View Full Version : WOW - RP Hit Piece by Yahoo?

08-03-2007, 10:28 AM

08-03-2007, 10:30 AM
Such restraint does not sit well with many conservatives intent on seizing what columnist Charles Krauthammer dubbed the "unipolar moment" of American ascendancy in a world without the Soviet Union. To them, only the maximalist goals espoused by President Bush in his second inaugural address are worthy of America. Neoconservative champions of an "American Empire" such as Council on Foreign Relations scholar Max Boot chafe at the notion that there are, or should be, limits to American power or that the American interest should be defined as anything less than a globe-spanning, benevolent imperium. Unfazed by our inability to pacify Iraq, neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz (recently named as an advisor to the Giuliani campaign) are now agitating to expand the war into Iran.

Doesn't exactly sound like a hit piece.

08-03-2007, 10:30 AM
"Such was the certainly case..."

Is that proper grammar? I've never heard it phrased like that. I tend to stop reading any article which has blatant spelling or grammatical errors

Ron Paul Fan
08-03-2007, 10:31 AM
Not entirely and it's an opinion piece which basically says that Ron Paul is ahead of his time.

08-03-2007, 10:31 AM
ah now yahoo is carrying that peice.. blah

"Paul will not be President of the United States".. hey maybe we should adopt that as our new slogan.

08-03-2007, 10:32 AM
So this FUCKING DONK says RP is insane or paranoid, and WILL NOT win the POTUS, but agrees with him completely on foreign policy.

What a hypocrite. Take your article and make it pro RP then you donk.


08-03-2007, 10:32 AM
I do like this part:

Unlike isolationists, non-interventionists do not fear expanding and liberalizing trade (Paul has frequently said as much). Non-interventionists are confident in American strength and, unlike isolationists, are optimistic about America's engagement with the world. What they do not seek, however, is dominion over it. Non-interventionists trust that Western values are persuasive on their own terms, and become correspondingly less so when they are imposed on societies at gunpoint. Finally, non-interventionists tend to possess a truly conservative skepticism about government and the malleability of human nature. They do not believe America should squander its blood and treasure as it pursues utopian schemes like "ridding the world of evil."

08-03-2007, 10:33 AM
"Paul, like Goldwater, will likely pass his time in Congress waiting for America's political class to catch up." :)

not entirely bad though it did say he has no shot

Hurricane Bruiser
08-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Yea, the author said some unflattering things. However, the main point of the article is that Ron Paul is ahead of his time and that his foreign policy ideas are correct and will eventually be adopted. Sounds to me like someone who wants RP to win but doesn't want to stick his neck out for what his friends might say.

08-03-2007, 10:56 AM
ron doesnt want to go back to the gold standard, those bastards.

Well he kind of does.. he mainly just wants to legalize other forms of currency to compete in the marketplace. A hard asset standard, or even minted coins of gold/silver/etc with slight increases as the population grows is sort of what RP advocates. People use the term "gold standard" pejoratively, but if you read Ron Paul's book "the case for gold" he explains why this is historically, why past gold standards, and why gold is still preferred and superior to fiat currency. Rothbard's "What has government done to our money" is and excellent read on this matter.

08-03-2007, 10:58 AM
So this FUCKING DONK says RP is insane or paranoid, and WILL NOT win the POTUS, but agrees with him completely on foreign policy.

What a hypocrite. Take your article and make it pro RP then you donk.


My answer to the can't win statement is this ; More candidates can't than will win. How many winners can there be, for POTUS? Seems to me, there will be a lot more losers than winners.

08-03-2007, 11:14 AM
"Yes, Paul's platform differs greatly from Goldwater's and Paul is even more of a long shot than was Goldwater in winning the nomination, which was half of Goldwater's great achievement, but we know one element of the comparison is already apt: Paul will not be President of the United States."

I would tell the author to F himself. Stop naysaying the campaign. Clinton had 1% at this time. I freaking hate these self-appointed psychics who want to determine our vote for us.