National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.
While giving credit to Newt’s positive characteristics, it has come to the same conclusion that I have. Not Newt.
I, like many other conservatives, have spent months searching for the anybody but Romney candidate. Newt’s comeback in the polls after a disastrous and what I thought fatal start is as startling as its effect on me. I am now searching for the anybody but Newt candidate.
Look, Newt is a smart fella and I can even relegate the marital peccadilloes to the past, but Newt is still Newt.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. But Newt can/will destroy us (conservatives). Newt will blow up, either as a candidate or as a President and he will take the entire conservative movement with him. His hubris and his flightiness will end up alienating just about everyone. You know how I know this? Because that is what Newt always does.
While he had successes as Speaker, he ended up the most unpopular figure in the country, both left and right. As a pundit, he has done the same thing. And as a candidate, the same thing. Newt blows up. That is what Newt does.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. He says many of the right things now, but his record is the stuff of schizoid legend. But even if Romney only believes half of what he now claims to believe and the rest is pandering, I might take that. At least the pandering recognizes there is a base he must satisfy. Newt doesn’t care because he knows he is smarter than me and you. It is we who must change our opinion before Newt changes his.
Romney is no conservative, I know that. But I think that I prefer the guy who at least pretends to be.
I am still a supporter of Santorum. Notwithstanding a dramatic showing in Iowa, I must accept that 4% is 4% and I might not have that choice. But if I had to choose between Newt and Mitt, I think I choose Mitt. Call it risk mitigation.
December 15, 2011 at 9:54 pm
@Maggie:
Ignorant and accurate are two different things. One may be accurate and still ignorant. Sigh… is my point that unclear? I am saying: that statement of historical fact is IRRELEVANT and ignorant of EVERY OTHER historical fact that supports my position. It is a non-sequiturious statement of history.
"Speculating about motivations behind use of nuclear weapons is largely based on opinion."
I have edited and toned down my response to that line 3 times now. As I do not want to be as insulting to you as you were to me.
However, it is a ridiculous thing to say.
1. Discernment of the motivations of man is always based on opinion. Unless you are God.
2. We are not talking about buying shoes. We are talking about nuclear weapons. We do not have the luxury to suppose that maybe they are LYING about their ENTIRE THEOCRACY and everything they have said about their plans to destroy Israel, and their need to destroy the United States, etc.
This is my whole point. Ignore this at MY peril and the peril of every other person. That is unbelievably… you know what? I don't even have words for it.
I would beg you and anyone else who believes that they know that Iran has peaceful intentions to educate themselves, pray, and then ask yourself if your comfort and the comfort and ease of your family and every other family in this country is a fair trade off to the possibility of us all being dead. Ask yourself if you think it is morally correct to risk it. Ask yourself if it is morally correct to NOT learn about what really motivates them and why they are not like any other country or movement. (Do you know who the 12th imam is yet?)
Do you doubt that Al-Qaeda would nuke us if they could? Would you let them have a nuke? What would you be willing to do to stop them? Are you willing to bet the lives or your family that Iran won't give them one?
UTP out:
God bless. Really.
December 15, 2011 at 10:30 pm
@Used to post
"You say talk about polemics and naivete, then you go on to bash everyone else, calling them "clowns" and just flat out state that RP will not threaten our national security"
True enough. I shouldn't have used the word 'clown'
I also didn't type it right the first time. What I meant to say in my post is that RP may preach getting out of everyone elses' backyard, but covert and special forces missions in conjunction with Mossad will happen and continue to happen on a more frequent basis, as we saw just a few days ago at the nuke plant. I like that style of warfare. Let's send in small groups to do big damage to evil, rather than putting 200,000 men in the desert.
Just like Obama, the manila folders that land on any president's desk will drastically change what actually gets implemented, and what gets talked about a lot.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-supports-george-w-bushs-foreign-policy/
The link is to a video that is just clips of GWB running in 2000. He almost perfectly articulates RP's own foreign policy. I think both men are correct. A dozen 9/11s won't change my belief that this version of GWB's foriegn policy continues to be the best chance we have today. As a sustainable policy for the country, and as something which the republican brand desperately needs.
Iran's threat is real and it might be imminent. But we will never really know just what intel is out there, and how it's being acted upon. A President Paul simply wouldn't have the means to just yank the carpet out from under the military, although sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers into foreign countries for "nation building" would be a thing of the past. I welcome that policy with open arms.
Another thing: We just suspended millions of dollars to a nuclear-armed country who is giving shelter to the very people we are actually fighting at the moment. That seems like a more immanent threat than the Iranians trying to keep the sand out of their beakers long enough to figure out how to make a bomb.
There's also North Korea (remember them?!). Are we going to send in soldiers to these two countries? What if Russia defends Iran or NK? Active American foreign policy is an endless rabbit hole of hypotheticals, and a great platform to run on is to say that you will engage it as little as possible. I think it's over-the-top to say that a vote for a person means everyone gets nuked.
No, pulling out of every conflict area in the world won't make some of the leaders and imams of Islamic countries stop seeking the restoration of the caliphate, or the subjugation of secularism in the world, or the end of democracy. But it does seem like these days, every tyranny that that is shattered is replaced with something worse. We certainly aren't making the world any happier with all the money we are pouring out. So, let's try something differet.
I guess making two posts defending Ron Paul now cristens me as a 'PaulBot'. I'm thirsty– someone get me some koolaid?
December 15, 2011 at 10:44 pm
@homer:
HEY NOW! THAT was a cool response! Very refreshing to actually have some well-thought out and articulated points out there rather than the same drivel we've been seeing. I want to answer and will when I have a bit more time. Duty calls at the moment, but I appreciated this.
one quick thing: again – I was never discussing any particular type of preferred warfare or solution. My very simple point was that it is insane and inane to suggest that it's "okay" for Iran to have a nuke. It isn't. (Ex. you never saw me suggesting 200k troops anywhere. diff topic all together.) gotta split, but thanks for being logical at least!
December 16, 2011 at 12:28 am
So the great pro-life "conservative" Catholic Blogger is endorsing commie faux conservative Mormon Mitt Romney???
That is certainly your right but just MAYBE you should shut the heck up about Obama because they are indistinguishable.
Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks.
December 16, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Says the anonymous poster.
And how this article can be read as an endorsement of Romney is beyond me. Saying the equivalent of "I'd rather eat 5 pounds of broken glass than vote for Romney, but he's better than Newt" is quite the rousing endorsement, isn't it? It's sure to motivate the readers of this blog to run out and support Romney.
December 17, 2011 at 1:09 pm
"Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks."
I would personally like to than the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country.
December 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm
"Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks."
I would personally like to thank the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country.
December 17, 2011 at 1:42 pm
"I would personally like to thank the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country."
This is what passes for rebuttal of specific points in Neocon think, ridicule and smear while ignoring the points, straight out of Alinskys playbook.
December 17, 2011 at 1:48 pm
"This is what passes for rebuttal of specific points in Neocon think, ridicule and smear while ignoring the points, straight out of Alinskys playbook."
No points were made, only abusive insults slung by someone too cowardly to post under his own name. The reference to Alinsky of course is merely another slur, completely devoid of substantive content.
December 17, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Don, if there's anyone rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country it's you and your parrots at TAC. Any group of people who can't or won't understand that
Martin Luther King was a radical socialist surrounded by Communists, who was an out of control sex addict, and who deliberately provoked violence in his so called 'non-violent' demonstrations are certainly doing their part to keep the tinfoil industry alive!
Oh,btw, Mr Zummo, since you won't go to Lew Rockwell.Com to read that article about King by Epstein, why don't you go to RenewAmerica.Com instead. They have several articles about your great hero that say the same things I have said about him. Or are those people 'racist nutjobs' too? Remember, TAC and RA both sponser Real Catholic TV so maybe you should read those articles to see if you're wearing your tinfoil hat too tight.
December 17, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Stephen, still smarting because I banned you from TAC? You'll get over it. I banned you because you are obviously eaten up with hate of blacks and jews.
A typical example of a comment from you in the thread you referenced:
"Don, E Michael Jones would disagree with you on all your replys to Kevin J. in his book “The Slaughter Of The Cities” he documents that the destruction of the inner cities was planned by liberal social enginers to deliberately destroy Catholic neighbourhoods and in “The Revolutionary Jew” he shows that the so-called “Civil Rights” movement was created and controled by liberal New York Jews, not to help blacks gain their rights, but to use the Blacks to achieve their own goals of political aggrandizement. heck the only black guy they had on board for years was W.E.B DuBois, who ironically was a segregationist and a spporter of Planned parenthood.(Then called the American birth Control League.)"
Here is a link to the post and comment thread at The American Catholic:
http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/10/18/the-rev-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-memorial-preaching-civil-rights-without-a-mention-of-their-divine-origin/
My closing comment Stephen to you is the same admonition I gave you in that threat:
"Blacks were denied their rights Stephen because of simple racism. Your attempts to justify it are wrong. If you had been born with a black skin instead of a white skin you would regard such attempts to justify the treatment of Blacks as third class helots as completely shameful, which, indeed, they are."
December 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Uncomfortable and ignored facts are that the NAACP was founded by Jewish whites, the Catholic slaughtering Bolshevik leadership was disproportionately comprised of Jewish intellectuals and the slaughter of Christians by those Jewish led commies dwarfs the German extermination of Jews. "Man of the cloth" MLK was a communist, plagiarizing serial adulterer. Is making people aware of these facts racist and anti-semitic? No, merely politically incorrect. And whose purposes does it serve to ignore and demonize truth? Banning people who speak truth simply hurts your own site, people will eventually understand what is going on and go where they are not lied to.
December 17, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Furthermore, to cry crocodile tears over the racism suffered by blacks of a previous generation by perpetrators of another generation while CALLING for the current extermination of Muslims who have done nothing to us reeks of hypocrisy. People are flawed but their natural habit is to desire to associate with their own kind. To force association is a recipe for trouble. Bigotry is simply to believe that your way is superior than other ways. Are we not all bigots? Shouldn't we be? Why is having a belief in the superiority of your own traditions and values, your own ethnic group "wrong" and who decided this?
December 17, 2011 at 5:07 pm
CALLING for the current extermination of Muslims who have done nothing to us reeks of hypocrisy.
No one is calling for the extermination of Muslims. That you resort to this bit of infantile fantasy just further illustrates that you people are all a couple of cards – probably an entire suit – of a full deck.
December 17, 2011 at 5:17 pm
I'm I still smarting from being banned from TAC? Nope Don, I've got a really thick hide. BTW, thanks for posting that link to your site and that article. People who are not 'McCleary's Parrots' will notice that all my argements against King are based on the man's politics, lack of Chrstian faith and his sexual degeneracy, not his race. You and your parrots were the ones who injected racism into the discussion as a dishonest means of discrediting my facts. As a Catholic and an officer of the court you should be ashamed to such unethical tactics in winning an arguement.
December 17, 2011 at 9:26 pm
"No one is calling for the extermination of Muslims."
Yes. Attacking Iran, Iraq, and every other Muslim country Israel dislikes is just to "spread democracy" because "they hate our freedoms". LOL!
" That you resort to this bit of infantile fantasy just further illustrates that you people are all a couple of cards – probably an entire suit – of a full deck."
Predictable lame Neocon Trotskyite smear. Boring.
December 18, 2011 at 12:01 pm
"As a Catholic and an officer of the court you should be ashamed to such unethical tactics in winning an argument."
Hilarious Stephen, but that is the most charitable construction of all your comments in that thread regarding blacks and Jews.
"Predictable lame Neocon Trotskyite smear. Boring."
Neocon and Trotskyite are typical, and boring, substitutes for thoughts resorted to by anonymous Paulbots on the internet. Few political movements in our history have been as devoid of anything appproaching reasoned argument by its acolytes.
December 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm
"Neocon and Trotskyite are typical, and boring, substitutes for thoughts resorted to by anonymous Paulbots on the internet. Few political movements in our history have been as devoid of anything appproaching reasoned argument by its acolytes."
And the "Paulbot" smear, yawn, you guys need some new marginalizations. People are starting to see how you would rather call names than make substantive arguments (which you hilariously accuse me of) …but that WAS Lenins tactic. It just doesn't work as well on the internet where people can read for themselves. As for being anonymous, I don't know or care who the heck you are, you may think you are a hotshot but it is only the ideas that are important. Never heard of "Publius"?
December 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Brave Anonymous, when attempting to respond to an argument it is best not to simply reaffirm, by one's own response, as you just did, the accuracy of your opponent's observation.
December 18, 2011 at 8:40 pm
LOL! Not even close. Anonymity bothers you because it is harder to distract readers from the points with ad hominem, the focus is kept on the argument rather than personalities. You are not an opponent until you at least attempt to prove me wrong…and calling me a "Paulbot" and alluding to tinfoil hats is name calling and smearing to marginalize. THAT is what is cowardly. And that technique of marginalizing viewpoints with which you disagree rather than taking the time to prove them wrong is out of the Alinsky playbook, like it or not.