Asimov

    There are limitless things one can do, if they are truly looking for a peaceful solution.

    Comment by David — July 18, 2007 @ 7:00 am
  34. to ourplan

    very nice letter.. i can see Ron Paul writing this letter to the Iranians

    Peace

    Comment by wayoye — July 18, 2007 @ 7:31 am
  35. War is about power and economics; radical religiosity is a false pretext. Doug you are correct talking is not going to work, the rest of the world is sick our crap. America does not have the economic muscle she once had and as our trading partners switch to stronger currencies, we have great risk of a collapse.

    See motivation for Iraq:

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

    Now See Iran:
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article2070938.ece

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6202791.stm

    BTW, does anyone see the irony of China financing our “spread democracy campaign” in the Mid East?

    Comment by Amy — July 18, 2007 @ 8:49 am
  36. Ron Paul’s an honest man. That’s all I need to know. He does what he says he’s going to do (his record backs that up) and actaully believes in the American system of government as it was truly intended to function. Not so the globalists.

    From Billary to Obama to Romney to Rudy, they all exist to say what we want to hear, then do whatever the globalist elite tell them to do. They have no character and no courage. The dems has caved in to W time after time. Our national sovereignty is dissapearing! When are people going to see this Liberal/Neo-Con pact for what it is? Only a fool would waste a vote on such disgraceful people.

    Comment by NEC — July 18, 2007 @ 8:55 am
  37. Ron Paul has my vote even if it’s a write-in. The question is basically “Do you want more freedom or a more oppressive government”? And I want one of those free airplane tickets, too.

    Comment by gao xia en — July 18, 2007 @ 8:57 am
  38. The beauty of all of this is that because of Ron Paul we’re all willing to discuss topics that we may not have before. His candidacy has made people like me more aware and want to become more involved than at any point in my life.

    Comment by Dennis — July 18, 2007 @ 10:10 am
  39. Hey all, I don’t really have anything to add, but I just wanted to say nice conversation. Good points…

    -Chad

    Comment by Chad — July 18, 2007 @ 10:31 am
  40. Doug,

    You have said the following:
    “And my argument isn’t with the people of Iran. It’s with a government that has subsidized terrorism that his killed more than a few American citizens over the years and which is clearly intent on obtaining nuclear weapons, a move which would dangerously undermine the balance of power in the Middle East.”

    Look closer to home for a government which has subsidised terrorism when it was in its own interests. Look closer to home for a government that has used nuclear weapons. Here is a hint, CIA covert and overt operations for the last half a century.

    My point? US is no better than the scape goat. For the worthy cause of preserving global peace US needs to cut down on the belligerence and I along with OurPlan and I am sure many others would like to see Ron Paul extend friendship to Iran, and a letter along the lines that OurPlan has suggested would go great lengths in quelling the hatred in the middle east that the misguided foreign policy has thus far incited.

    The funny thing is this: It just might be, that the threat and acts of terrorism go substantially down when you remove its prime motivations. Furthermore, if Iran were to act belligerently despite the public offer of friendship with the US, then US would have to do very little to convince the international community of the evils of the Iranian regime, dont you think? In such a case Iran itself would take the lead role in its own undoing without US having to spend blood or treasure.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul supporter

    Comment by Ron Paul Supporter — July 18, 2007 @ 11:17 am
  41. Of course, we know that the interests that are steering US into prolonged and unnecessary wars do not want really want peace, for if they achieved that then where would the military-industrial complex or the bankers garner such astronomical profits? Consider Vietnam war as one example, it was both unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged.

    As another poster pointed out, Isaac Asimov has said “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” but it is also equally true to say “Violence is a preferred refuge of the megalomaniac and the utterly greedy”.

    Sincerely,

    Ron Paul Supporter

    Comment by Ron Paul Supporter — July 18, 2007 @ 11:23 am
  42. Hi Doug,

    I noticed your response and I wanted to take a moment to comet.

    I’m a registered republican and respect many of the libertiian views which mimic many of the small government views of true conservatives. Of course many of the libertarian’s think they are the only ones who have heard of liberty but many social conservative, paleo conservatives and conservatives also believe in liberty.. In fact their are right leaning democrats and blue dog democrats who believe in liberty as well. Of course most of the “others” would at least give it lip service :)

    Doug, to be honest with you and other readers if it wasn’t for Dr. Ron Paul I would abandon the republican party and become an indepantant.

    Doug, do you believe in Ron Paul? Are you going to vote for Dr. Paul? Will you change your party affiliation and become a republican so you can vote in the primaries? All of these things need to be considered if you want Paul to win….

    Yes, I’m also aware that you have written about Rudy but for a candidate who you state you support you offer a lukewarm message which is for the most part counterproductive.

    Are you fully aware of Iran’s history? Are you aware our government along with British installed Ayatollah Khomenini? What happened after he was installed? Are you aware that before the Ayotallah was installed that Mossadeq loved our nation but he wasn’t willing to give the British (BP) more then their fair share the soon after he said no then I have gov documents which our own CIA then helped overthrow them? Sure their government doesn’t like the USA but it’s based on bad history and our poor leadership.

    If we don’t speak with our enemies then we will all only fall into war which isn’t the path to follow.

    Have you read the CIA report posted late 2006 about Iran? It states Iran will have bomb making abilities 7-10 years. Sure he is a a real threat but have you also noticed that Putin has decided not to honor a major treaty with us?

    Part of the Iran conflict is based on Israel. Do you speak Iranian? Have you translated the original document from the Iranian president. The threats were increased when the media told the world that Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Not true: I have had the original documents translated and he is only responding to a threat which Israel made.

    I would have to say I’m not sure which is our nations worst enemy… Is it our own media or the enemies from abroad? Our own media has even lied about the recent Al Qaeda issue… Allow me to explain: Cheney recently went on record to state nearly three months ago that we were working with a group in Iran to help overthrow the government. But two weeks ago a name emerged and it was the number three guy from Al Qaeda… So, our movement is telling us this:

    Al Qadia is about the attack us….. But then they are also saying we are working with Al Qaeda to overthrow the government of Iran… Do they think we are stupid?

    So Paul has the wisdom to look at facts and not hype. In this case their are only two ways to approach Iran. Paul’s method or the Neocon method. For one if we attack Iran then other nations will attack us. So the best approach is to work out the issues Reagan has followed this ideal so I think it’s more then possible.

    I also noticed you replied a second time to provide a negative comment about Pauls rise in Gallup. I think the older methods will have to adopt more towards real time data.

    First, the neocon’s have been playing a game with Paul… We both know about the media control. They first stated the online polls were spam… They then suggested with the GOP sponsored straw polls would show proof that Paul’s support isn’t real. But what has happened with that notion? In the recent three GOP sponsored polls he was first in NH and listed as 2 or 3 with the others. So once again Paul showed real support in Ca, GA and NH.

    Have you looked at history to see who was at 1-3% before they won a parities nomination. Clinton comes to mind with one.

    Sure his funds are lower then others… But after talking to a lawyer and understanding what I can do on my own aside from my own contribution their are greater steps we can take on our own. That is as long as it’s not discuses with any member of Paul’s efforts. On my own I just rented an entire billboard off of I-81. I have also contracted two other billboards in key states. So while many may think Paul has a smaller sum of cash on hand how can you account for my efforts and efforts of others?

    I have also reviewed data points for Pauls’ contributions. My findings suggest Paul has a steady climb while the others received theirs at the beginning of the qtr.

    Doug, our own Paul group started with just 4 people during the first debate and last week we had over 100 in attendance. Most are republican’s but I know for a fact that 18 who were democrats, etc. are now republican’s.

    I expect to see Pauls contributions to only rise and I do agree that Paul will win second place in Iowa… So Doug if support Paul then just support him. I could tell you I don’t like his views about gambling but he want’s to make so many positive changes and you either support him or you don’t.

    Comment by Darel99 — July 18, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
  43. I have no comment other than to say, these are some of the best comments I have read in a long time. Bravo, to all those involved.

    Comment by jt — July 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
  44. I am again amazed at how Tucker just asks questions and doesn’t interupt Ron Paul. If his boss figures it out, he’s fired. I used to time the question and then the response and some folks like Chris Mathews will spend 60 seconds asking a question, then cut off the answer after 5 to ten seconds.
    As for Ron Paul, just listening to him talk lowers my blood pressure and instills hope for rationality and America. No place for that in politics. If you aren’t counseling fear, territoriality and aggression, you are not going to break into the apathy that paralyzes this country. Only people with brains still getting sufficient blood supply respond to Ron Paul. That is about 5% of the voting public. Ron Paul 2008

    Comment by Earl E Riser — July 18, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
  45. Everyone else: (rational ideas and debate)

    Doug M. : But, but… it’s not FAIR! I want to argue with emotional rhetoric and circular reasoning!

    Yep, I think I will pass on libertypapers.org posts from now on, too. I get more grown up discussion from my 5 year old niece.

    Comment by Scott McDonnell — July 18, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
  46. In NH they don’t ask you to vote for Ron specifically in the phone polls but take heart — 30% are voting for OTHER.

    I suspect that Ron has a GREAT percentage of that OTHER vote.

    Take heart!

    Comment by NH — July 18, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
  47. Well if anything has been proven here, it’s that Ron Paul supporters make terrible house guests. Perhaps they should spend less time spamming a website that actually agrees with them on 99.9% of the issues and more time spamming blogs full of the unconverted (dailykos anyone?).

    While I agree with Dr. Paul on every major domestic issue, he and I don’t see eye-to-eye on foreign policy. I’ll still be voting for him, most certainly, because none of the other candidates really hold a candle … but pretending that pulling out of vietnam was the *right* solution at the time or that the massive military buildup had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR is a gross misinterpretation of what really went on. As has been quoted and restated many ways: naked violence has solved many problems in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

    Comment by Bret — July 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
  48. Ron Paul 2008

    Some great posts, what can I say…. I agree.

    Darel99, thumbs up!

    Here’s some reality, you’re not use to seeing the other side, it’s not allowed on our news…..
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565&q=Peace%2C+Propaganda+%26+The+Promised+Land&total=58&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=

    Comment by JT — July 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
  49. Well Bret and Doug,

    I’ll be gracious and tell you that I disagree with you.

    Vietnam was a horrible mistake. We shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. Ho Chi Minh was driven by nationalism and megalomania. He had some weak ties to the ComIntern, but by the time he took over Vietnam in the north, those ties were mostly gone. I think the US had more of a role in driving them into the arms of the Chinese and communism. And by pulling out we spare the country more land mines, more agent orange, and more napalm. We could have won in Vietnam, but at what cost? To prop up another corrupt dictator in SE Asia?

    As far as talking with the mullahs, I think that is an awful idea. Trade with them but ignore the mullahs. When Iranians become more and more prosperous, the mullahs will find themselves more and more irrelevant as is always the case with increasing prosperity. Dark warnings of impending doom fall on deaf ears when the outlook is up and up. That is of course when the religious fanatics are the most desperate, but I’m sure the Iranians will solve their own problems. Allow them a life to cherish, so their people won’t even contemplate apocalypse.

    Comment by TanGeng — July 18, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
  50. Well folks my night has ended I have noticed that Paul supporters are simply the most informed. I have visited seveal posts from Mitt and Rudy supporters and the thread is nearly always a page one reply and without any real data or information other then they think Mitt or Rudy are gods to save the world.

    Today I spread the news about Paul to two new strangers one was very excited and the other was sold on McCain.

    I try to tell two new people a day about Paul and you should too.

    I’m even going to be a guest on a local FM radio show to talk about Paul. This idea also inspired me to meet with my local public access tv station to see if I can start my own TV show about the GOP. The radio show has a show of nearly 8,000 people and the TV spot could give me access to over 1500 people for the open slot.

    People Paul can win but we have got to use creative ideas since the funds for Paul are less.

    What is the people such as the poor and college kids vote this time? They would fear such a change…. Well, i think we are seeing this start to happen.

    Keep the faith and hopefully Doug will start to speack with postive hope instead of a negative views.

    God Bless

    Comment by Darel99 — July 18, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
  51. folks thanks for your commets but forive my grammer/spelling issues I can’t find my reading glasses. I have been a bit hard on Doug and I find my thoughts are only the truth. But, I will keep an open mind and see what he has to say over the next weeks. I hope he will support Paul 100% with actions and words. I do like other aspects of this site.

    Comment by Darel99 — July 18, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
  52. Ron Paul talks sense all the other candidates use scare tactics. The media doesn’t take Ron Paul seriously because he is an honest, smart man who has been consistant on his views. Quite refreshing.

    Comment by Bo — July 18, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
  53. I agree with Bo.

    Check this out. The folks in the military seem to be fans of Ron Paul as well:

    http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

    Comment by Paul — July 20, 2007 @ 12:43 am
  54. It’s depressing to see how the MSM has so succeeded in demonizing our alleged enemies that even people on a libertarian web site have fallen for it.

    Amadinejad may be a little strange by our standards but he’s just a demogogic politician in Iran just like we have here. The more his domestic problems pile up, the more he demogogues.

    But he isn’t unreasonable. He never said Isreal should be ‘wiped off the map.’ He supports a one-state solution to the Palestinian question to be resolved by popular elections.

    More importantly, the President of Iran isn’t a very powerful figure. He doesn’t control the military, and he doesn’t control the Iranian nuclear program.

    At the negotiating table, the Iranians have offered to subject their peaceful nuclear program to round-the-clock inspections by international inspectors. They have offered to have all enriched uranium converted immediately to fuel reactor rods. They’ve offered to subject their nuclear facilities to constant inspection so that none of that product can be converted to plutonium. They’ve offered to limit the number of centrifuges that they will employ. They’ve offered to allow inspection of their imports to guarantee that they are not developing nuclear weapons from imported uranium.

    In exchange they want the right (already guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty) to enrich uranium to commercial level (about 5%) while they give up any right whatsoever, under rigid inspections, to enrich uranium to weapons-grade level (about 90%). They also want us to promise not to bomb them. The Bush administration rejected this proposal out of hand.

    Comment by robert haley — July 25, 2007 @ 6:42 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML