Sunday, September 09, 2007

The Incredible Naiveté of Dr. Ron Paul



September 9, 2007

Remember back when we offered up serious contenders for the office of President of the United States? Once was the time that wishy washy candidates like Jimmy Carter or Ron Paul we laughed out of any serious contention.

As we know, Democrat Jimmy Carter went on to win the Presidency in 1976 and by the time he was replaced in 1980 by Republican Ronald Reagan, the country had slid into trouble, especially that starting of the current wave of Radical Islamist Jihadists desiring to rule the world under their misguided interpretation of Islam’s Holy Book, the Qu’Ran.

Another potential Jimmy Carter is vying for the Republican nomination in the 2008 election, self professed lifelong Libertarian, Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas’s 14th District. Dr. Paul is the lone anti-war candidate vying for the Republican nomination out of a field of candidates that see the necessity of fighting the radical Jihadists that have continually attacked our foreign interests and us for nearly three decades now.

In the past, Dr. Paul came under fire for an article that appeared in his newsletter, ‘Ron Paul Survival Report.’ The 1992 article bearing his name claimed President Clinton had fathered illegitimate children, used cocaine and called fellow Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article advocated government lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults saying, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." His newsletter also claimed that "only about 5 percent of blacks had sensible political opinions," and "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," adding "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Much later, Dr. Paul admitted the words were in an article in his newsletter with his name attached to it, but said he didn’t write them, someone else did and it did not represent his views.

If I were serving citizens as a prominent Representative and publishing a newsletter, I would ensure what was sent out was representative of my views so voters in my district knew who and what they had voted into office. To me, it is incredibly naïve to allow a newsletter under my name to be sent out with no idea of what was in it, only to have to later have to try to slither my way out of what was published under my name.

In 2001 and again in 2007, Dr. Paul introduced legislation authorizing the President to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal as a tool to combat terrorists.

A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an archaic facility written into our Constitution way back when that basically allowed Congress, when we had a small Military, to “hire out” agents to go after those who may have committed violations against us and our laws. European nations had this ability long before we were formed as a nation, resulting in what we today often call ‘Pirates’ or ‘Privateers.’ Today, one might refer to them as ‘Bounty Hunters’ or even ‘Mercenaries.’

In 1856 European nations, like France and Britain, abolished their use with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Crimean War. America was not a signatory and did not ratify that treaty, leaving them legal in the U.S.

Although legal, would their use be practical today, as Ron Paul thinks?

To me, no, they wouldn’t. First of all, in regards the Letters of Marque and Reprisals, our Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11, “The Congress shall have Power to … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Therein lies the first problem for Paul, an admitted staunch Constitutionalist. His legislative proposals would grant the President, through Congress, the authority to issue such Letters of Marque and Reprisals. Our Constitution only grants Congress that authority. Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in 2002 said,

“Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one's citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President's responsibilities under the Constitution.”


Even if Paul’s proposed legislation were to be modified and only Congress were to grant ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” can you imagine the worldwide outcry above and beyond what we now hear? The left and even Paul himself have bellyached about breaking “international Law” in this current war. In the September 5, 2007 GOP Primary Debate, Paul said, “We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law.” If the war is illegal under international law, what do you think hiring bounty hunters to enter sovereign nations to seize, intercept, detain or kill individuals who committed acts of war against us would be considered?

And, what would these bounty hunters accomplish against the rest of Al Qaeda and radical Jihadists groups like them?

How naïve would it be for a President to “outsource” our security to hired guns faithful only to a reward of money? They are guns for hire and loyalties lie with whoever pays them more money. Could wealthy Muslims like bin Laden or Zawahiri counter offer the hired guns Paul proposes and turn them back against us, or against the President?

The left and many others cry today about “atrocities” committed by our Professional Troops. Would hired guns, mercenaries, be more cautious in regards ‘collateral damage? I think not. To get the target, my money says they would kill anything in their way.

Thinking on it, can you imagine someone like Wayne ‘The Dog’ Chapman traipsing around Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tora Bora seeking to blend in with locals to even get close to bin Laden?

I cannot think of anything more naïve for someone thinking they could be President to propose than the outsourcing of the security and protection of our nation to bounty hunters and mercenaries.

Paul additionally whined in the recent debate, “This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today.”

I’m surprised that man of his supposed caliber would stoop to such a misrepresentation of the words of one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin. If someone as blue collar and common as me can so easily discover the truth of the quote “Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security,” why is that it so readily escapes one as learned as Dr. Ron Paul, in his tenth session of Congress? Could a man who doesn’t understand the meaning of the words our Founders left us be trusted to properly lead the country today? I think not!

Paul wrapped his whining up with cry of, “We have -- we have a national ID card on our doorsteps, it is being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus. We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on. That's un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.”

Everything he whines about has been found to be legal and in the case of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, constitutional. In the case of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

If he cannot see that public safety comes before battlefield detainees supposed right to a speedy trial, he is even more incredibly naïve than I ever thought.
Rabid Paulites who blindly fall in behind someone like Paul, mostly, in my personal estimation, because they are afraid that one day they may be called to fight these radical Jihadists who threaten us. They cry they would fight if our shores were breeched and we were threatened at home.

What the hell do they think happened on September 11, 2001?

Were we to pull back and follow the isolationalist policies advocated by Dr. Paul and were soon invaded again by roving sleeper cells of Muslims radicals or others, I doubt these rabid cowards would stand up then, either. My money says they would cry it is someone else’s job or try to make deals with the radicals, just as did the Quakers who would not join in with protecting the frontier of the Pioneer Front from roving murderers that prompted the above quote often given by them from Benjamin Franklin.

Dr. Ron Paul is just too incredibly naïve to ever be trusted with the reigns of leadership over the Free World.

Lew

UPDATE: A Brit adds his comments seeing Ron Paul as a phony who does not deserve the GOP nomination The Clue Is In The Party

44 comments:

Cascadian said...

What exactly do you think Blackwater is? Should they be allowed in Iraq? Louisiana?

There used to be a time when the Constitution was important... even a battle cry on the Right. What good is there in making sure the judiciary stays within their bounds if we turn a blind eye to the legislature and executive?

The best thing about Paul is his return to State power. I can understand why you'd be against it. The NW might not be as comfortable as it is now for some if we were allowed to govern ourselves.

Tex Macrae said...

"...public safety comes before battlefield detainees supposed right to a speedy trial.."

I guess you never heard of Jose Padilla.

The rest of your post is similarly uninformed. At some point, you guys are really going to have to come out of your bubble.

Lew Waters said...

Blackwater is a private security company hired to protect the U.S. Ambassador, cascadian, who did you think they were? In New Orleans, they were hired to protect FEMA as well as they were hired by private companies to supply security against looters and roving gangs.

What they weren't was sent in to collect a bounty off the head of our enemies.

If the constitution was really as important to Paul as he says, wouldn't he push for eliminating the income tax completey, and repeal the 17th amendment, returning selection of Senators to the state legislators?

Where does he stand on stripping business owners of their rights under the imposition of smoking bans for private businesses? Is it constitutional for others to mandate what a private business owner does?

As for comfort here in the NW, I'd be a lot more comfortable without he interference of both Federal and State leftists telling me what I can and cannot do.

Yes tex, I heard of Jose Padilla, have you? What information could we have gleened from im without all the leftists cries over him?

Funny that you would even mention him as he is a perfect example of the constitutionally allowable suspension of habeas corpus.

That's okay if you can't handle the rest of what I say. It is laughable that you try to write it off as "uninformed," though.

I have to disagree about the bubble, though. We are out of it and can see Paul for the incredibly naive whiner he is. In fact, I was thinking of sending him some lace hankies for the next debate he appears at.

JOhn said...

Lew, if it came down to it, who would you rather have as President, Ron Paul or Hillary?

Basically thats your choice because a pro-war, pro-Bush republican cannot win the national election. You have to try and recognize the political realities in American politics today.

Its a reality that 70% of Americans oppose the war, without Ron Paul the republicans lose big time, and Hillary Clinton Socialism gets swept in with a mandate. Please try and understand this reality.

Lew Waters said...

would you rather have as President, Ron Paul or Hillary?

Neither and fortunately, that won't be our choice.

A pro-liberty, Troop supporting Republican can and will beat Hillary.

Bush's support has been steadily increasing as of late and it weould be a big mistake to continue moving away from him, especially in the War on Terror in Iraq.

Democrats and the blame America first anti-war left are currently shaking in their boots as they see the public support they thought they had wane as the Petraeus report is about to be given.

Why do you think theire is such a pre-emptive measure from the left to discredit the report and the General before it is even given?

If you want to know who can beat Hillary, should we succeed in bypassing the lamestream media that continues to ignore him, click on the Duncan Hunter link at the top of the blog.

Read where he stands and compare him to the whinings of Paul. Hunter exudes confidence and standing in the real shadow of Reagan.

Paul is more in the shadow of Carter.

JOhn said...

Carter? Have you done any research into Ron Paul at all? Ron Paul was one of the first Congrssmen to publically support Reagan, and if there is a candidate in this race that most closely embodies the spirit of Reagan and Goldwater then its Ron Paul.

Sorry but the New Republican Party has lost most of America, and while I do admire you dedication to your country and your support of our troops, I think that the fact that the Republican Revolution of the 90s has taken a terrible turn for the worst under Bush who is second only to FDR for growing the size of the Federal Government.

People are leaving the party in droves, and its entirely because we have strayed from our traditional republican principles. I understand how you might wish that things were different, and I too wish that things were different. I wish that things had gone as planned, and the Government was competent enough to transform Iraq just as they said that they were and they would pay for it with Iraqi oil, but thats not the way that things went down.

The Bush adminstration made a big old turd sandwich for for the entire republican party and if we do not recognize the fact that there is no way that we can campaign on the Bush Party Platform and win the election.

If we lose this election then the republicans are done forever. Hillary will bring in Socialized Health Care and people will be more dependent on the Government than ever, and we will not be able to get rid of it if we ever get a republican majority back.

This election is a fight for the future of THIS country, and I will gladly let Iraq burn to save a Free United States of America from the real leftists and international socialists that the Hillary people will bring in.

Its Ron Paul or Hillary, make your choice!

Webmaster said...

Yawn, just another legless hit piece on Ron Paul.

ALL muggers are 'fleet-footed' so what?

Most inner city people do not vote.

And RP is no Jimmy Carter! UGH!

libertyslegacy said...

"How naïve would it be for a President to “outsource” our security to hired guns faithful only to a reward of money? They are guns for hire and loyalties lie with whoever pays them more money."

Sounds unfortunately just like our military. (I'm a vet too)

The oil industry says "shoot to kill," we're on it.

The Saudi's say "lock and load," we're primed and ready.

Israel says "pre=emptive strike" and we can't wait.

You're not as "average" as you claim to be. Wake up and employ that noggin;)

Best to ya

libertysLegacy.blogspot .com

Lew Waters said...

John, the first thing you must realize is that I am a conservative much more than a Republican. Paul is neither, for the most part.

That's a Liberaltarian for you, middle of the road.

You really should get out more, John. Why do you think Bush's approval is steadily growing, as is support for the War on Terror, while Cngress is steadily declining?

Oh, I'm talking about honest polling, not the unscientific online meaningless polls that Pauliacs flood, hack and spam to create an aura of support for the loser, Ron Paul.

People are so afraid of Hiltery as if she is unbeatable. Don't believe that for a minute. If it hadn't been for Ross Perot drawing what votes he did away from Republicans, Clinton, the womanizer, wouldn't have ever set foot in the White House, except for maybe a visit.

Clinton, the dyke, is beatable and will be defeated by a true conservative and supporter of the War on Terror, Duncan Hunter, if we can wake up America that he is running and moonbats like Ron Paul or just jokes.

If you truly loved traditional America, you would drop that Pusillanimous whiner, Ron Paul, and get behind a real conservative who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk, Duncan Hunter.

Michael Reagan, Duncan Hunter is Like My Father

Hillary is a shoe in should the GOP be stupid enough to endorse a liberaltarian like Paul.

libertyslegacy said...

"Where does he stand on stripping business owners of their rights under the imposition of smoking bans for private businesses? Is it constitutional for others to mandate what a private business owner does?"

You know where he stands. The feds shouldn't even control pharmacists nor their ability to proscribe whatever. He doesn't even believe in their need for licensure by the state. Do you think he gives a rip about how you order your private business?

Lew Waters said...

LOL, webmaster, my "meaningless hit piece" was good enough to draw you to spout something. Thanks for the hit.

liberty, I'm not sure what you are a vet of, but what you describe doesn't sound like the Army I served in for 8 years.

What I'm hearing coming out ofIraq today is our Military is doing pretty damn well there.

Funny too that you mention Israel as pulling our strings. In '73, during the Yom Kippur War, when early on it wasn't going so well for them, my unit in Germany, at the time, stood down from field manuevers and was on stand by for deployment to Israel to back them up. They never called us.

The Army must have changed a lot since back then.

Lew Waters said...

Just a question, liberty. Odd that you say he doesn't give a rip about how I might run a private business. I'll give him credit for wqnting to keep the feds out of the smoking ban business, but hen gain, it isn't the feds passing them currently nor could he, as President, overturn any, could he?

But it might be a good way to garner on or two more votes from smokers standing outside, 25 feet away from building entrances.

dean said...

The Constitution is still important and I hope always will be.
What is it about "WE-ARE-IN-A-WAR" don't you understand?
If we do not eradicate the murdering scum who have sworn to kill us we won't have to worry about a Constitution or anything else for that matter.

Your arguments for Ron Paul are irrelevant.

His stance on the war is reckless and irresponsible making him a very dangerous man. I don't care how conservative you say he is.
If he does not intend to prosecute the GWOT then he has NO business seeking the highest office in this country.

When we win the GWOT perhaps then we can discuss "issues, until then everything else is secondary.

You Pauliacs better pull it out and ya better do it quick. The sooner we win this war the sooner we can bring our troops home.
Failure is NOT an option and retreat is not even a consideration.

Ben said...

Ron Paul takes the same blame America first tack as the left wing AssWholes. As far as I am concerned, that makes him one of them.

Islam's genocidal imperialism & terrorism result from Islam's damnable doctrines enshrined in Surat 3,8,9 & 47. Unfortunately, the Qur'an is the source of Sharia; Islamic law. Sharia requires at least one attack against the Kuffar in every year failing only in time of weakness.

Islam's doctrines, not our foreign policy is the cause of terrorism. Just send Islam to Hell!

Snooper said...

Sorry, Lew. You have been infested with the uneducated goat herders of Ronnie Pauly the Fruity.

Lew Waters said...

LOL, snooper. At least they keep me entertained when I'm not working. I can't stand network TV, so I get my laughs off of these people. ;-)

JOhn said...

I'd like to remind you all of the 11th commandment, and reiterate its point that the Republican Party will fall apart when we start to attack our fellow Republicans.

Ben you are right about Islam being an evil religion, but unless we some how develope the political will to do as Ann Coulter said and convert them to Christianity, then all of the evil that is inherent in Islam will remain. Religious Freedom is a principle guiding philosophy of the United States, so its not like we can declare war on a Religion, but thats what it would take to "win" the war on Terror.

Lew, I understand that you consider yourself a conservative more than a Republican, but the point of the primaries is to pick the candidate with the potential to realize the broadest base of support, and unless Bush manages to wrap this war up very soon opposition to the war will only continue to grow, while 70% of the people currently oppose it.

The problem in Iraq is entirely the fault of the Iraqi people and the failure of their elected representatives to create a political solution to their own internal problems. Our boys have been putting their lives on the line to give the Government of Iraq enough of a cushion of peace so that they can resolve these differences, but even though our boys have been successful the Iraqi government has failed. Perhaps part of the reason that they have failed is because they think that the United States is going to continue to sacrifice the lives of our youth and our national wealth to provide them security indiffenately, like we did for Germany, Japan and Korea. I think that the realization that the United States is going to pull out via a political mandate vs a deadline set by congress will better motivate Iraqi politicians to solve their own damned problems.

This Iraq war has cost the conservative movement tremendously, Bush was not able to accomplish anything that he had planned such as opting out of Social Security, building new nuclear plants, more refineries, drilling off the coasts, drilling in ANWAR. All he managed to do was bloat the federal Government better than Clinton or LBJ ever dreamed of doing.

Finally, I know you guys love to associate Ron Paul with the 9/11 truthers who have come to support him. Yes these people are mentally ill, but please try to understand that these people see the noose of an ever increasing police state here in America and the never ending growth of the power of the Federal Government.

Many of you might start to agree with similar theories once Hillary cedes US sovergnity to the UN, pays for American kids to be murdered (aborted) with your tax dollars, and makes everyone dependent on government for their healthcare so there is no chance of dissent or getting a real conservative back in office.

No other candidate except Ron Paul embodies the spirit of our founding fathers better than Ron Paul, if he runs he will have a real chance of winning, and he is the only conservative with the record to prove that he will not be just another Bush who runs as a conservative but then acts like a democrat as soon as he gets into office.

My 2 cents.

Lew Waters said...

Sorry, John, but I cannot disagree with you more. We cannot turn the clock back to 1913, as another Pauliac said he wanted to do.

While Paul may have some decent ideas in other areas, is lack of resolve in standing up to those who will attack us, as they have repeatedly in the past, nulify's the rest of his positions. If we do not defeat terror to best extent possible, we won't have a country to carry forth any of the rest of his positions.

The left wrongfully declares this as a war of choice. It is not. It is a war for our survival and the survival of western culture.

We do live in a global society today and cannot just start shutting it out. We cannot continue waiting for them to hit us so we may feel good about responding. Their next attack just may make 9/11 seem small. We know they want to attack us and know that given the chance, they will.

It is pure folly not to stop them before they hit us again.

We did not win our independence alone. How can we expect others to win theirs without help? As the freest nation on the planet, in a sense we owe others our support in their stuggle for freedom. It is a gift from God, but one that must be fought for and with adequate support.

Paul doesn't understand that we cannot continue to just bury our heads in the samd, try some blind sheik and imprison them and hope that terrorists leave us alone.

Paul is not like Reagan. Duncan Hunter is, you really should check him out.

Hillary can be defeated and it will take a true American with a strong message that America likes to hear and deserves to see to beat her. Paul doesn't have that, Hunter does.

JOhn said...

Lew its not just the left that has declared this to be a war of choice, Bill O'Reilly said this was a war of choice a long time ago, and went further to say that we should always avoid wars of choice. Do you think that Bill O'Reilly is a leftist?

This is not a war for the salvation of Western Civilization either. No foreign invader could ever conquer this country, and no culture has ever become Islamic without being forced to accept Islam through violence. The only way this country will ever be destroyed is from within, and I fear that that time might be short in coming unless we can somehow resolve to rectify the our past mistakes.

We are a nation Under God, but we were not granted Divine Knowledge and are merely a nation of men who are flawed and have imperfect knowledge, thus we do sometimes make mistakes because everything that mankind does is imperfect. Just as you as an individual acknowledge your own mistakes and seek to correct them, we must remain critical of our nation as a democracy and seek to correct its past mistakes.

Going into Iraq was a mistake, and it has been an embarassing comedy of errors ever since, there comes a time to cut our loses, salvage what we can and rebuild. When is that time going to be? After we spend a trillion dollars and lose how many of our native sons?

I myself do not care about Iraqis. As cold and heartless as that may sound, we've done our job over there, we kicked their ass, and gave them a chance to form a democratic government, by the time the next President comes into office it will have been 6 years that the Iraqis have had to pull their heads out of their ass. I figure if they cannot get their acts together by then, let them kill each other, we did our best, forget 'em.

Lew Waters said...

John, first and foremost, Bill O'Reilly is a nobody blowhard almost as ridiculous as Michael Savage. I personally don't care what either of them has to say.

That being said please read your own words again and think about them. Then, look what is happening within our country today.

Islam now amounts to about one-fifth of the world's population with an ever-increasing amount here in the U.S. Fortunately for us; most are moderates, so far. Many serve in our Military and have made the ultimate sacrifice for us in this war today.

We have whole communities that are predominately Muslim desiring laws that comply with Islam.

We have our first Muslim in Congress and Congressional session was opened with an Islamic Prayer.

We have atheist groups and the ACLU striving with every measure imaginable to deny, block and bar displays of the Christian Belief in public and in schools while at the same time launching lawsuits to modify school schedules for Muslims prayer times and to install footbaths suitable for their use in their religious ritual of washing heir feet several times a day. Why? Because the ACLU says they have "Freedom of Religion" while Christianity must comply with "Separation of Church and State."

While Radical Islam has been imposed violently, it can also creep in where Muslims aren't watching and falling for the brainwashing techniques used by religious despots. It has happened throughout history and now the Radical Jihadists are pulling it.

But think also, if we abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't think we will remain in Afghanistan as there are already calls to abandon them as well, what stops the radicals from violently imposing their will and radical interpretations upon those people again? Nothing!

If they obtain those two countries, not only will they be more emboldened, they will be able to convince others that their views are what "Allah" dictates and will use it to recruit more terrorists.

You are dealing with people that mostly understand and lean towards strength and power and we will have destroyed ours by cutting and running, yet again.

After our retreat from Somalia in 1993, in his 1996 Declaration of War against us, Bin laden said, "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Is Paul and Pauliacs "listening" to that?

Sorry, but we have not "done our best." Yes, mistakes were made and are being corrected. If people knew of all the mistakes made in WW2 they might not glorify it as they do today. Still, we pulled together and won that one, didn't we?

I cannot so easily write off people desiring to be free and working for it, even if not enough by our self imposed standards. I clearly recall sitting on a duffle bag waiting for orders that never came as Communist tanks rolled into Saigon and enslaved millions that I spent 18 months fighting for and 58,000 of my brothers died for. A repeat of that is totally reprehensible and unnecessary.

Imagine if the French and other Europeans that share your attitude in the 1700's had their way and we didn't receive the help we did. We probably wouldn't be a free nation today.

This is their war on us and if we leave, they won't. They have no "exit strategy" nor "withdrawal dates." They are in it for the long term and we better be as well.

Taking freedom for granted so cavalierly is what will ultimately lose it for us.

Cascadian said...

Seems you need to look into the candidates a bit more.

Too bad private enterprise and a market weren't used earlier. It would have been a lot cheaper. Why would you think they would be less eficient in this context? Of course we would have passed up another chance at Nation Building. But then again, your a Con and not a Neocon so you see the folly in this as well.

Paul absolutely supports getting rid of the IRS, income tax, and the seventeenth amendment. He in no way supports a National smoking ban.... that's the Huckster calling for that one.

There's an interesting piece in the Iowa indepentent on the smoking:
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=808

JOhn said...

Oh, I'm not cavalier about about freedom, which is the main thing that I like about Ron Paul, unlike any other candidate that we have had absolutely believes in the Constitution of the United States, which is the only thing that keeps our government from doing whatever they think will earn them votes in the next election.

For whatever its worth, I sincerely do hope that Patreaus comes out today and says everything is going great, and I hope that he can put this baby to bed by this time next year so the war is not even an issue for the next election, but if the war remains as unpopular as it currently is then the Republican party has to start taking a more serious look at Ron Paul if it wishes to win the next election cycle.

I appreciate your sacrifice during the Vietnam War, but that sacrifice in the fight against communism might all be in vain if the commie democrats are allowed to win the next election. If the commie dems win, then I do not know if we will be able to recover and I think that an increasing trend towards socialism and World government are going to undermine all of our foundation for liberty and we will be no better than the commies that you were fighting in Nam.

The Islamofascists are a problem but lets never forget that they can never destroy us, and we can only destroy ourselves. I see the Republicans and Democrats right now both walking in lockstep towards an authoritarian socialist new world order where the constitution is progressively forgotten and marginalized, while the influence of the UN becomes more pronounced through their global warming scam, and to tell you the truth I am more scared of the government than I am Al Qaida, and after Bush I really can't tell much of a difference between the Parties anymore.

KineticReaction said...

The US is borrowing hundreds of billions a year from China to fight endless wars, occupying over a hundred countries, and pay for a massive welfare state. If you care about national security, then vote in Ron Paul. For God's sakes, America has been declining for 30 years and will collapse if something new isn't done now. Median wages are lower now than they were THIRTY FIVE years ago, in 1972. Household wealth for median wage earners is lower now than it was 27 years ago, in 1980.

The inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of America, and none of the candidates, absolutely none of them, except Ron Paul, want to deal with this existential threat.

Lew Waters said...

cascadian, you need to learn the difference between a mercenary or bounty hunter, if you prefer, and a private security agency.

John, General Petraeus is expected to give an honest assessment of what is happening. That is why the left is so intent on pre-emptively discrediting not only his report, but him as well.

kinetic, you need a new tinfoil hat, son. Yours has sprung a leak.

Lloyd said...

I am against the Iraq war and had a couple interesting discussions with a few friends that are for it.
We agreed on severeal points:

#1: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11,had no WMDs, and no Al Qeada. An impotatnt point since these were the reasons given for invasion.

#2: The war is unconstitutional. Only congress has the authority to declare war. James Madison specifically crafted provisions in the founding document to prevent the kind of tyranny exercised by kings. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Eisenhower also specifically warned against militarism as being inimical to a free republic.

So the argument boiled down to this:

America has a necessity for oil and needs to secure this resource to maintain its national security. There is no way around this truth as ugly as it is. So there is a great moral question here. What moral price are we willing to pay to keep the oil flowing? What use is it to gain the world but lose your soul?

As an aside the Decider on the friday before Labor Day authorized over 100 Mexican trucking companies free access to all of our nations highways, and just this morning a truck carrying 25 tons of TNT exploded in northern Mexico. Does this administration really care about national security?

Lew Waters said...

lloyd, you have every right to oppose the war. But base it on facts, not dreamt up talking points from the anti-war kool-aid crowd.

1. Bush nor any Republican said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Strawmen arguments don't float here.

At the time, Nearly every Democrat who is now crying WMDs didn't exist were falling all over themselves saying they did. Also claimed by them back then is they vetted intelligence through their own trusted sources. Saddam wasn't coming clean about his WMDs and neearly every single intelligence agency in the world said they existed.

In the six months long rush to war, they disappeared. Where did they go? Some Iraqis and Russians have stated they were moved to Syria, but we don't know. There existence was verified though, just last week when several vials of deadly chemicals were discovered locked away in the U.N.

With so many from everywhere claiming they existed and were still viable, would you be willing to take the chance they would never fall into the hands of terrorists?

2. In case you forgot, The House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So much for unconstitutional.

As for Eisenhower and the rests position, I suggest you look up the speeches their quotes were gleened from and read them in their entirety. Out of context quotes also don't fly with me.

Yes, we do need oil and Iraq has a lot of it. Democrats won't allow us to drill our own, so we must obtain it elsewhere. Do you desire to see Al Qaeda and other terrorists controlling the world's supply of oil? I don't.

The no Al Qaeda in Iraq is purely laughable. Where was Zarqawi when we invaded Iraq? The list of known terrorists enjoying safe haven in Baghdad, including ones never caught from the first World Trade Center bombing is quite impressive. You really should look it up sometime.

I do fault Bush on sealing the borders, but he is not alone. Democrats also have never done anything to seal them and have been pushing to allow illegals free access across our borders. It must be stopped, that is why I support Duncan Hunter and not a pansy like Ron Paul.

Karl said...

Duncan Hunter people really set a new low for jingoistic drivel. You guys have guts but no brains.

Talk about drinking the kool aid. "The islamofascists are coming!" Never mind that we've been poking a hornet's nest in the middle east for 60 years! News flash: when you occupy people's lands, take their oil, encourage wars between them, overthrow elected governments, and support brutal regimes THEY HATE US. How about we stop being 'stuck on stupid'!

On a scale of 1-10, my belief in what the government says is 0. My children are never going to fight some bullshit war half way around the world for the rich elites. They're never going to fight to bring some ex-cia flunkie like Noriega or Sadaam back in line.

You guys are dumber than shit for believing a damn thing bush says, and his liberal, big government spending at home and abroad.

Karl said...

one more thing. the patriot act was passed without debate or even a READING OF THE BILL by most of the congresspeople.

keep believing what the government tells you. be good sheep and don't question what the government tells you to fear, and vote Duncan Hunter because he wraps himself in the flag.... long enough to shit on it like all the other big government conservatives. No child left behind? Oh yeah. your boy was all about that.

Lloyd said...

I would appreciate this argument not degenerating into Democrat-Republican diatribes. For one I am not a democrat and served my country for 8 years in the navy.

As for WMDs...Hans Blix reported that Hussien most likely destroyed them in the 90's and there was no compelling evidence they had any or were trying to acquire them. The yellow cake uranium purchase has proven to be false. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush have all capitulated on various talk shows that there were no WMDs.
If they were truly worried about WMDs then the U.S. would right now be actively tracking and securing old U.S.S.R. stockpiles. The Ukraine has the third largest stockpiles in the world.

The Al'Qeada comment is interesting. There was a cell in the Kurdish region the was autonomous from the Hussien regime. Any claims of a direct connection are specious at best and a better case can be made that the secular Hussien regime would have seen Al'Qeada as a threat more than an ally.

The Congress did authorize the use of force but (this may seem like splitting hairs) this is not a declaration of war as was done in WWII. This was a spineless move by democrats reminiscent of the Roman Senate ceding its power to Augustus. Pure politacal hackery meant to assign all blame to the president if the war should go bad and ride on his coattails if it went well.

As for Eisenhower, this was referring to his farewell address specifically; Thomas Jefferson's opposition to standing armies is well documented as is James Madison's. This is why James Madison made constitutional provisions that the funding for a war still had to be reviewed and approved every 2 years by congress and the decision to make war lie with the representatives of the people solely.

Almost every country on Earth has its dirty secrets and military ambitions. How many countries do we invade? When can we consider it over?

Due to this conflict China has acquired $500 billion in U.S. bonds (We borrow about 3 billion dollars a day from them). China release a statemnt last month in response to U.S inqueries of unfair trade practices. China said that it would be happy to sell off it's U.S. debt if it took any action. This would collapse the Dollar. Many finanacial analysts call this China's "nuclear option", and it would not exist if it wasn't for this conflict. This is a major security issue for our country and is not easily reversed.

As for the oil. That is an honest and good question and herein lies the rub.

Lew Waters said...

If I didn't know better, Karl, I'd think you didn't like me. But then again, I don't give a crap.

BTW, Karl, since you mention the Patriot act. Congress had 43 days to read and study it before it was voted on and approved.

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/history.shtml

You really should do your homework before you spout off anti-war rhetoric on something you obvously know nothing about.

Lloyd, WMDs were but one reason given. Yes, maybe too much emphasis was placed on them, but do you really think so many around the globe said they were there knowing they weren't? Up until January 21, 2001, the Democrat party was nearly united in their call that they were there. Why the sudden shift in calls once another party was in the White House?

Before the invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix said,

"Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for,"

“If they exist they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented."

"In the current situation, one would expect Iraq to be eager to comply,"

“…some 300 chemical and biological samples have been collected and the destruction of approximately 50 litres of mustard gas has begun.”

"Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441, the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if 'immediate, active and unconditional cooperation' with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming,"

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=6169&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

Nice try with the Saddam/Kurds/Al Qaeda diversion, Lloyd, but it didn't work. From the 911 Commission Report,

Page 61: Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq,
even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991.

Page 66: There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.

Page 119: the Clinton administration was facing the possibility of major combat operations against Iraq. Since 1996, the UN inspections regime had
been increasingly obstructed by Saddam Hussein.The United States was threatening to attack unless unfettered inspections could resume. The Clinton administration eventually launched a large-scale set of air strikes against Iraq,
Operation Desert Fox, in December 1998. These military commitments
became the context in which the Clinton administration had to consider opening another front of military engagement against a new terrorist threat based in Afghanistan.

Page 134: In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had coverage.
Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin’s having met with Iraqi officials, who “may have offered him asylum.” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar,
had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein’s service, and it would be “virtually
impossible” to find him.

Al Qaeda was hardly the only terrorist threat Saddam was cozy with, http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf

No, the authorization was not a specific declaration of war, I believe because we weren't planning on warring with a country but an ideological group spread about. This is where Paul's idea of Letter's of Marque and Reprisal came up, which I discussed thoroughly in my post.

For some reason, neither party seems to declare war any longer when sending Troops to fight. Paperwork questions like that will have to be taken up with them.

You mention Eisenhowers farewell speech, but don't seem to know much about the actual speech, other than the short quote offered against a Military Industrial Complex. Allow me to enlighten you a little on that speech, if I may.

Right in a Left World: That Pesky Eisenhower Speech

Thomas Jefferson was but one founder out of many and was oboviously over ruled by he majority. Still,he advocated a militia of citizens armed and on call should the country be invaded as he advocated a continual Navy.

I have no problem with Congressional oversight. It is the undermining coming out of Congress today that irks me.

Sorry, but the trade deficit and borrowing from other countries, including China, was going on long before this war started.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33604.pdf

Personally, although not an economist, I find it odd that we borrow from many, lend to others, finance some others and pass out entitlements all at the same time. But, that's the way it has become.

Oil may be a rub to you, but it is a valuable commodity to the rest of the world. I'm for a real alternative fuel source, but one hasn't been effectively created yet. Some are being worked on, but they have a ways to go.

Until then, we, and other country's, rely on oil to keep the wheels of our economy going.

If you want a real rub on oil, look at who was benefiting most from the oil for food scandal, err, program, and who was opposed to the war. Very interesting.

dean said...

"On a scale of 1-10, my belief in what the government says is 0. My children are never going to fight some bullshit war half way around the world for the rich elites. They're never going to fight to bring some ex-cia flunkie like Noriega or Sadaam back in line."

Apparently you have swallowed the left's diatribe hook line and sinker. Good for you Karl.
Just another ignorant fool revealing in a few sentences how utterly stupid you really are.

You just continue believing those left wing talking points Karl right up to the point the Islamic murdering scum start sawing your head off, perhaps after watching your children die in front of you.

Your words are an old excuse adopted by the neo-antiwar crowd that clearly projects cowardice.

People like you make me sick Karl.

If you aren't willing to fight our enemies...you know the guys with the rags on their heads who have sworn to kill all of us...then what is it you are willing to fight for?

Anything? Piss and moan, complain about Bush, attack conservatives?

What?

If you won't fight for America then what will you fight for Karl?

Lloyd said...

Mr. Waters,

Thanks for your well reasoned argument.

I would invite you to read comments from any interview given by Hans Blix in 2003. He described the WMD fiasco as a witch hunt: "In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.

Hussien was uncooperative with the Clinton administration, but was much more compliant with Bush Jr. From the dictators perspective this only makes sense since Clinton had set precedent for not actually doing anything meaningful after the Cole and WTC attacks. Additionally Bush & Co. already had plans drawn up for the invasion (see Project for a New American Century).

The quotes from the 9-11 quotes are flimsy and circumstantial evidence at best.
The CIA advised that the intelligence for invading Iraq was weak and some of it flat wrong (Yellow cake story).

This devolpment of Pre-emptive war is very scary and is the same doctrine used by the Japanese to justify the attacks on Pearl Harbor. How many other regimes do we change that have terrorist ties: Syria, Iran, Labanon, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Chile....? This is advocating perpetual unending war and will completely change the United States as we know it. I think James Madison Said it best.
"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.
The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both.
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it.
In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.
In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.
The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."
Economically speaking before this conflict China did not control our dollar as it does now.

Lew Waters said...

Lloyd, I am well aware that Blix changed his stance around the time of the invasion. I have my own theory on that, but will keep it to myself as it is only an unsubstantiated theory.

About the yellow cake, http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/jan29/DX439.pdf

Check it out and read it fully.

War is not grand or glorious, but they do become necessary when you have been repeatedly attacked simply because of who you are and what you represent, a culture counter to oppressors.

We can no longer play defense only, not with the tactics used by Al Qaeda dn other affiliated groups.

Maybe more later this evening, have to get back to work now.

Anonymous said...

Hey dude, just FYI, the Habeas Corpus phrase: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." doesn't say rebellion, invasion or public safety. It says in case of Rebellion or Invasion, the public safety may require it. In other words if there is a Rebellion or an Invasion and the public safety requires the suspension of habeas corpus, then it can be suspended. If, however, there is a rebellion or an invasion and the public safety doesn't require the suspension of habeas corpus, then it cannot be suspended. As there is currently no rebellion and no invasion then the current suspension of habeas corpus is illegal.

dictionary.com defines invasion as "an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army." 9/11 could be called an invasion, but it ended immediately, as those that perpetuated it were killed in the process. Thus the public safety did not require the suspension of habeas corpus.

Just food for thought...

Lew Waters said...

Hey Dude, FYI. By your reasoning WW2 must have been illegal as 12/7/1941 ended early that morning too.

You must also believe there are no Al Qaeda sleeper cells, either. Maybe those Muslims they keep discovering plotting attacks within the country are just fiction for the media to scare the public?

FYI, dude, think for yourself, stop trusting in Paul, he is on a road to nowhere.

CodeWarrior said...

How dare an educated , self sacrificing professional in the healing arts who has been in Congress, fighting for the common man for decades, assert we should go back to what the constitution says is the duty of the government?

How dare such a man say we should take care of our citizens and try to re-establish an industrial base in this country and stop the hemorrhaging of jobs to other countries?

How dare Dr. Paul say that the ill conceived nation building and dictator installing actions of this administration has a negative effect on us, and may cause people in conquered and occupied countries to hate us and wish us ill?

CodeWarrior said...

Furthermore, how dare Dr. Paul show such Naivete as to suggest that inflation is bad, that the FED should actually have our money supported by gold?

How dare he suggest we shouldn't continue having our men and women get slaughtered by IEDs in Iraq?

How DARE Dr. Paul say the government needs to get out of our private lives ?

How Dare he say that the government should not snoop on our communications and invade our privacy?

How dare Ron support both the First and Second Amendment?

This guy is just crazy isn't he.
What incredible naivete he has to expect this country to quit meddling in other country's affairs, and how nutty that we shouldn't go forward with empirial
designs ?

How dare Dr. Paul believe this is a republic and not a democracy, and how nutty for him to think that other countries can rule themselves.

Geez, what is wrong with this guy.
Medical Doctors usually have fairly high IQs, and you would think a Congressman like Dr. Paul would have learned a thing or two during his decades in Congress.

It is said that there are two things that consumers/citizens shouldn't watch being made...
sausage and laws.

Wow, what kind of Crazy World would this Dr. Paul foist on us? Imagine, a strong economy, folks able to afford healthcare, staying the heck out of other the affairs of other countries, preservation of individual liberties, decrease in wasteful spending...

Good God folks, can't King George the Cowardly be given another term?
~Code

Lew Waters said...

How dare an educated , self sacrificing professional in the healing arts who has been in Congress, fighting for the common man for decades, assert we should go back to what the constitution says is the duty of the government?

One of the first “duties” of government is to protect its citizens. Paul would stop that by pulling everyone back within the U.S., leaving our borders prone to attacks from abroad.

Like it or not, returning us to 1913 while the rest of the world stays in 2008 is suicide.

How dare such a man say we should take care of our citizens and try to re-establish an industrial base in this country and stop the hemorrhaging of jobs to other countries?

Where is his outrage and plan to deal with China? With all of his whining, he doesn’t speak very strong against China, only Duncan Hunter continues to do that as part of his campaign.

However, his main downfall continues to be his blame America attitude for terrorism. That and desiring to send mercenaries to fight a well established religionist terror group fighting for world domination.

How dare Dr. Paul say that the ill conceived nation building and dictator installing actions of this administration has a negative effect on us, and may cause people in conquered and occupied countries to hate us and wish us ill?

“Dictator installing?” Did you and Paul miss the purple fingers held up as Iraqis and Afghanis participated in a really free election, for the first time in their lives? Did you and Paul miss the Sheiks and others abandoning support of Al Qaeda to fight alongside of our Troops? Have you missed the announcements of pending Troop reductions as benchmarks are being met and Iraqis are standing? Did you both miss that the Iraqi government is starting to include some of the former Baathist party in the government, fulfilling yet another benchmark?

Naiveté doesn’t even begin to cover what all you people are missing.

How Dare he say that the government should not snoop on our communications and invade our privacy?

Yes, how dare he and you, continue to misrepresent monitoring of overseas contacts with known members of Al Qaeda and those within our country that will prevent yet another 9/11 type attack.

Ron Paul is far from the only one supporting the First and Second Amendments. He is far from the only one who is educated and served the country. He has no inkling of the love of this country by those of us who have fought for it and desire to keep our enemies away from our shores.

He has no idea of the truth of what was happening in Viet Nam, one he also heavily opposed and what our Brave Troops today desire.

How dare he desire to close down Guantanamo and do what with all the America hating terrorists there? Assign them the very 'Human Rights' they seek to deny others? Bring them into the country so slick lawyers can get them off and we have to pay those who will blow us up?

How dare he not know the constitution enough to realize that habeus corpus can legally be suspended at times like this and that 'detainees' caught on battlefields are not entitled to constitutional protections granted our citizens. You don't pet rabid dogs, you kill them!

But mostly, how dare he try to pass himself off as a conservative Republican because his Libertarian roots got him nowhere in 1988.

How dare he allow supporters to falsely claim he is a Combat Veteran when he never served a day in Harm’s Way.

Naiveté doesn’t even begin to cover his expressed attitude towards Israel, the only Democracy in the Middle East.

Good God folks, can't King George the Cowardly be given another term?

You expose your own incredible naiveté when you state this, missing all the support of Duncan Hunter, the only Battle experienced Veteran in the running, the only one who has ever led men into Battle and is responsible for taking real action, not just lip service in curtailing illegal immigration, that I have here.

Keep backing a whiner that doesn’t have a clue, I’ll stand up for America.

pearl said...

Mr. Waters,

Your posting indicates a complete lack of understanding of Dr. Paul's position on anything. Whether it is out of dishonesty or ignorance, you are simply not qualified to be making commentary on this subject.

Lew Waters said...

pearl, we have a little thing in this country that gives me all the qualification I need to counter Ron Paul and speak out against him, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

If I am unqualified, then so are the majority of Americans as even you Paulistinians should know by now, you boy doesn't stand a snow ball chance in hell of making it!

Vernon Malcolm said...

Now that the anti-science, superstition-based initiative presidency ends, we need several public works science Manhattan projects to make us great again and boost us out of this Grotesque Depression. First we must provide free advertising-based wireless internet to everyone to end land line monopolies. Then we must criscross the land with high speed rail. Because bovine flatulence is the major source of greenhouse gases, we must develop home growable microbes to provide all of our protein. Then we must create microbes which turn our sewage and waste into fuel right at home. This will end energy monopoly by putting fuel in our hands. We must address that most illness starts from behavior, especially from parents. Since paranoid schizophrenia is the cause of racism, bigotry, homelessness, terrorism, ignorance, exploitation and criminality, we must provide put the appropriate medications, like lithium, in the water supply and require dangerous wingnuts who refuse free mental health care to be implanted with drug release devices. CHurches should be licensed to reduce supersition and all clergy dealing with small children should be psychiatrically monitored to prevent molesting. Osama bin Laden and Timothy McVeigh were the ultimate superstition based initiatives. Widen navigation straits (Gibraltar, Suez, Malacca, Danube, Panama and Hellspont) with deep nukes to prevent war. In order to fund this we must nationalize the entire financial, electrical and transportation system and extinguish the silly feudal notion that each industry should be regulated by its peers. Technology mandates a transformation of tax subsidies from feudal forecloseable debt to risk sharing equity. Real estate and insurance, the engines of feudalism, must be brought under the Federal Reserve so we may replace all buildings with hazardous materials to provide public works. Insects, flooding and fire spread asbestos, lead and mold which prematurely disables the disadvantaged. Disposable manufactured housing assures children are not prematurely disabled and disadvantaged. Because feudalism is the threat to progress everywhere, we must abolish large land holdings by farmers, foresters or religions and instead make all such large landholding part of the forest service so our trees may diminish greenhouse gases. We must abolish executive pay and make sure all employees in a company are all paid equally. We must abolish this exploitative idea of trade and monopoly and make every manufactured disposable cottage self sufficient through the microbes we invent.

Lew Waters said...

Perhaps you should lay off those microbes yourself.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post and all the replies.
It was a great laugh.

See you all in the bread camps.

Lew Waters said...

I found it equally enjoyable and laughable as well.

But, don't you mean soup lines due to so many writing in Paul, who never stood a chance and left us having Obama?

Sorry, but I don't find that as laughable.