Gotta love that O’Reilly thinks the American taxpayer needs to be FORCED to cough up money for the defense of South Korea. Another example of O’Reilly blatantly disregarding the Constitution when it doesn’t suit his purpose.

Just_MC said:
Gotta love that O’Reilly thinks the American taxpayer needs to be FORCED to cough up money for the defense of South Korea. Another example of O’Reilly blatantly disregarding the Constitution when it doesn’t suit his purpose.

What part of the Constitution says tax money can’t be used to assist our allies?

ImNotBlue said:
What part of the Constitution says tax money can’t be used to assist our allies?

First, I would offer that the Constitution specifically GRANTS powers to the federal government. Anything not granted to the Feds EXPLICITLY is denied. The 10th Amendment makes that perfectly clear. So, I would start by asking you, what part of the Constitution grants the power to hand out money to “allies”?

And BTW, “provide for the common defense” is the defense of the USA. We don’t need Korea to defend the USA, and defending the USA is defending it from attack, not the concern that we might someday be attacked.

Ron Paul has no chance, did he win the primary against McCain? Not even close.

No Smokers Need Apply: Why you should care even if you don’t smoke.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/02/no-smokers-need-apply-why-you-should.html

Things were a lot different in 2008 than they are today. People are ready for a candidate that understands economic issues. All the candidates will act like they do but only Paul actually KNOWS it. The fact that McCain won the nomination says more about the people of this country (particularly in 2008) than it does about McCain. I pray that Americans will wake up and realize that 99% of the people running for President only want to control their lives and spend their money. Ron Paul wants to return this country to it’s prior greatness as a constitutional republic that respects people’s freedoms.

Btw, ImNotBlue is a perfect example of someone that scares me since they probably vote. This person has no clue what the Constitution is about yet they feel they have some intellectual high ground, which only makes them look that much more ignorant.

South Korea has one of the largest economies in the world, and a modern military force quite capable of defending itself against the North.

We’ve stabilized S. Korea for over 60 years with American taxpayer dollars, and it’s time for them to own their own defense from now on. Same for Japan and Germany.

d21clt said:
Things were a lot different in 2008 than they are today. People are ready for a candidate that understands economic issues. All the candidates will act like they do but only Paul actually KNOWS it. The fact that McCain won the nomination says more about the people of this country (particularly in 2008) than it does about McCain. I pray that Americans will wake up and realize that 99% of the people running for President only want to control their lives and spend their money. Ron Paul wants to return this country to it’s prior greatness as a constitutional republic that respects people’s freedoms.

A-MEN. Keep the faith.

Regards,

MC

Just_MC said:
First, I would offer that the Constitution specifically GRANTS powers to the federal government. Anything not granted to the Feds EXPLICITLY is denied. The 10th Amendment makes that perfectly clear. So, I would start by asking you, what part of the Constitution grants the power to hand out money to “allies”? And BTW, “provide for the common defense” is the defense of the USA. We don’t need Korea to defend the USA, and defending the USA is defending it from attack, not the concern that we might someday be attacked.

I understand what you’re saying about not “needing” Korea to defend the US. But at the same time, we cannot become isolationists. Having global interests, and the support of other nations in times of peace, is needed if this nation is to be prosperous and safe. In times of conflict, you can’t go around with your hand out saying, “Can we have some help now, please.” Especially not to nations that we’ve ignored… after all, if we’re not willing to help them, why would they be willing to help us?

Now whether or not current levels are really needed is highly debatable… and something I’m not really prepared to argue now. But as a principle, the United States has to have friends across the globe. And while we should take care of those within our own borders first, ignoring the rest of the planet is only something that will bite us in the butt later.

d21clt said:
Btw, ImNotBlue is a perfect example of someone that scares me since they probably vote. This person has no clue what the Constitution is about yet they feel they have some intellectual high ground, which only makes them look that much more ignorant.

Well, I hope I don’t scare you too much. I believe all I did was ask a question, to clarify MC’s point.

Is that a problem?

Here’s what worries ME, about the Ron Paul supporters… they’re so fanatical, that anyone who questions (or more aptly doesn’t go along with) Paul, they get very upset with. They’re essentially the same as the angry-left, but with a different cultish personality at the top.

Ron Paul has some good ideas, and personally I’m happy that the Republicans have him around. He’s the voice in the party that is supposed to keep them from veering too far off track, and falling into the traps of politics. BUT, he cannot win a national election. His view are far too idealistic and theoretical to entice enough of the country to vote for him. To me, he operates in the “in a perfect world we would” line of thought… but we don’t live in that world, and it’s going to take more than just ourselves to get there.

Again, I think Paul has some really interesting things to say, and am glad he gets enough support that the media is forced to take notice. But as a Presidential candidate, he simply doesn’t have the numbers.

As for you, d21… I hope you continue to support Paul. But, if you believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a “danger” or “scary,” then you’re no better than the most extreme elements of the opposition. He is a politician… not a spiritual leader, not the head of a cult, and not the messiah. Just a politician. Dial it on down, dude.

Funny, Fox News used last years CPAC winner announcement to make it seem that Ron Paul was being booed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwo0Iyrh1Zk
I voted for Dr. Paul in 2008 and will again in 2012! Run Ron Run!!

Ron Paul is probably the only one that would be able to draw support from all sides though.

ImNotBlue said:
I understand what you’re saying about not “needing” Korea to defend the US. But at the same time, we cannot become isolationists. Having global interests, and the support of other nations in times of peace, is needed if this nation is to be prosperous and safe. In times of conflict, you can’t go around with your hand out saying, “Can we have some help now, please.” Especially not to nations that we’ve ignored… after all, if we’re not willing to help them, why would they be willing to help us? Now whether or not current levels are really needed is highly debatable… and something I’m not really prepared to argue now. But as a principle, the United States has to have friends across the globe. And while we should take care of those within our own borders first, ignoring the rest of the planet is only something that will bite us in the butt later. Well, I hope I don’t scare you too much. I believe all I did was ask a question, to clarify MC’s point. Is that a problem? Here’s what worries ME, about the Ron Paul supporters… they’re so fanatical, that anyone who questions (or more aptly doesn’t go along with) Paul, they get very upset with. They’re essentially the same as the angry-left, but with a different cultish personality at the top. Ron Paul has some good ideas, and personally I’m happy that the Republicans have him around. He’s the voice in the party that is supposed to keep them from veering too far off track, and falling into the traps of politics. BUT, he cannot win a national election. His view are far too idealistic and theoretical to entice enough of the country to vote for him. To me, he operates in the “in a perfect world we would” line of thought… but we don’t live in that world, and it’s going to take more than just ourselves to get there. Again, I think Paul has some really interesting things to say, and am glad he gets enough support that the media is forced to take notice. But as a Presidential candidate, he simply doesn’t have the numbers. As for you, d21… I hope you continue to support Paul. But, if you believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a “danger” or “scary,” then you’re no better than the most extreme elements of the opposition. He is a politician… not a spiritual leader, not the head of a cult, and not the messiah. Just a politician. Dial it on down, dude.

Your core points are mantras.

“We can’t be isolationist.” First, isolationism is cutting off the world entirely. Trading peacefully with the world instead of invading it is NOT isolationism.

“Ron Paul can’t win.” Who says? Six years ago less than 1% of the population knew his name. Now he’s a household word anywhere the GOP is seriously discussed. They said we’d never have a black President too. (Well, half black.)

“His views are too theoretical.” Actually, they’re perfectly practical and they represent the liberty that gave us the prosperity we’ve since squandered. While all the establishment GOP hacks rolled their eyes during the debates, arguing about distactions like flag burning and gay marriage, Ron Paul stood up and said the whole damned economy was crashing and we went to war on a lie. Since then, the whole damned economy has done nothing but crash and we found out that we went to war on a lie. Who’s “theoretical” and who is truly practical?

“We have to take care of our global interests.” What interests are those? And WHOSE are they? You mean, we need to keep our jackboot on other countries so we their sweatshops continue to feed us cheap goods that might otherwise be produced by Americans? Making a few people rich here, while keeping a bunch more out of work and a crippled middle class PAYING those unemployed not to work? You want to take chances with your capital overseas, TAKE YOUR CHANCES. But your fellow citizens are not responsible for providing thugs to keep your capital safe in other sovereign nations.

“We need to have friends.” So, South Korea, (who your side of the debate would say cannot defend themselves against a single neighbor) is going to come to OUR aid someday?! You’re kidding, right? The way to have real friends is to lead by example with a free and peaceful nation, not by neverending war and empire.

Ron Paul is the same person year after year which is something you can’t say about many politicians…he is totally in tune with what it will take to return our country to greatness. It is a shame that Bill O’Reily is that out of touch with the voting public. If I were he I would just go ahead and pay off the $1000.00. I voted for Dr. Paul before and can’t wait to do it again if he decides to run…………….did you say “fanatical” I’m Not Blue???????You talk too much.

Just_MC said:

I’m not going to go over every point, because well… it’s not really needed. But you illustrate my point very well, and why it’s good that the Republicans have Paul around. The arguments you make are persuasive, and help the party as a whole. We need that voice in Congress, and we’re lucky that he does it so passionately.

That said, I still don’t believe he could garner the excitement and respect needed to mount a successful national campaign. There are too many drastic changes (again, not saying they would or wouldn’t be good) that he would want to implement, and people would be turned off and worried about how it will really effect them. I just think that Paul is better suited to be a “Congressman with influence,” than to waste his time running for a role he cannot possibly get.

Also, ignore those on the angry left who say they’d support Paul. What they really mean is, “We hate Paul less than the rest of the Republicans.” But make no mistake, if he became the candidate, he’d receive the same charges of racism, and so on that any Republican is destined to hear.

euda said:
I voted for Dr. Paul before and can’t wait to do it again if he decides to run…………….did you say “fanatical” I’m Not Blue???????You talk too much.

Yes, thank you.

ImNotBlue said:
Here’s what worries ME, about the Ron Paul supporters… they’re so fanatical, that anyone who questions (or more aptly doesn’t go along with) Paul, they get very upset with.

First, I think if you honestly look, you’ll see one of two phenomena in all parts of the political spectrum The first is, among the passionate believers, a similar fire and intensity. Second, alternatively is a lack of fire and passion, manifested in a cynical willingness to make deals and sellout principles. These people are viewed, in the circle of whores, as “reasonable” and “willing to compromise.” Except that what they are is willing to compromise on how much of someone else’s money they get to take. It’s easy to be “willing to give ground” when you’re playing with house (read: “TAXPAYERS’) money.

Next, I think that among Ron Paul supporters, the intensity is that when you look at the two groups I described, the passionate principled and the sellouts, the Ron Paul supporters are virtually 100% passionate, principled supporters. Certainly the percentage of these is far higher than among the establishment left or right. So, I think the very intensity that might scare you at first is actually a good sign, not a bad one, even if it might seem unsettling at first.

Last, I would offer another perspective that is critical. At its core, libertarianism is a love of freedom, and a rejection of those who threaten and steal with force. America is being looted and turned into a police state. Those who push all their insanity would get less passionate blowback if they didn’t FORCE it on everyone. If the establishment big-government left and right would let people OPT OUT of all their policies, that would be one thing. But the won’t. And the reason is that thieves don’t let their victims opt out. The essence of both the establishment left AND right is THEFT and THUGGERY. So, one shouldn’t be surprised if the victims are thoroughly sick of the “reasonable” thieves who’ve been compromising on the split of the victims’ stolen goods.

ImNotBlue said:
Also, ignore those on the angry left who say they’d support Paul. What they really mean is, “We hate Paul less than the rest of the Republicans.” But make no mistake, if he became the candidate, he’d receive the same charges of racism, and so on that any Republican is destined to hear.

You are absolutely right about this. There are lots of independents whom Paul could attract, but those committed to leftist redistribution do NOT like Paul except when he sits as a congressman and votes FOR civil liberties and against non-defensive war.

The last note I will offer is this. Right now the establishment of both major parties is STATIST, BIG GOVERNMENT. The revolt that has started with the Tea Party movement is primarily motivated by demands for FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

The Democrats’ rhetoric is for big government and redistribution. The GOP’s is not, but that is how they behave. People have figured this out. The libertarian movement, the core of the Tea Party movement, has given the Republicans one last chance and the GOP is ALREADY selling out. The Republican party will DIE as an impotent, can’t-get-over-42%-and-shrinking party if they don’t change their stripes soon. If Romney, Huckabee, or any of the other usual suspects get the nod, the GOP is doomed. They’d better find SOMEONE who is anti-establishment or they literally don’t stand a chance.

The Republicans have two choices.

Change, and become a party of REAL small government.

Or die.

I’m Not Blue, good speaking with you.

Regards,

MC

ImNotBlue said:
I understand what you’re saying about not “needing” Korea to defend the US. But at the same time, we cannot become isolationists. Having global interests, and the support of other nations in times of peace, is needed if this nation is to be prosperous and safe. In times of conflict, you can’t go around with your hand out saying, “Can we have some help now, please.” Especially not to nations that we’ve ignored… after all, if we’re not willing to help them, why would they be willing to help us?

Now whether or not current levels are really needed is highly debatable… and something I’m not really prepared to argue now. But as a principle, the United States has to have friends across the globe. And while we should take care of those within our own borders first, ignoring the rest of the planet is only something that will bite us in the butt later.

Withdrawing forces is not the same as isolationism. It does put us in the drivers seat, however, of our foreign policy. Instead of wedding us to static situations and long term engagements that detracts from our ability to impact hot spots, we gain the ability to husband our resources and use our resources when and where it most benefits us. A state that’s free to parcel out it’s power to chosen suitors gains influence and becomes nimble. A state that is tied to other countries’ borders becomes defensive and predictable.

If our allies are so weak that you suspect they’ll falter in our absence, perhaps we should reassess the good of our long term commitments. I know you to be a conservative, and can well understand the impact of long-term dependency on government handouts. Over time, they come to be seen as entitlements, and those who receive them are prone to factor for them as a given and begin to rely on them for their existence. Perhaps, this way, you can see the same can also apply to nation states. States have come to see the American presence as fact of life and no longer look to themselves to provide a state’s basic duty of self defense. Instead, they become lazy and indulgent, criticize us, even at work at times against our national policies, all under the safety and security we provide. How have conservatives come to view the world in terms that progressives are most comfortable; the engenderment of dependency?

BTW, Paul is not unelectable. That’s not to say that he’s the more preferable, but the arguements he brings to the table are legitimate and valuable to our country.

Not sure why O’Reilly is bashing the GOP’s best hope for 2012

I like Ron Paul, but O’Reilly is right. The vast majority of Americans don’t embrace his doctrinaire libertarian views. The thing with Paul is, he’s dogmatic, very principled and not tempered. He will never pander to advance his cause. These attributes while very commendable are an achilles heel for a candidate aspiring for much higher office like that of the POTUS.

Just_MC said:
I’m Not Blue, good speaking with you. Regards, MC

LOL, who gives, of all things, THIS post a thumbs down? Armwood, that you?

greg454 said:
Ron Paul has no chance, did he win the primary against McCain? Not even close.

Ron Paul topped McCain in 3 primaries for 08 and pretty close in a couple more

Come on, Bill-o. Stick your neck out. Bet Stossel the morning fog may chill the air in San Francisco or the waving wheat sure smells sweet when the wind comes right behind the rain in Oklahoma.

I didn’t watch Bill-o last night. Merely this clip …. Was the entire segment as content-free as this?

Charles Krauthammer wasn’t any kinder: to Ron Paul last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWMDcyZL04

macombman said:
Charles Krauthammer wasn’t any kinder: to Ron Paul last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWMDcyZL04

The claws are out all over the right, aren’t they? It looks like Republicans and conservatives of the more traditional sort intend to have Gle(n)n O’Beckerhead, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul pretty scratched up soon.

Just_MC said:
I’m Not Blue, good speaking with you. Regards, MC

You too. I respect your passion, and your ability to articulate it so well.

Stossel accepted O’Reilly’s $1,000 wager for charity that Paul will not win one primary if he runs for President, and Stossel even attempts to raise the bet by predicting Paul would get more votes than Trump. However, O’Reilly restrains himself, not eager to be seen “rooting” for one candidate over another.

This was a pretty good example of O’Reilly intellectual dishonesty or stupidity. He wants to bet that Ron Paul won’t win a primary. He doesn’t want the Trump bet. He goes with the first one, but rejects the second one on grounds of not being seen as “rooting” for one candidate over another.

Yeah, that’s fine, EXCEPT that the first bet already makes you look PRECISELY THIS WAY, every bit as much as the second bet would.

Many Republicans base their views on what they are told to think by the likes of O’Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, and all three have bashed Ron Paul for a long time, especially Hannity. So it is not surprising that he does not have the support of more party members.
It is a shame, because I really believe if more people took time to listen to what he is saying, they would agree with his message. You do, admittedly, have to get past the fact that he is not the most skilled speaker in the world. That is not a minor point. Even Democrats must admit that a large part of Obama’s success was due to the fact that he gave some very effective speeches in his presidential run.
Also, I will admit that some of Dr. Paul’s views may seem extreme to many. However, as president he would not be able to take us to many of those extremes, but rather to nudge us closer to where we should be- he might not be able to eliminate the Fed, but he would surely provide us with more transparency in how they operate; he might not be able to shut down all our military bases, but if he shut down half we would still have much more of a presence around the world than any other country; he might not be able to get our country out of debt, but he would reduce the deficit faster than anyone else on the political horizon; he wouldn’t legalize all drugs, but my guess is he would get marijuana legalized which would save this country a ton of money.
If just several more conservative commentators would join Judge Napalitano in support of Ron Paul, Stossel just might have a chance of winning his bet.

Looks like you’ll have to eat your words and pay up in 2 weeks, O’Reilly.

Ron Paul rising.