Jon Stewart: Media Pretend Ron Paul Doesn't Exist
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Monday, August 22, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Some Get Married for Money. Others Get Married for...
- Tax Tip for Warren Buffett, and Wouldn't His 2010 ...
- Markets in Everything: Orbiting Space Hotel
- Why BMW Picked South Carolina: No Auto Culture
- July Chicago Fed National Activity Index Improves
- More on the Failure to Pass the FTAs
- College Professors: Get Out While You Can
- Kids Arrested in DC on Lemonade Freedom Day
- Chart of the Day: Transfer Payments
- More on Warren Buffett's "Mega-Rich"
67 Comments:
For that dufus, logic does not exist.
Both the left and the right have a serious problem with Ron Paul because he is pro-liberty and anti-establishment. Expect serious attacks if the failure to ignore him fails to work.
Heh, I watched that same video yesterday, linked off of some other website. While Jon Stewart is right, you have to wonder how much of it is because he wants to undercut the Republicans by helping get Ron Paul nominated, since Ron can't possibly win the Presidency and Jon seems to lean left. I'd rather Ron was nominated and lost, like Goldwater, rather than see Romney or Perry or another run-of-the-mill conservative get nominated and likely lose also. That said, the great benefit of Ron Paul is that he drags the Republicans in a libertarian direction, so that the eventual candidate will support more of his positions, like cutting the insane amount of "defense" spending. It is just amazing that the defense hawks were bitching about the small amount of future defense cuts in the recent budget deal: they're the right's equivalent of the entitlement queens who wouldn't touch SS and Medicare no matter what. Ron Paul can't possibly win the Presidency in a general election, though I think his son Rand could.
Srewell,
Do you really have to wonder? Jon Stewart thinks Ron Paul is a joke. He'd rather open a vein than see him elected. God forbid the unwashed masses get the freedom to come to their own private arrangements.
Stewart is contemptuous leftard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I like Ron Paul, especially his forthright statements we should dismantle our overseas military empire--a counterproductive millstone around taxpayers' necks--and radically curtail military outlays until such time as we actually face some military threats above that of a few hundred creepy terrorists.
On the Federal Reserve, I have worries that Paul is hypnotized by gold, not the first one that happened to.
The ongoing global economic expansion has lifted billions out of poverty, all since Nixon crapped on gold back in 1972. The world has never seen such abundance.
Preserving a Ben Franklin in monetary formaldehyde might feel good for anal central bankers, but does not give rise to economic growth. See Japan.
I'm a fan of his son Rand, but Ron Paul's foreign policy statements sound like Noam Chomsky is his head speechwriter. It's also disconcerting how many conspiracy nutbars and white supremacists seem to gravitate into his orbit. He is not a serious contender for those reasons. No need to waste much time on him.
well Ron is a principled conservative unlike those others masquerading as one.
He's the only one of all the "cut, cut, cut" Republican hypocrites who has actually sat down and named the cuts.
IF Ron Paul mounted a 3rd party run, the idiot Republicans would have trouble getting 20% of the vote, eh?
Paul-
How about Rick Perry, advocating execution of a Federal Reserve Chairman? Is that sane?
I understand you are having a warm summer in Texas, but is there also something in the water?
As for Ron Paul, he does not sound like a leftie, but rather a Founding Father.
"Jon Stewart thinks Ron Paul is a joke."
I'm not disagreeing, but Stewart is like most leftards (and religious rightards) who pick and choose dearly-held, polarizing positions - put on their blinders and vote with a limited-issue mind....with no regard to the disastrous outcomes, impossibilities or likelihood of them ever actually being addressed by that candidate once elected.
Stewart is like my gay friends, all of whom voted for Obama thinking he would help them on gay rights issues...and they become deaf when I point out that every single governmental/economic issue they constantly bitch about has been caused by the gay rights do-nothings they vote for.
Mike-
Well then, you should just "bitch-slap" your friends.
"As for Ron Paul, he does not sound like a leftie, but rather a Founding Father."
Benjamin, I will remember this day...maybe because it's also my anniversary, but also because you made a statement that I completely agree with.
I don't agree with quite a bit of what Ron Paul says, but he's the only one who strikes me as genuine - with the best interest of maintaining what this country is supposed to be.
* btw, as far as bitch-slapping goes. I have...well, there is one who's 6'6" and 235. I'll just tell him he's wrong.
Ron Paul can't possibly win the Presidency in a general election, though I think his son Rand could.
It seems to me that his chances are better than those of Bachman, Huntsman, or Santorum but pundits from both the left and the right were arguing that their chances were better than Dr. Paul's.
I see no reason to think that a Romney or Santorum would do better against Obama than Paul. Dr. Paul would certainly siphon off the anti-war votes that the left had given Obama in the last election and would win all those conservative Democrats who voted for Obama because they disliked his opponent. And if Obama wins the Democrats would be destroyed as a viable party as the grand collapse, which Dr. Paul predicted, would taint them for decades to come. The same would be true if an idiot pro-war conservative beat Obama and oversaw the grand collapse which was triggered by the previous Republican administration and only made worse by an incompetent Obama.
Well Mike, a red-letter day for us both!
Yeah, there at some guys in my Golds' Gym-Hollywood I do not want to tangle with ever. In any regard. I think they make their living as over-muscled thugs in Hollywood productions. Or maybe in real life.
Believe it or not, I am thinking Mitt Romney is not so bad.
gawd...it's a good thing we still got another year before elections, eh?
maybe a RR will ride in on a white horse yet...
snicker.....snort...
Jon Stewart thinks Ron Paul is a joke.
No. He stated that whether you agree with him or not Dr. Paul has been a man of principle who never based his arguments on the wind direction. The same could not be said of any candidate on either side and Stewart knows it. The left certainly supports Dr. Paul's foreign policies much more than it supports those of Obama and the warfare crowd.
Benji,
"How about Rick Perry, advocating execution of a Federal Reserve Chairman? Is that sane?"
You're just making shit up as usual. Rick Perry's remarks about Bernanke were over-the-top, but he didn't "advocate the execution" of Bernanke. Big deal.
Your boyfriend once spoke of "bringing a gun to a knifefight." If I were a douchebag like you I'd say he was endorsing the murder of his opponents.
"...Ron Paul can't possibly win the presidency." - Sprewell
Obama 47% Paul 45% - Gallup
That my friend is within the margin of error.
Vangel,
"I see no reason to think that a Romney or Santorum would do better against Obama than Paul."
There' not a chance in hell enough Leftists would desert Obama to make a difference. There's not a chance in hell enough of the GOP would vote for a "Blame America First" guy like Ron Paul. Obama would win in a landslide.
I like Ron Paul, especially his forthright statements we should dismantle our overseas military empire--a counterproductive millstone around taxpayers' necks--and radically curtail military outlays until such time as we actually face some military threats above that of a few hundred creepy terrorists.
Unlike the other candidates Dr. Paul understands that your changes of getting killed by falling in a tub or getting hit by a bus are greater than those of getting injured by a terrorist. The left supports the call to bring the troops home. Given the fact that Dr. Paul gets more contributions from the troops than the other Republican candidates combined (and more than Obama) it seems that the troops agree as well.
On the Federal Reserve, I have worries that Paul is hypnotized by gold, not the first one that happened to.
The man is a student of history. I take it that you never read his The Case for Gold: Minority Report of the US Gold Commission 1982? Everything he wrote was correct and his argument turned out to be a very good one.
The ongoing global economic expansion has lifted billions out of poverty, all since Nixon crapped on gold back in 1972. The world has never seen such abundance.
What brought prosperity was increased globalization and free trade. Sadly, the Western countries are now broke because their governments were not constrained by a link to gold and made all kinds of promises that could not be met. As a result we now see the precious metals, grains, and other commodities taking off to the upside with pullbacks being driven by economic contractions or threats of economic contractions. Fiat money is dying and is ready to cause dislocations that will make 2008 look like a picnic. There is still a chance to kick the can down the road for a year or two but the options are no longer very good.
Preserving a Ben Franklin in monetary formaldehyde might feel good for anal central bankers, but does give rise to economic growth. See Japan.
Japan had a massive spending program that failed and is now the biggest debtor of any industrialized country. It is an argument against inflation of the money supply and debt based spending not for it.
I'm a fan of his son Rand, but Ron Paul's foreign policy statements sound like Noam Chomsky is his head speechwriter. It's also disconcerting how many conspiracy nutbars and white supremacists seem to gravitate into his orbit. He is not a serious contender for those reasons. No need to waste much time on him.
Your country is broke but is fighting wars in several countries while the taxpayers pay to defend Japan, Germany and South Korea. What is wrong with pulling the troops back?
Vangel,
"Your country is broke but is fighting wars in several countries while the taxpayers pay to defend Japan, Germany and South Korea. What is wrong with pulling the troops back?"
I actually don't disagree with that. I never said we shouldn't cut back the military. But I also am not demented enough to think an Iranian nuke is "no big deal" like Ron Paul does. I don't blame America for the emergence of every psychopath dictator like Ron Paul does.
There' not a chance in hell enough Leftists would desert Obama to make a difference. There's not a chance in hell enough of the GOP would vote for a "Blame America First" guy like Ron Paul. Obama would win in a landslide.
But there is every likelihood that they will desert Obama if he persists in his plans to commit economic suicide, increase taxes on carbon, keep the troops abroad, keep bailing out Wall Street as Main Street sinks into depression, and force jobs to move out of the country with his terrible regulatory policies. The left may be misguided and not all that bright but when it comes to self interest it is not stupid. Obama was their big hope and he failed them. Given the fact that he failed by implementing some of his Socialist agenda there is no way for him to argue that more of the same will lead to a better outcome.
And Obama's biggest trump card was the mystery and hope that he brought to the table. Few people really knew all that much about him so the fantasy card played out very well for him. Four years of exposure have shown him to be a weak leader with few ideas and a man who is a much better campaigner for president than a president. Even those on the left have had enough. And after a debate that would expose his economic illiteracy they would abandon him in droves. Keep in mind that many on the left who do not agree with Dr. Paul still admire his honesty and his logic. Obama is neither honest nor logical so he has to use emotion to rally the base to come out and vote him in. But emotion does not last very long and few can get excited about a man who turned out to be little more than an arrogant empty suit.
Paul,
Since Benjamin and I are getting along so well today, I'll defend him.
Perry did say the fed's actions were treasonous (that's punishable by death).
And, since I'm defending folks....I think you'd better re-read some history. You may come away with a completely different stance on our relationship with Iran. It really is mostly our fault.
But I also am not demented enough to think an Iranian nuke is "no big deal" like Ron Paul does. I don't blame America for the emergence of every psychopath dictator like Ron Paul does.
But it isn't. Bush and Clinton made deals with North Korea, which already has nukes. And if Pakistan, Israel, or India have nukes why can't Iran? It is certainly a more stable a country than either India or Pakistan and has no history of invasion. Do you really think that Israel, which has several hundred nuclear bombs is threatened by a possible bomb built by Iran some time over the next decade and a half?
The anti-Iran nonsense sounds to me a lot like the anti-Iraq crap before the occupation. Almost every one of the arguments used to justify an invasion turned out to be an outright lie and as a result the US has lost several thousand soldiers, seen tens of thousands seriously injured, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and spent hundreds of billions that could have been spent at home or left in the hands of the taxpayers.
Idiots like Santorum supported the Iraq War and bought into the lies that Dr. Paul saw through. If you are searching for a nutcase with a stupid foreign policy you are looking in the wrong direction.
Paul-
Perry either did not understand what he was saying, or appeared to define Ben Bernanke's monetary policy decisions as worthy of the death sentence.
Oddly and even more darkly, Perry was ready to execute Bernanke, but only if Bernanke managed to get the economy going again before the election.
So managing monetary policy to encourage growth after the election will be fine.
Perry is a bilious knave, a vile excretum from the southern portal of Texas. I can easily imagine him getting us into yet another war.
P.U., even Obama is better than Perry.
Vange-
Japan has had extremely limited increases in their money supply for 20 years. It does not work.
Benjamin,
I'm sorry, but I just can't help myself...
"Japan has had extremely limited increases in their money supply for 20 years. It does not work."
Using the words of our dear leader...just think of how bad off Japan would've been if they hadn't done it that way!
:)
Unelectable, my @$$.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/22/oh-hey-look-ron-paul-down-just
Mike-
Well, my dear leader is Milton Friedman.
See this: http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6549
Friedman advocated Japan create inflation and growth through QE. They did not listen.
The problem with gold, aside from its wildly gyrating prices, is that it fosters deflation and then perma-recession.
It is difficult to lend money when all asset values go down, for 20 years and counting....
Benjamin,
You were just supposed to laugh. Totally kidding you.
Junkyard, the same poll you reference, which happyjuggler links to, has Romney actually ahead of Obama. Do you think Romney can beat Obama? I don't, just like I didn't think Giuliani would be nominated this time last election cycle.
Vange, if you think the left is ditching Obama because his policies haven't worked, you clearly haven't seen their shrill calls for more stimulus and the like. I agree that Obama's big attraction last time around was based on the fact that he never talked about any actual issues, so those who voted for him could project onto him their favored policies, lacking any evidence to the contrary. That's not the case now that he's had to actually govern, but the left would gladly ditch the anti-war stuff as long as he keeps "spreading the wealth around" with Obamacare or his mooted tax hikes on the rich.
Japan has had extremely limited increases in their money supply for 20 years. It does not work.
First, Japan grew its money supply at around 2.5% per year for nearly a decade. There was no deflation.
Second, the Japanese government spent a lot more money on infrastructure "stimulus" than the US. After two decades of building roads and bridges to nowhere its debt to GDP is the highest in the world.
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/images/Debt-as-pct-of-GDP-2008.gif
Third, those Japanese that had savings and were employed did all right because they did not lose purchasing power as Americans savers have. Of course, while the Japanese had abundant savings Americans have very little.
"Both the left and the right have a serious problem with Ron Paul because he is pro-liberty and anti-establishment."
He's also an idiot.
"It's also disconcerting how many conspiracy nutbars and white supremacists seem to gravitate into his orbit. "
Oh no!! You're an evil statist anti-liberty Keynesian...hmm...and some other bad stuff too!!
"Friedman advocated Japan create inflation and growth through QE. They did not listen. "
Benji...I don't think you understand a word of what Friedman is saying there.
Mike,
"Perry did say the fed's actions were treasonous (that's punishable by death)."
Ok, since you insist on taking this particular case of political rhetoric seriously, he did not say Bernanke is treasonous. He said almost treasonous, a big distinction. Almost = not at all. Nowhere did he say Bernanks should be executed. But seriously, this is nuts. Only a moron would take Perry's statements about Bernanke at face value. I know you're not a moron, even though you are defending one.
"I think you'd better re-read some history. You may come away with a completely different stance on our relationship with Iran. It really is mostly our fault."
I know all about the ousting of Mossadegh and the CIA's exaggerated rolein the affair. What does that haven't to do with the current regime? The ruling elite in Iran have no longing for Mossadegh, they would have gladly cut his throat.
Vangel,
"But it isn't. Bush and Clinton made deals with North Korea, which already has nukes."
I don't know how you can sell Bush and Clinton's appeasement of Kim Jong Il as points in favor of your argument. Clinton especially allowed the USA to be blackmailed by NK, buying them time to complete work on their doomsday weapons. It's possible the regime would have collapsed if the US didn't give them the aid as part of the deal.
"And if Pakistan, Israel, or India have nukes why can't Iran?"
Thanks for demonstrating the pretend world some of Paul's more feverish supporters inhabit along side him. How is it possible for you to morally equate Israel with Iran? And why do Pakistani nukes not worry you?
"It is certainly a more stable a country than either India or Pakistan and has no history of invasion."
Stable how? Did you happen to notice the riots of the past couple yrs? The Iranian people hate the guts of the tyrants who reule them. As for invasion, Iran doesn't have the force projection of a strong military, sure. Instead, they have created proxies in places like Lebanon and Gaza. They have staging grounds in places like the Tri-border region in South America. They form deadly alliances with the most heinous regimes on the planet. They blew up Jews in non-hostile countries like Argentina. They sponsor terrorist attacks around the globe. The 9/11 commission believed they had a role in the attacks, and even the Obama administration now admits the Iranians are helping Al Qaeda.
Ah, "but what me worry?" for Ron Paul and some of his supporters, everything wraps up nicely into a hermetically sealed little ideological box. Blame the United States. Run away and all our problems will be resolved!
"Do you really think that Israel, which has several hundred nuclear bombs is threatened by a possible bomb built by Iran some time over the next decade and a half? "
First, your timeline is exceedlingy generous. Where did you get your estimate? Second, yeah, Israel is threatened by the regime that sent their own children running into the minefields to clear a path during their war with Iraq. The mullahs have said repeatedly the "martyrs" find their reward with Allah. On a regular basis, Achamadinejad uses apocalyptic imagery in his statements promising the annihilation of the Jewish homeland. The streets of Tehran were widened to make room for the return of the Mahdi.
"The anti-Iran nonsense sounds to me a lot like the anti-Iraq crap before the occupation."
Then you simply aren't paying attention while you hide out in your Ron Paul land of make believe.
I don't know how you can sell Bush and Clinton's appeasement of Kim Jong Il ...
I am not 'selling' anything. I just pointed out that if Clinton and Bush could deal with Korea I see no reason why the US can't leave Iran alone and stop meddling. Iran has not invaded other countries or dropped atomic bombs on innocent civilians. The US has.
...How is it possible for you to morally equate Israel with Iran? And why do Pakistani nukes not worry you?
I am not making statements of moral equivalency. And Pakistani nukes do worry me. But so do French nukes, American nukes, British nukes, Russian nukes, etc. My point is a simple one. The US or Pakistan has no more right to own nuclear weapons than Israel or Iran.
Stable how? ...
Stable because Iran has not invaded any neighbours or started wars as Israel, Pakistan, or India have. And I agree that the Iranian people do not like the ruling class. I actually expect the extremists to be pushed aside once the external meddling stops pushing voters towards them.
And let me note that the Iranian people did have elections. The last time I looked the US was not pushing for elections in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, or in other allied countries.
They sponsor terrorist attacks around the globe. The 9/11 commission believed they had a role in the attacks, and even the Obama administration now admits the Iranians are helping Al Qaeda....
It is hypocrisy to accuse Iran of being a terrorist state when you ignore the fact that the United States has a history of supporting terrorists. Iran did not create al Qaeda. The US did. Iran did not bomb Serbia or support the KLA. The US did. And Israel has had no problem using terrorism and assassination as a tactic.
Dr. Paul points out that the affairs of others are their business, not those of the US government. There is a great deal of injustice around the world and the US taxpayer is in no position to act as a global cop. Hypocrisy does not work, and no matter how much the chickenhawks squawk the actions of the US government cannot be swept under the rug or explained away.
First, your timeline is exceedlingy generous. Where did you get your estimate?
The Bush Administration. It used the National Intelligence Estimates to show Congress that Iran stopped making an effort to build a nuclear device in 2003. Its current efforts are focused on developing a nuclear program that can use local uranium to generate electricity. An independent opinion came from Mohamed ElBaradei, who told Seymour Hersh, "I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran."
As usual the neocons and chickenhawks have began a campaign of lies just as they did when they told the American people and the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Only a liar or a fool will push that line of argument again, particularly when the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran cannot develop a bomb over the short term and that it gave up trying in 2003.
Paul, don't waist your time with Vangel. The man is a Paultard. There's nothing you can say that can make a dent in his armor of ignorance.
Paul, don't waist your time with Vangel. The man is a Paultard. There's nothing you can say that can make a dent in his armor of ignorance.
As usual, the neocons and the chickenhawks have little logic and no facts to back up their false claims. No wonder the voters have turned against them and their false prophets.
"Iran did not create al Qaeda. The US did."
A lie. A big fat lie. Prove the US created Al Qaeda. Don't say we helped Afghanistan repel the Soviets. Tell me how we constructed Al Qaeda.
"Dr. Paul points out that the affairs of others are their business, not those of the US government. "
God, you sound like a zombie. Is there anything your master Ron Paul could say you wouldn't instantly agree with? I cede no moral ground to someone who can watch a slaughter, or a horror being planned, and then say "not my business."
"The Bush Administration. It used the National Intelligence Estimates to show Congress that Iran stopped making an effort to build a nuclear device in 2003."
More half-truths, or half-informed gibberish, from Vangel. First, the 2003 NIE came from some within the intelligence communty, not the Bush Administration. Second, nobody outside of Lew Rockwell nutbar land took it seriously when it came out. Finally, it has been discredited, just as us chickenhawks said it would be. Oh, and the DNI chief himself said, “The only thing that they’ve halted was nuclear weapons design, which is probably the least significant part of the program. So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”
"An independent opinion came from Mohamed ElBaradei, who told Seymour Hersh, "I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran."
Yeah, the clueless apologist ElBaradei would say such a thing to conspiracy nut job Hersh. That doesn't convince me of anything because I don't live in your Ron Paul land of make believe.
"..particularly when the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran cannot develop a bomb over the short term and that it gave up trying in 2003."
You need to catch up on your Iran apologist talking points. Those ones are several years old now and debunked.
Vangel,
"As usual, the neocons and the chickenhawks have little logic and no facts to back up their false claims. "
K, which one am I? I suited up for my country as a medic. Served in Desert Storm with the 1st Infantry Division. However, I missed the war on terror as my enlistment was up. Am I a chicken hawk and/or a neocon? I just want to get my label straight.
Thanks!
Paul,
"What does that have to do with the current regime?"
I'm only working on memory here, so don't be to finicky with my response.... I'm sure I'm forgetting other offenses, perceived or real.
How would you feel if a foreign government staged a coup here? We installed/changed/propped up the leadership of a sovereign nation we were not at war with. That government did not hold US standards and forced Khomeini to leave because they didn't believe he had freedom of speech. I believe that was significant in his popularity. I don't know the extent, but we certainly occupied Iran for cold war purposes. When they finally forced the shah out, we took him.
We install Saddam next door and the two countries go at it for years...then, we have no use for him either.
All of this comes after generations of border-drawing by the US and western countries in the region.
If I was Iranian, I'd have a problem with the US too. I think that has quite a lot to do with the current regime.
The US and most of the civilized world, is trying to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. You call this "meddling" and blame the United States. Madness.
What is madness is ignoring the National Intelligence Estimates, which concluded that Iran stopped making an effort to build a nuclear device in 2003. Iran is clearly working on nuclear reactors but they are entitled to as is any nation. And as I pointed out, Mohamed ElBaradei, who your government supports in the current Egyptian election, told Seymour Hersh, "I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran."
Once again the chickenhawks and neocons trot out their own to tell us just how dangerous Iran is, just as they did when they were told to lie about Saddam's WMDs and links to al Qaeda.
No honest, informed person equates French nukes with Pakistani nukes.I guess that leaves you out.
Where did I say that I equated anything? I said that all nukes worry me. After all, if the US can commit a terrorist act and bomb innocent civilians in Nagasaki why do you expect the French or Pakistanis to be better? And someone who supported the lies about Iraqi WMDs is in no position to talk about the honesty of others.
"Iran has not invaded other countries or dropped atomic bombs on innocent civilians. The US has."
More half truths with moral equivalence mixed in. The essence of Vangel.
It is the truth, not that you could ever recognise it. Iran has not been invading its neighbours or starting wars of conquest. The US has. And it has dropped atomic bombs on civilian targets. Some would say that is terror.
Ok, so forget the lack of context here. You are either unaware of, or intentionally omitting Iran's murderous rampage abroad the past 30 years. Neither option speaks well of you.
Iran has never invaded other countries over the past 30 years. How many civilians has it killed abroad in those 30 years? That would be a good day for your troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Of course, I could be wrong. It might be that Iran has been using drones to shoot up funerals or wedding parties. If it has please provide the evidence.
And why should the bankrupt US act as the world's policeman again? With SS and Medicare funding problems I would have thought that you would have something more important to worry about than profits of the Military-Industrial complex.
That is absurd. You apparently have zero knowledge of Iran's true system of government and recent history. You think they're going to be voted out of office???? I guess the real question is why do I waste time with you?
Actually, I do have some knowledge. The analysts were confident that Ahmadinejad was in big trouble during the last election. There was a very good chance that he would lose and he likely would have had Bush not stepped in and pushed voters towards him. Ali Yunesi, actually thanked Bush for incendiary statements that were used by Ahmadinejad to suggest that Rafsanjani, his opponent was a Washington stooge because he wanted Tehran to explore a dialogue with the Bush Administration.
What a joke! Yeah, the mullahs pick the candidates and then count the votes. Oooh, what a thriving democracy you are defending from the big, bad United States.
Actually, the Iranian elections are far more legitimate than those in client states Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, or Tunisia.
Whatever ills you accuse the United States of, your statement makes zero logical sense. Iran can be(and is) a terrorist state regardless of what the United States has done. Your entire thought process appears to be "how can I exonerate Iran" from the obvious truths?
As I said, the US has killed more innocent people than Iran over the past few years. If Iran is a terrorist state so is the United States. After the lies it used to justify its invasions the US has no moral standing to and cannot ask other nations abandon the same tactics that it uses.
Let me point out that I do not believe that Iran's government is any good. I simply point out that yours is not much better.
A lie. A big fat lie. Prove the US created Al Qaeda. Don't say we helped Afghanistan repel the Soviets. Tell me how we constructed Al Qaeda.
You armed, trained and funded bin Laden's terrorist group as well as other terrorist groups.
http://mprofaca.cro.net/brzezinski_bin_laden_aka_tim_osman.gif
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xKsHkMMp18I/Tb6e39-QqlI/AAAAAAAABSs/JzDiRmXCHCY/s1600/osman+-+osama.gif
http://outofcentralasianow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mullah-omar-with-president-reaganovaloffice.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9tkaEBXX0Ug/TdS_0y_FkKI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/EALD0F--Ajo/s1600/1.jpg
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WK-AK687_TVREVI_20071220195239.jpg
God, you sound like a zombie. Is there anything your master Ron Paul could say you wouldn't instantly agree with? I cede no moral ground to someone who can watch a slaughter, or a horror being planned, and then say "not my business."
There is a lot I disagree with. I did not like the line about spending the stimulus on Main Street comment during the debate because of the implications. I also think that Dr. Paul does not go far enough when suggesting cuts to spending. But he is head and shoulders the best of a very weak and unprincipled bunch on both sides and the only hope for electing a decent president.
More half-truths, or half-informed gibberish, from Vangel. First, the 2003 NIE came from some within the intelligence communty, not the Bush Administration. Second, nobody outside of Lew Rockwell nutbar land took it seriously when it came out. Finally, it has been discredited, just as us chickenhawks said it would be. Oh, and the DNI chief himself said, “The only thing that they’ve halted was nuclear weapons design, which is probably the least significant part of the program. So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”
More nonsense. In mid-February, Lieutenant General James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, provided the House and Senate intelligence committees with an updated N.I.E. on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. A previous assessment, issued in 2007, created consternation and anger inside the Bush Administration and in Congress by concluding, “with high confidence,” that Iran had halted its nascent nuclear-weapons program in 2003.
The intelligence community concluded that there was no danger but that upset the Bush Administration. But that does not change the intelligence. It still says that Iran is not building a bomb. The latest assessment has not been declassified but according to the leaks the conclusions are the same.
Aren't you embarrassed by the WMD lies that you once believed in? Do you really want to attack a nation that is much larger than Iraq and can do serious damage to your fleet as well as the Saudi port facilities? Or a country that, if attacked, will ensure that Shiites attack the Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait governments? The fact is that the US is too weak to do what it imagines that it is capable of doing. And it is far too poor and vulnerable to withstand any sort of aggression.
Yeah, the clueless apologist ElBaradei would say such a thing to conspiracy nut job Hersh. That doesn't convince me of anything because I don't live in your Ron Paul land of make believe.
The man is not any more clueless than the idiots who lied you into the Iraqi WMD scenario and are trying to do the same again with Iran. Actually, he has far more access to actual information than the chickenhawks who are pushing for another war and want to destroy the United States.
You need to catch up on your Iran apologist talking points. Those ones are several years old now and debunked.
No. The intelligence community made its call. Its political masters got upset and are now spinning another set of lies because during an election that takes place in a lousy economy there is nothing like a war to take attention off reality.
K, which one am I? I suited up for my country as a medic. Served in Desert Storm with the 1st Infantry Division. However, I missed the war on terror as my enlistment was up. Am I a chicken hawk and/or a neocon? I just want to get my label straight.
You seem to be a chickenhawk. If you want to fight you will enlist. The troops seem to support Dr. Paul because he got more contributions than the rest of the candidates combined. Unlike you, they understand what is going on and want to go home.
"Actually, the Iranian elections are far more legitimate than those in client states Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, or Tunisia."
I don't know what to say to that other than nobody with any credibility takes Iran's elections at face value. That leaves, among others, the Ron Paul cultists.
"The analysts were confident that Ahmadinejad was in big trouble during the last election. There was a very good chance that he would lose and he likely would have had Bush not stepped in and pushed voters towards him.
Nonsense. Iran's vote is rigged, there was no way for Achmadinejad to lose. What is your evidence that Bush did anything out of the usual to "push voters" towards Achmadinehjad? You just make shit up. Pathetic.
"There was a very good chance that he would lose and he likely would have had Bush not stepped in and pushed voters towards him."
Oh and what horrible things did Bush say to hurt the feelings of the Islamic savages? "Bush's comments — blasting the ruling clerics for blocking "basic requirements of democracy" — became a lively sideshow in Iran's closest election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution."
Oh, what a horrible thing for Bush to say. He definitely could use some etiquette lessons from the Ron Paul crowd. They proudly withold judgement, unless of course, it's America in question.
"As I said, the US has killed more innocent people than Iran over the past few years."
Stripped of all context, a Vangel specialty.
"After the lies it used to justify its invasions the US has no moral standing to and cannot ask other nations abandon the same tactics that it uses."
You've never proved any of the pre-war statements were lies. But I love that you think the United States cannot ask Iran to refrain from annihilating the Jews.
"..Rafsanjani, his opponent was a Washington stooge because he wanted Tehran to explore a dialogue with the Bush Administration."
This would be the same ex-President Rafsanjani under indictment by the Argentinians for the 1994 Buenos Aires bombings? The same guy who said, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."
Only a Ron Paul quack supporter would think another term for Rafsanjani would make any real difference.
"You armed, trained and funded bin Laden's terrorist group as well as other terrorist groups."
We armed the mujahadin to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. You said we "created Al Qaeda." That is entirely different. Once again, you are proved to be a liar. You have to construct these lies in order for your pretend world to make sense. I don't know how you do it.
"The intelligence community concluded that there was no danger but that upset the Bush Administration."
Funny how you just told me the assesement came from the Bush Administration. I guess you were trying to slip one of the patented Vangel slippery statements past me.
"But that does not change the intelligence. It still says that Iran is not building a bomb."
Once again, the 2007 NIE, at least as you state it, has been discredited. Again, I quote McConnell: "The only thing that they’ve halted was nuclear weapons design, which is probably the least significant part of the program. So if I’d had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”
I don't know how you can just blow past that and repeat the same incorrect talking points.
"Aren't you embarrassed by the WMD lies that you once believed in? "
No, because they weren't lies, even if not everything turned out to be correct. I've heard plenty of outrageous lies from you, however. It's so bizarre to see these charges coming from someone who is a multiple times proven liar, on this very blog.
"You seem to be a chickenhawk. If you want to fight you will enlist."
Ok, so not even prior service in an infantry related field counts. Duly noted. How about if I want house fires put out? Do I have to join the fire department? If I want to fight crime, do I need to join the police department?
You prove everything I said about the more fevered Ron Paul nutbags. You are exhibit A.
Mike,
"How would you feel if a foreign government staged a coup here? We installed/changed/propped up the leadership of a sovereign nation we were not at war with."
Again, Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA exaggerated their roles in the affair, as Amir Taheri documented so well in "Nest of Spies." But that aside, the ayatollahs don't hate the US because we supposedly deprived them of Mossadegh. They hate us, as Bush correctly noted, for our freedom.
Paul,
I respectfully disagree and think you understate the problems that we create when we recklessly meddle with the power structure of sovereign nations. I have no doubt that the current regime fears the spread of our freedom and ideas, unfortunately, they have plenty of our past bad acts to use as propaganda.
It makes no difference who the PM was at the time, the fact remains that the shifts of power in Iran (and in the region) have had a long history of our fingerprints on them.
I probably wouldn't even disagree that it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. My problem is that we don't ever reach the conclusion that, every time we pull the puppet strings, unforeseen 'bad things' almost always follow as a result.
I'm far from a 'blame America first' guy, but I don't think we should automatically offer blanket absolution.
I noticed that you didn't answer the question. How would you feel about it if the shoe was on the other foot?
"As usual, the neocons and the chickenhawks have little logic and no facts to back up their false claims. No wonder the voters have turned against them and their false prophets."
Yeah, Ron Paultard is sure winning! Keep up the good work there Lew Rockwell...
PS: Like all other Paultards in history, you are an oxymoron wrapped in a hypocrite coated with some ignorance. In the same breath you praise the benefits of free markets, while praising the achievements of communist China in building super awesome...rail :) How did that work out for ya? Oh never-mind, I already know the answer. As all Paultards, the only REAL agenda is...anti-Americanism. Nothing else really matters as long as at the end of the day, you can blame it all on America and call everyone else in the room who doesn't agree with you some silly names like "neocon". And lets not forget, Milton Friedman was the devil.
You "people" put to shame anyone associated with free markets, or liberty. You're a chickensh*t cult of personality.
Paul, at the end of the day its always America's fault. This chickensh*t Paultard even once said that it was America's fault the people in the Balkans were killing themselves, because in his mind the Bosnians and Serbs would have stopped killing each other once their realized that...of frak I have no idea what he said!
You're talking to Stalin-worshipers here. There's not a single braincell of logic functioning in their head. They have one purpose and one purpose only: create elaborate conspiracy theories as to why its America's fault.
This chikensh*t has been confronted multiple times before on this subject. it never made a dent in him before. He's never actually addressed the fact that Mosadegh STOLE the private property of international companies in Iran. To him, thats perfectly ok, because "its not America".
This chickensh*t also used to sing the praises of Communist China...saying how awesome their infrastructure building was, how great their trains were and how great the ceiling of their airport was. Why? Because it wasn't America. This was of course before even China had to admit what a pile of garbage their rail network is, nor is he quite capable of understanding that China needs rail because it doesn't have AIRPORTS.
There's only one modus operandi for Paultards: Blame America. And if Paultards have to praise the tyrants of Iran, new or old, or the tyrants of China, or whoever, to make their Blame-America point, so be it. Its all in the name of "liberty"...you now!
The problem with Ron Paul is simple: the man is completely ignorant, a creepy old dude, and addresses every issue in a deeply ideological and cultish bend. And he's a liar. And he's a racist freak (don't think for a minute that his articles on South Africa aren't going to pop up election time)
It matters not one bit that he is "pro liberty" or whatever other "pro or anti" of the day is. The man is a cult leader. He harms US...who fight for free markets and free people...more than he harms the "statists". The sooner he dissapears form the political scene, the sooner people will stop associating "libertarians" with the creepy 40 year old pothead living in his mother's basement who raves on about Gold and tries to get everyone to listen to the latest Lew Rockwell podcast.
That ain't being pro liberty or pro free markets. Thats being a cult member.
AIG,
umad bro?
The problem with Ron Paul is simple: the man is completely ignorant, a creepy old dude, and addresses every issue in a deeply ideological and cultish bend.
If he were so ignorant why is the rest of the field talking about the same issues that he was talking about during the last election cycle? And why was he able to predict in 2002 what is taking place today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o&feature=related
And he was certainly right about Iraq, fighting undeclared wars, and the folly of being the policeman of the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWpICzxteMk&feature=related
And he's a liar.
Actually, he is the only candidate who has stood on principle and has been willing to say things that he knows are not popular. When the left and right were falling all over themselves to go to war Dr. Paul warned Congress that it could not delegate its power to declare war, that a President should NOT follow UN resolutions, and that Christians did not believe in offensive wars.
And he's a racist freak (don't think for a minute that his articles on South Africa aren't going to pop up election time)
Nonsense. Dr. Paul is colour blind. He has made it clear that what matters is principle and character, not colour.
It matters not one bit that he is "pro liberty" or whatever other "pro or anti" of the day is.
But it does. Liberty does matter and he is the only pro-liberty candidate on either side.
The man is a cult leader. He harms US...who fight for free markets and free people...more than he harms the "statists".
Actually, he has stood for free markets and free people the entire time he has been in Congress. None of the other candidates have as good a record on that front.
The sooner he dissapears form the political scene, the sooner people will stop associating "libertarians" with the creepy 40 year old pothead living in his mother's basement who raves on about Gold and tries to get everyone to listen to the latest Lew Rockwell podcast.
The idea of liberty does not disappear no matter how many pro-war corporatists or socialists are elected.
Paul, at the end of the day its always America's fault. This chickensh*t Paultard even once said that it was America's fault the people in the Balkans were killing themselves, because in his mind the Bosnians and Serbs would have stopped killing each other once their realized that...of frak I have no idea what he said!
No. He said that the war against Serbia was illegal because it was not declared as required by the Congress. He recognized that there was evil taking place but argued that one evil could not be used to justify another.
You're talking to Stalin-worshipers here. There's not a single braincell of logic functioning in their head. They have one purpose and one purpose only: create elaborate conspiracy theories as to why its America's fault.
What I am seeing is the worship of power on your part. Talk about a cultist.
This chikensh*t has been confronted multiple times before on this subject. it never made a dent in him before. He's never actually addressed the fact that Mosadegh STOLE the private property of international companies in Iran. To him, thats perfectly ok, because "its not America".
No. He said that putting a tyrant to rule over a population that did not want him was not a very good idea because it would lead to a bad end for the United States. He was certainly right on that front. As he has been on the other issues that you disagree with him.
This chickensh*t also used to sing the praises of Communist China...saying how awesome their infrastructure building was, how great their trains were and how great the ceiling of their airport was. Why? Because it wasn't America. This was of course before even China had to admit what a pile of garbage their rail network is, nor is he quite capable of understanding that China needs rail because it doesn't have AIRPORTS.
China does not have airports? That explains your ignorance on the other topics that you have been bringing up. You write from emotion, not facts or logic.
Shanghai Pudong Airport
Beijing Airport
Xi'an Airport
China has spent a great deal more on airports and has built more runways control towers and waiting rooms than the US over the past decade. And if you have paid attention you would know that Dr. Paul has been opposing the US trying to become like Communist China. He only praises China when it liberalizes the economy and increases freedom.
Try doing some research and back up your false claims with actual words said or written by Dr. Paul.
Ok, so not even prior service in an infantry related field counts. Duly noted. How about if I want house fires put out? Do I have to join the fire department? If I want to fight crime, do I need to join the police department?
You are missing the point. You have the right to use your body, money and mind as you see fit as long as you do not initiate force against others. But the argument is about forcing others to do and support what you want done. You want to send your military men and women to fight and die in undeclared wars (which are not constitutional) and you want them to kill civilians. That is wrong. And that is why you are a chickenhawk. You want them to do what you yourself are not willing to do.
I don't know what to say to that other than nobody with any credibility takes Iran's elections at face value. That leaves, among others, the Ron Paul cultists.
You are avoiding the point. They are just as legitimate as the elections in your client states. And the US government has not said anything about those elections.
Nonsense. Iran's vote is rigged, there was no way for Achmadinejad to lose. What is your evidence that Bush did anything out of the usual to "push voters" towards Achmadinehjad? You just make shit up. Pathetic.
You really are ignorant. Achmadinehjad is not a popular man among the Mullahs and is a threat to their power. He was supposed to lose the last election but won thanks to Bush's idiotic comments that were used as a part of his campaign to show that he could stand up to the US while his opponent could not.
Some actual reading on the subject may help you.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory in late June was a surprise for pundits both inside and outside Iran. Not only did the proverbial favorite Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani not win, but the turnout was around 60% in both rounds, so the much-debated election boycott did not reduce participation to historic lows. Ahmadinejad, Tehran’s mayor, with the help of the security-military apparatus, mobilized his conservative base in the first round of balloting to force an unprecedented second-round runoff against Hashemi-Rafsanjani. The mayor then reached out to the political independent masses to win over 60% of the vote. The unpredictability and close nature of the result (as well as of Mohammad Khatami’s victory in 1997) are especially significant in the Middle East, where elections, when they do occur, are often formalities.
Funny how you just told me the assesement came from the Bush Administration. I guess you were trying to slip one of the patented Vangel slippery statements past me.
It did come from the Bush Administration idiot. That is who the intelligence analysts serve. It was their conclusion that Iran had given up on the idea of building a nuclear bomb in 2003. The fact that Bush's neocons did not like that conclusion does not change anything. The experts who worked for the Bush Administration concluded that the political operatives in the Bush Administration were wrong.
We note that the same was true when it came to the Iraq lies. The intelligence analysts knew that the Niger evidence had been forged. They knew that secular Iraq was no friend of al Qaeda and that there were not WMDs in Iraq. But their political masters chose to lie to Congress, the UN, and the American people and the idiots and cowards in Congress were more than happy to let Bush do as he pleased by waging an undeclared war.
Vangel,
"You want to send your military men and women to fight and die in undeclared wars (which are not constitutional)"
When necessary, yeah. Get lost with that "Constitutional" argument. I'd prefer a war declaration, but that's not apparently how we do things any more. An AUMF is good enough.
"..and you want them to kill civilians."
And you're a scumbag. Prove to me I want them to kill civilians. I'm tired of your constant lies. You said something similiar just a couple weeks ago when you said the US "applauded the death of children." Liar. Liar. Liar.
"That is wrong. And that is why you are a chickenhawk. You want them to do what you yourself are not willing to do."
The same could be said of firemen and police. You have zero logic, you're just throwing bricks hoping they land. Pathetic.
"They are just as legitimate as the elections in your client states."
"client states." oh, what a good little Chomskyite you are, Vangel. Well, our "client states" aren't officially threatening to blow up the Jews and the Great Satan. Think that might create a different standard?
"Achmadinehjad is not a popular man among the Mullahs and is a threat to their power. "
And so there is a struggle inside the country right now being two sets of savages. So? I didn't say otherwise.
"He was supposed to lose the last election but won thanks to Bush's idiotic comments that were used as a part of his campaign to show that he could stand up to the US while his opponent could not."
Yes, the "idiotic" comments that urged more freedom for the Iranian people. You're the same guy always calling other people "statists" and other stupid cliches you Ron Paul robots like to use.
"Some actual reading on the subject may help you. "
I LOVE that you linked from the IPS, a Marxist think tank. You and your Chomskyite brethren might find their information useful, decent people who are pro-freedom do not. Got anything from the "Daily Worker?" In any case, most people who are not apologists for the murdering mullahs believe the election was rigged.
Hey, did the IPS also tell you we gave Saddam Hussein tanks and automatic weapons?
One other thing, what happened to the "US created " Al Qaeda bullshit? You can't even defend your pathetic lies anymore, can you?
"You want to send your military men and women to fight and die in undeclared wars (which are not constitutional)"
When necessary, yeah. Get lost with that "Constitutional" argument. I'd prefer a war declaration, but that's not apparently how we do things any more. An AUMF is good enough.
Lost in your logic is that the country is not worth fighting for if it no longer adheres to the principles of liberty and limited government that are the basis of the Constitution. It seems to me that you hate American liberty and would have little problem with authoritarianism.
And you're a scumbag. Prove to me I want them to kill civilians. I'm tired of your constant lies. You said something similiar just a couple weeks ago when you said the US "applauded the death of children." Liar. Liar. Liar.
What do you think happens when drones shoot up wedding parties to get a possible person of interest? Or when you send young men to patrol areas where the population hates them?
The same could be said of firemen and police. You have zero logic, you're just throwing bricks hoping they land. Pathetic.
Firemen and policemen sign up to protect people and their property. Your soldiers did not sign up to invade countries and fight undeclared wars. They are expected to defend the Constitution, not to help those that would violate it score political points.
"client states." oh, what a good little Chomskyite you are, Vangel. Well, our "client states" aren't officially threatening to blow up the Jews and the Great Satan. Think that might create a different standard?
Of course they are. Where do you think that the people who attacked you on 9/11 come from? They were Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, and Egypt. There were no Iraqis or Persians. And most of the money came from Saudi Arabia. Notice the pattern?
And so there is a struggle inside the country right now being two sets of savages. So? I didn't say otherwise.
Actually, you did. You said that the elections were fixed and that the winner was known. Had you done any reading or known anything about the region you would not have made your statements of ignorance.
Yes, the "idiotic" comments that urged more freedom for the Iranian people. You're the same guy always calling other people "statists" and other stupid cliches you Ron Paul robots like to use.
The facts are clear. The statements gave Ahmadinejad the victory. Bush helped elect him.
I LOVE that you linked from the IPS, a Marxist think tank. You and your Chomskyite brethren might find their information useful, decent people who are pro-freedom do not. Got anything from the "Daily Worker?" In any case, most people who are not apologists for the murdering mullahs believe the election was rigged.
You are using lefty tactics. When you can't argue with the facts you look for a straw man to knock down. I have no problem quoting any source that can back up what it says with a link to the original data. The fact that you choose to ignore the data is your problem, not mine.
Hey, did the IPS also tell you we gave Saddam Hussein tanks and automatic weapons?
No need.
Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq
Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush
One other thing, what happened to the "US created " Al Qaeda bullshit? You can't even defend your pathetic lies anymore, can you?
It did create al Qaeda. It armed, trained, and funded the group to kill Soviets. Richard Clark pointed this out in his books and has been very clear about the failure of both the CIA and the government to protect Americans.
I have no idea how you can be as ignorant as you pretend to be. First you claim that countries like Saudi Arabia are not as much of a threat as Iran even as you ignore that al Qaeda was funded by Saudi money and that most of the terrorists were Saudis. Now you claim not to know anything about the connections between the CIA and al Qaeda. Do some reading please. You have been given the references a number of times.
Post a Comment
<< Home