PDA

View Full Version : Ann Coulter: Bill Kristol Must Resign




Lucille
07-07-2010, 05:53 PM
"He's catching on, I'm tellin' ya!"

Bill Kristol Must Resign (http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/07/07/bill_kristol_must_resign/page/full)


Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.

It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" -- as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11.
[...]
At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
[...]
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.
[...]
As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.

Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.
[...]
But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war -- and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too – other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president -- and look how great that turned out!

Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 05:55 PM
I really thought I'd never say this, but hooray for Coulter!

MRoCkEd
07-07-2010, 05:57 PM
Amazing, amazing.

Kotin
07-07-2010, 05:59 PM
Ha!!

Fuck you kristol!!

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 06:00 PM
hmmm... interesting...

rprprs
07-07-2010, 06:02 PM
Coulter? Ann Coulter? You mean the one with the Adams apple? THAT ANN COULTER? I don't believe it! :eek:

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 06:04 PM
the one with the Adams apple?

Dann Coulter?

YumYum
07-07-2010, 06:04 PM
As a Ron Paul Democrat, I have to say that Ann Coulter sounds insane. Yes, Bill Kristol should resign, but so should she.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 06:06 PM
Coulter? Ann Coulter? --snip-- THAT ANN COULTER? I don't believe it! :eek:

Lets be better than that, especially when they are saying things we like. :(

silus
07-07-2010, 06:35 PM
Whats a Ron Paul democrat? :scratches head

Anyways, good for Coulter, even though she is still an arrogant bitch.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 06:38 PM
Whats a Ron Paul democrat? :scratches head

Lots of em. Bob Conley who won the Dem. SC Senate nomination against Lindsay Graham last time was one. The democrat party pretty much supported Graham over him in fact.

Koz
07-07-2010, 06:40 PM
Didn't she say that she had to stop listening to Ron Paul or she would start to agree with him? Maybe she's listening to him more.

Coulter has a lot of pull with Republicans, it would be good to have her on our side.

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 06:41 PM
..

tjeffersonsghost
07-07-2010, 06:47 PM
Whats a Ron Paul democrat? :scratches head

Anyways, good for Coulter, even though she is still an arrogant bitch.

There are Paul supporters all throughout the political spectrum. You dont have to agree with someone 100% to be a supporter. You will never agree with someone 100%. I dont agree with Paul on everything but I do the majority.

silus
07-07-2010, 06:49 PM
Yes, but I just thought there was a fundamental divide. :shrug

Slutter McGee
07-07-2010, 06:51 PM
People need to remember that traditional conservatives might be prowar, but generally they are pro....war that ends. I have been arguing for literally years here that there is a difference between neo-cons and pro-war traditional conservatives.

And everyone here calls me stupid.

Yet more fucking evidence that I am right.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-07-2010, 06:57 PM
People need to remember that traditional conservatives might be prowar, but generally they are pro....war that ends. I have been arguing for literally years here that there is a difference between neo-cons and pro-war traditional conservatives.

And everyone here calls me stupid.

Yet more fucking evidence that I am right.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Um....whats a traditional conservative? I would say the Old Right, who were anti-war, non-interventionists. There was actually an Old Righter elected during WWII advocating immediate withdrawal and cessation of the War. That I would consider a traditional conservative on foreign policy.

Acala
07-07-2010, 06:58 PM
this is awesome!!!! The neocon grip is slipping. It is obvious we can't afford to continue the way we have been and smart Republicans are starting to position themselves. We need to cheer them on!

klamath
07-07-2010, 07:01 PM
The divide is starting to happen in the Republican party. Yes. Too bad it took the partisan fact that Obama is conducting the war to make them start thinking about what RP kept saying in every debate. "The republican party is not the war party traditionally."

georgiaboy
07-07-2010, 07:02 PM
well would you look at that. the plot thickens, or thins.

Still can't help but think that it's just a bunch of posturing to see which way they should spin for the upcoming election cycles, but nice to see them testing the waters with different positions on the issue.

And by 'they' and 'them', I mean 'they' and 'them' in the most basic or mysterious way.

speciallyblend
07-07-2010, 07:03 PM
has hell frozen over???? welcome to the twilight zone

YouTube - Twilight Zone intro. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y)

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 07:04 PM
..

YumYum
07-07-2010, 07:06 PM
No. The point of the movement when I joined in 07 was to spread the message of liberty to EVERYBODY. Labels don't really mean anything. We shouldn't limit ourselves to just the republican party. The movement was supposed to stretch across party lines to include everybody. We are all Americans afterall. The partyies were created just to divide us and keep us busy little slaves anyways.

Amen. I couldn't have said it better, or as good as you have just done.:)

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 07:11 PM
I'm impressed to see such a neocon prick as Coulter write a piece that portrays the true nature of neocons! :cool:

speciallyblend
07-07-2010, 07:11 PM
No. The point of the movement when I joined in 07 was to spread the message of liberty to EVERYBODY. Labels don't really mean anything. We shouldn't limit ourselves to just the republican party. The movement was supposed to stretch across party lines to include everybody. We are all Americans afterall. The partyies were created just to divide us and keep us busy little slaves anyways.

exactly, Liberty has no party!!! Ron Paul supporters are from all political spectrums!! what the gop needs is to grow their tent but if they are unwilling. then i expect the gop to suffer further loses at the hands of registered republicans like myself!!! the biggest obstacle to overcome is the brandname of the republican party! Ron Pauls message sells. it is the gop that is the hard sell after the failures of the gop for many yrs!!!

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 07:12 PM
No. The point of the movement when I joined in 07 was to spread the message of liberty to EVERYBODY. Labels don't really mean anything. We shouldn't limit ourselves to just the republican party. The movement was supposed to stretch across party lines to include everybody. We are all Americans afterall. The parties were created just to divide us and keep us busy little slaves anyways.

qft! That's why it's silly when people try to oust libertarians and anarchists/voluntaryists on these boards. Nicely said. :cool:

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 07:13 PM
exactly, Liberty has no party!!! Ron Paul supporters are from all political spectrums!! what the gop needs is to grow their tent but if they are unwilling. then i expect the gop to suffer further loses at the hands of registered republicans like myself!!!


You stayed in the GOP? :eek: Do you just vote for 3rd parties instead at the general elections?

Agorism
07-07-2010, 07:14 PM
She stole the title from Raimondo's column.

Anyone else notice that?

Agorism
07-07-2010, 07:14 PM
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/04/bill-kristol-must-resign

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 07:15 PM
..

silus
07-07-2010, 07:20 PM
No. The point of the movement when I joined in 07 was to spread the message of liberty to EVERYBODY. Labels don't really mean anything. We shouldn't limit ourselves to just the republican party. The movement was supposed to stretch across party lines to include everybody. We are all Americans afterall. The parties were created just to divide us and keep us busy little slaves anyways.
Labels are just quick references to identify someones core beliefs and principles. The principles of liberty inherently cannot reach across party lines if it fundamentally conflicts with another set of core beliefs identified by a "label."

Spreading the message of liberty is one thing, combining the message of liberty with, say, dictatorship, is just a contradiction. Again, spreading liberty and believing in liberty is one thing, identifying yourself as a "Ron Paul Democrat" is something else entirely. I guess the point i'm trying to make is that I have no idea what the difference is between a "Ron Paul Democrat" and a "Ron Paul Republican."

angelatc
07-07-2010, 07:21 PM
I like Ann Coulter well enough, but I'm not digging her here.


-- the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."

By contrast, Iraq had a young, educated, pro-Western populace that was ideal for regime change.

If Saddam Hussein had been a peach, it would still be a major victory in the war on terrorism to have a Muslim Israel in that part of the globe, and it sure wasn't going to be Afghanistan (literacy rate, 19 percent; life expectancy, 44 years; working toilets, 7).

But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain -- thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists -- including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.


So for the entire course of the magnificently successful war in Iraq, all we heard from these useless Democrats was that Iraq was a "war of choice," while Afghanistan -- the good war! -- was a "war of necessity." "Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan!" "He got distracted by war in Iraq!" "WHERE'S OSAMA?" and -- my favorite -- "Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!"

How on earth can you defend the Iraq war while insisting that Afghanistan is now somehow wrong?

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 07:22 PM
I like Ann Coulter well enough, but I'm not digging her here.





How on earth can you defend the Iraq war while insisting that Afghanistan is now somehow wrong?

good point.:cool:

angelatc
07-07-2010, 07:24 PM
We shouldn't limit ourselves to just the republican party.

That sort of contradicts what Ron Paul says. Not that he intends to run away Democrats, but he distinctly said we need to be active in the GOP.

heavenlyboy34
07-07-2010, 07:32 PM
That sort of contradicts what Ron Paul says. Not that he intends to run away Democrats, but he distinctly said we need to be active in the GOP.

Actually, Ron has long encouraged working in all parties and philosophies toward a goal of individual liberty. I've never heard him limit activism to the GOP. He even endorsed Chuck Baldwin for Pres, remember?

catdd
07-07-2010, 07:38 PM
Kristol is a worthless, neocon pest, he should resign yesterday.

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 07:39 PM
..

rprprs
07-07-2010, 07:44 PM
I like Ann Coulter well enough, but I'm not digging her here.

How on earth can you defend the Iraq war while insisting that Afghanistan is now somehow wrong?

I'm sure you know the answer to that.

Coulter realizes that Steele has justification for calling this Obama's war and she is seizing on that opportunity.

Afghanistan = Obama/Democrat = BAD
Iraq = Bush/Republican = GOOD

Simple.

Slutter McGee
07-07-2010, 07:46 PM
Um....whats a traditional conservative? I would say the Old Right, who were anti-war, non-interventionists. There was actually an Old Righter elected during WWII advocating immediate withdrawal and cessation of the War. That I would consider a traditional conservative on foreign policy.

Its a fact that the traditional conservatives that you talk about have adopted a pro-interventionist foreign policy. I am trying to differentiate between typical paleo-conservatives. The roots of traditional conservativism are still alive even in those who have supported these two wars. Many still have a fundamental problem with concept of nation building and endless war, although they have been duped by the neo-conservative line of thought. For the neo-conservative, the wars are about spreading American exceptionalism through force. For the traditional conservative, the wars are about protecting American security. This does not mean that traditional conservatives are correct about American Security. Simply that we MUST recognize the difference

My point is that the term neo-conservative has been used here to describe anyone who is not anti-war, and its use is innaccurate. Neo-conservatives will NOT become disallusioned with nation building and ongoing war. Traditional conservatives will. Traditional conservatives can serve as political allies at the Federal Level, despite our differences on social issues. True neo-conservatives can not.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Agorism
07-07-2010, 07:46 PM
YouTube - Ron Paul Speaking the truth about Iraq and History. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyIqyTvKiYA&feature=PlayList&p=4A348E21B12279D0&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=19)

silus
07-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Actually, Ron has long encouraged working inWITH all parties and philosophies toward a goal of individual liberty. I've never heard him limit activism to the GOP. He even endorsed Chuck Baldwin for Pres, remember?
Corrected for accuracy.

surf
07-07-2010, 07:50 PM
Ha!!

Fuck you kristol!!

of all the posts in this thread, this is the one that i agree with most. eloquently written, Kotin.

JeNNiF00F00
07-07-2010, 08:03 PM
..

Chieftain1776
07-07-2010, 08:03 PM
Wow....I knew Ann wasn't the drone everyone here and across the spectrum thought she was. It was such a detailed critique too. Of course she's wrong about Iraq but This Is Awesome. I first noticed it at CPAC '09 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1991186&postcount=1)...here's what I posted February '09...enjoy:

SHOCKER! Ann Coulter opposes expansion of War in Afghanistan. HotAir Confused

I saw Coulter say it live but waited to see what people would say:


The one real problem with Obama on national security is… he’s putting more troops into Afghanistan, which is insane. This has been the focus of the terrorists — they’re all streaming across into Iraq, where we can win. Now it’s gonna be in Afghanistan, which could well be another Vietnam.

So for politically correct reasons, we’re moving the focus of the war on terrorism to a very bad place for us. The Russians couldn’t win there. Peter the Great couldn’t win there. Oh, but maybe the messiah can win there, ok.

Here's HotAir: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/28/video-coulter-at-cpac/


I tuned in halfway through, caught a bunch of well-delivered one-liners, and stuck around to the end of the Q&A to hear her tell Obama he’s kidding himself if he thinks we can win in Afghanistan. Evidently we’re the anti-war party now. Or the party that opposes The One just for the sake of opposing him.

As another RPF thread shows (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=181563&highlight=HotAir) HotAir mocking Ron Paul. They don't know what to do. This is pretty amazing stuff guys!!!

UPDATE: [U], hopefully they are smart and stay principled and help us wrap up Afghanistan instead of just going after Coulter.

Interesting times ladies and gents.


Since she's going out on a limb I'm going going to as well: Yes I think Ann Coulter is attractive.

There. I said it.

Sentient Void
07-07-2010, 08:23 PM
Sure. Fine. I'd tap that ass. Doesn't mean I respect her any more nor any less, considering her political views. Which I disagree with wholeheartedly for the most part.

Though this is a slight plus.

RM918
07-07-2010, 08:29 PM
Just when you think you couldn't be surprised. This is pretty good news, whether you hate Coulter or not.

driege
07-07-2010, 08:32 PM
I can't think of anyone who was more in support of the Iraq and Afghan wars than Ann Coulter. I don't think she is actually coming out against them due to a stand on principle, as much as she is using it as an opportunity to bash Obama. I still don't think she's converted.

anaconda
07-07-2010, 08:33 PM
Whats a Ron Paul democrat? :scratches head

Anyways, good for Coulter, even though she is still an arrogant bitch.


Perhaps a "Ron Paul Democrat" is one that believes only sales taxes can fund entitlements?:)

And is anti war, anti fed, and pro Constitution (except for the 16th Amendment).

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 08:38 PM
I'd say a ron paul democrat is a pro-liberty person who emphasizes the anti-war, anti-drug war, anti corporatism parts of his/her message. There's been at least one principled pro-liberty person in NH running as a D that I know of.

Chieftain1776
07-07-2010, 08:43 PM
I can't think of anyone who was more in support of the Iraq and Afghan wars than Ann Coulter. I don't think she is actually coming out against them due to a stand on principle, as much as she is using it as an opportunity to bash Obama. I still don't think she's converted.

My take is that she's more down the line of a traditional conservative that mainly focuses in political polemics as opposed to ideological activism. I think--like many traditional conservatives--she's probably suspicious of intervening abroad but "supports the effort" as long as she can.

Is there partisanship? Probably but with the new administration came the new policy: escalation.

Look I don't think she's being completely consistent and her main line of work is calling out the Left but I guess she felt the need to speak out. She's probably some hybrid of a Jacksonian in foreign policy (http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm):

Jacksonian

The Jacksonian tradition is perhaps the least well-known, and certainly the least understood of the four schools of thought that Meade defines. Jacksonians tend to be looked down upon – despite the fact that by the numbers, they appear to be the largest of the four schools. The driving belief of the Jacksonian school of thought is that the first priority of the U.S. Government in both foreign and domestic policy is the physical security and economic well-being of the American populace. Jacksonians believe that the US shouldn't seek out foreign quarrels, but if a war starts, the basic belief is "there's no substitute for victory" – and Jacksonians will do pretty much whatever is required to make that victory happen. If you wanted a Jacksonian slogan, it's "Don't Tread On Me!" Jacksonians are generally viewed by the rest of the world as having a simplistic, uncomplicated view of the world, despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

Jacksonians also strongly value self-reliance. "Economic well-being" to a Jacksonian isn’t about protectionist trade barriers. Rather, it is about providing Jacksonians with the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own.

catdd
07-07-2010, 08:45 PM
If she would just get her foreign policy right she would be a big help.

someperson
07-07-2010, 09:00 PM
What someone labels themselves as is irrelevant to me... Ron Paul Republican, Jack Frost Antarctican, Democratic Libertarian Minarchist, Barack Obama Skydiver (lol what?)... I couldn't care less. In the political sense, I evaluate an individual, not by their label or adopted group identity, but by the specific ideas that they promote and whether or not they seem to possess a thorough understanding of why they support those ideas.

It's obviously subjective, but if I determine that an individual fails to truly understand why they support any given idea that they promote and I find positive, I cannot bring myself to support them. If, in time, I'm satisfied that they've come to understand the underlying philosophy, I may support them in their promotion of those specific ideas. However, I won't support their label, their party, or any other individuals by association.

I don't expect others to evaluate candidates in the same way; I'm just throwing this out there for consideration. I'll probably use this method of evaluation for as long as elections exist ;)

Deborah K
07-07-2010, 09:00 PM
YOU IDIOTS!!!! She's psy-ops don't you know that? Anyone and EVERYONE who seems to have a change of heart CANNOT be trusted!!!

Damnit!!! Where's Interested Participant when you need him???? :rolleyes:

tekkierich
07-07-2010, 09:03 PM
Anne Coulter wakes up every morning, puts her finger in the wind and figures out how to say the most controversial thing possible to gin up people reading and listening to what she has to say. To take any thing she says seriously, in agreement or not with yourself, is a mistake.

driege
07-07-2010, 09:07 PM
My take is that she's more down the line of a traditional conservative that mainly focuses in political polemics as opposed to ideological activism. I think--like many traditional conservatives--she's probably suspicious of intervening abroad but "supports the effort" as long as she can.

Is there partisanship? Probably but with the new administration came the new policy: escalation.

Look I don't think she's being completely consistent and her main line of work is calling out the Left but I guess she felt the need to speak out. She's probably some hybrid of a Jacksonian in foreign policy (http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm):

I have trouble crediting her with a coherent foreign policy when she makes jokes about Afghanis smelling bad and not having toilets in all of her columns. Face it, she's a conservative Bill Maher

silus
07-07-2010, 09:07 PM
What someone labels themselves as is irrelevant to me... Ron Paul Republican, Jack Frost Antarctican, Democratic Libertarian Minarchist, Barack Obama Skydiver (lol what?)... I couldn't care less. In the political sense, I evaluate an individual, not by their label or adopted group identity, but by the specific ideas that they promote and whether or not they seem to possess a thorough understanding of why they support those ideas.

It's obviously subjective, but if I determine that an individual fails to truly understand why they support any given idea that they promote and I find positive, I cannot bring myself to support them. If, in time, I'm satisfied that they've come to understand the underlying philosophy, I may support them in their promotion of those specific ideas. However, I won't support their label, their party, or any other individuals by association.

I don't expect others to evaluate candidates in the same way; I'm just throwing this out there for consideration. I'll probably hold myself to this method of evaluation for as long as elections exist ;)
I have no idea why you think that, and I highly doubt you believe it. In fact, I don't think you really do! What a person identifies themselves as is the first step in understanding any interaction, and the next step is always figuring out how aligned the persons superficial representations are with the actions, deeds and consistent behavior. This is just how basic evaluation occurs. I don't agree with this unsustainable, reactionary attitude that labels, or how a person chooses to represent themselves to the world, all of a sudden don't matter simply because we live in a completely superficial and hypocritical society today. That doesn't even make sense.

Condor Bastadon
07-07-2010, 09:14 PM
Anne Coulter wakes up every morning, puts her finger in the wind and figures out how to say the most controversial thing possible to gin up people reading and listening to what she has to say. To take any thing she says seriously, in agreement or not with yourself, is a mistake.

This is pretty much right on. She's just a real life troll who says everything she can to rile up liberals. I seriously doubt she even believes half the stuff she says....it's just for attention.

This situation is a little odd because it isn't an obvious Dem or Pub issue and usually she stays out of that...so i'm not really sure what her angle is here. Maybe she's trying to be taken seriously for once.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
07-07-2010, 09:19 PM
Cant believe I just read and Ann Coulter article and didnt smash my head against the wall.

Imaginos
07-07-2010, 09:20 PM
Huh?
Ann Coulter said Bill Kristol must resign?
What planet am I on?
:confused:

sailingaway
07-07-2010, 09:20 PM
Way to go, Ann!!!

We should send her flowers or something.....

paulitics
07-07-2010, 09:21 PM
Most of her article was a pro Bush/Iraq war lovefest. She is an interventionist of the worst kind.

She also makes pointless derogatory statements about Muslims. She's poison. For every one person she may attract, she turns away 10 more.

She's defending Steele for calling Afghanastan Obama's war, big deal. It fits the meme. If Steele criticised Iraq, than she would hypocritically be calling for his resignation.

sailingaway
07-07-2010, 09:21 PM
This is pretty much right on. She's just a real life troll who says everything she can to rile up liberals. I seriously doubt she even believes half the stuff she says....it's just for attention.

This situation is a little odd because it isn't an obvious Dem or Pub issue and usually she stays out of that...so i'm not really sure what her angle is here. Maybe she's trying to be taken seriously for once.

I think she is less tone deaf than some and saw the enthusiasm at CPAC etc.

-
paulitics - I don't disagree. She is kinda evil, but really clever, I do believe, although I don't read enough of her to know some of the things you said, first hand. However, I see no future in Iraq, even for her, and think she will let bygones be bygones and blame Afghanistan on Obama. I don't say follow her, just it is good to have her saying these things.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 09:22 PM
This situation is a little odd because it isn't an obvious Dem or Pub issue and usually she stays out of that...so i'm not really sure what her angle is here. Maybe she's trying to be taken seriously for once.

Only 27% of democrats support the war in afghanistan. If the republicans can hang the war around the democrats heads, nov. will be an epic beatdown as many of the the 73% stay home on election day.

someperson
07-07-2010, 09:29 PM
I have no idea why you think that, and I highly doubt you believe it. In fact, I don't think you really do! What a person identifies themselves as is the first step in understanding any interaction, and the next step is always figuring out how aligned the persons superficial representations are with the actions, deeds and consistent behavior. This is just how basic evaluation occurs. I don't agree with this unsustainable, reactionary attitude that labels, or how a person chooses to represent themselves to the world, all of a sudden don't matter simply because we live in a completely superficial and hypocritical society today. That doesn't even make sense.
Oh, I assure you, I do believe what I wrote. I respect your disagreement, though I find the use of labels in evaluating another individual extraordinarily primitive and superficial... so much so, as to be utterly worthless to me.

Here are a few thoughts that I wrote on a related topic:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231130

dr. hfn
07-07-2010, 09:30 PM
:O it's almost unbelievable

jmdrake
07-07-2010, 09:56 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Qii0RxMolYE/SaibCLNVahI/AAAAAAAAA4Q/FMR3SdeCofk/s400/shock.jpg

sailingaway
07-07-2010, 09:58 PM
Lots of em. Bob Conley who won the Dem. SC Senate nomination against Lindsay Graham last time was one. The democrat party pretty much supported Graham over him in fact.

Yeah, but he was a member of the GOP exec committee down there just several months earlier.... and STILL won the DEm primary, Dems are so weak down there....

jmdrake
07-07-2010, 10:04 PM
I like Ann Coulter well enough, but I'm not digging her here.





How on earth can you defend the Iraq war while insisting that Afghanistan is now somehow wrong?

Yeah. Calling Iraq "magnificently successful" is a laugh and a half. The only thing that stopped the bleeding was bribing the insurgents (excuse me "hiring the sons of Iraq"). This seems to be an emerging pattern though. Michael Savage began attacking the Afghan war 6 months to a year ago. The whole time he was still praising the war in Iraq. (Well, kinda sorta. He now claims it was a "favor done for those ingrateful Iraqis who should pay us back in oil).

I suspect this is a "face saving" move. It's a way to attack what is becoming an increasingly negative foreign policy move by Obama without having to admit they were wrong for 8 years about Bush. The only think I'm concerned about is how well are we going to be able to capitalize on this! :D

Iraq won't likely be on the forefront of everyone's mind in 2012. And by that time calling for a pullout won't be controversial even for Republicans. When Ron Paul (or whoever) is running then and they get asked the stupid "Why do you oppose the Afghanistan war when most republicans support it" question, they'll be able to reply with "Well Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram all agree with my position. Michael Steele agreed with publicly too before he was attacked from the left and the right for telling the truth."

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 10:10 PM
Okay, I've thought about it and I've come to the conclusion that if Senator Barack Obama (R) had been elected president and had continued on the same path that once-Senator Barack Obama (D) has since being elected and the Kristol/Steele events had STILL happened [catch my breath], this piece would have never been written by Coulter...

But, it was written, it has come to past... what does it mean?

I dunno... maybe Kristol stepped out of line in the GOP's eyes and sent this message without talking it over with the rest of the GOP... maybe using a neocon hack well-thought of in neocon circles to write a "hit" piece on the guy is payback?

Or maybe it doesn't go any further than Coulter and the GOP ganging up on "Obama's War"?

Whatever it is, I dunno if I'd call it 100% genuine... I'm just very suspicious of it...

tremendoustie
07-07-2010, 10:10 PM
Yeah. Calling Iraq "magnificently successful" is a laugh and a half. The only thing that stopped the bleeding was bribing the insurgents (excuse me "hiring the sons of Iraq"). This seems to be an emerging pattern though. Michael Savage began attacking the Afghan war 6 months to a year ago. The whole time he was still praising the war in Iraq. (Well, kinda sorta. He now claims it was a "favor done for those ingrateful Iraqis who should pay us back in oil).

I suspect this is a "face saving" move. It's a way to attack what is becoming an increasingly negative foreign policy move by Obama without having to admit they were wrong for 8 years about Bush. The only think I'm concerned about is how well are we going to be able to capitalize on this! :D

Iraq won't likely be on the forefront of everyone's mind in 2012. And by that time calling for a pullout won't be controversial even for Republicans. When Ron Paul (or whoever) is running then and they get asked the stupid "Why do you oppose the Afghanistan war when most republicans support it" question, they'll be able to reply with "Well Pat Buchanan, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram all agree with my position. Michael Steele agreed with publicly too before he was attacked from the left and the right for telling the truth."

Yep. Ok, she's a blind partisan ... but at least I'm glad she's backing Steele on this.

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 10:14 PM
But, it was written, it has come to past... what does it mean?


It means Ron Paul is the intellectual leader of the Republican party. At least that is how I see it.

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 10:18 PM
I seriously doubt Ron Paul's backing of Steele had anything to do with Coulter getting behind the guy as well...

I do agree, we've got to capitalize on it somehow...

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 10:25 PM
I seriously doubt Ron Paul's backing of Steele had anything to do with Coulter getting behind the guy as well...

I do agree, we've got to capitalize on it somehow...

okay, I'll change it to:

"I seriously doubt Ron Paul's backing of Steele was the sole reason Coulter came out in favor of Steele as well..."

Remember what the lady really did here: She slammed ONE single republican, defended the head of the GOP, defended the last 8 years of a GOP presidency and slammed the current DEMOCRAT president...

Party politics is the main motivation here...

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 10:28 PM
Party politics is the main motivation here...
Yes it is. Dr. Paul is showing them how to take back control.

payme_rick
07-07-2010, 10:31 PM
I just don't see it yet... hopefully it is something like that, but I just don't trust these fools anymore and this doesn't make me trust Coulter...

specsaregood
07-07-2010, 10:41 PM
I just don't see it yet... hopefully it is something like that, but I just don't trust these fools anymore and this doesn't make me trust Coulter...

Who said anything about trusting them? They'll stab you in the back the second it is politically favorable to them. You can trust that.

jmdrake
07-07-2010, 10:47 PM
Who said anything about trusting them? They'll stab you in the back the second it is politically favorable to them. You can trust that.

Exactly! Trust doesn't matter here. Only political advantage. And this plays to our political advantage. For the first time I honestly believe we can win in 2012. (Yeah I lied and said we could in the recent poll. But now I really believe it.) Whether Coulter, Savage and Steele are doing this on purpose or not, they are undercutting the one consistent argument they attacked Paul with in 2008 which is he was "out of line" with the GOP on foreign policy. Iraq won't matter in 2012 and now all of them are on record saying that "holding the course" in Afghanistan is stupid.

low preference guy
07-07-2010, 10:52 PM
[...] this doesn't make me trust Coulter...

as others said... why do you need to trust her? you should analyze her actions and realize whether they'll benefit you or not, and see what can you do with the new situation. that's it. there's no need to get touchy-feely about the whole thing.

michaelwise
07-07-2010, 10:56 PM
I've always held the position, Ann Coulter isn't all that bad. Just a little misguided at times. Jumping on Ron Paul's band wagon will give a boost to your carrier.

Matt Collins
07-07-2010, 10:57 PM
This is awesome.

sailingaway
07-07-2010, 10:58 PM
Yes it is. Dr. Paul is showing them how to take back control.

I agree. Ron articulated how those party partisans can frame the reason they come to the right conclusion.

silus
07-07-2010, 11:09 PM
Oh, I assure you, I do believe what I wrote. I respect your disagreement, though I find the use of labels in evaluating another individual extraordinarily primitive and superficial... so much so, as to be utterly worthless to me.

Here are a few thoughts that I wrote on a related topic:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=231130
Honestly you have no idea what my point even was.

YumYum
07-07-2010, 11:22 PM
I guess the point i'm trying to make is that I have no idea what the difference is between a "Ron Paul Democrat" and a "Ron Paul Republican."

Very little. A Ron Paul Republican puts up with the neocons at the Republican Party meetings and educates them about freedom and liberty.

A Ron Paul Democrat puts up with the liberals at the Democrat Party meetings and educates them also about freedom and liberty.

Many people love learning about freedom and liberty, and many people in both parties haven't got a clue and need to be taught.

The difference between the two Parties? Democrats want food stamps and welfare to go to Americans, and Republicans want to give food stamps and welfare to corporations, foreign countries and entities.

I have had more success with leftest Democrats than with neocons. I'm sorry, but talking to neocons is like talking to monkeys, and I ran out of peanuts.

AmericaFyeah92
07-07-2010, 11:45 PM
Ann Coulter has said several times that she would prefer Ron Paul for president

Knightskye
07-08-2010, 12:25 AM
What the heck did Ron Paul do to Ann Coulter?

Good googly moogly.

parocks
07-08-2010, 12:46 AM
Accurate again.



Its a fact that the traditional conservatives that you talk about have adopted a pro-interventionist foreign policy. I am trying to differentiate between typical paleo-conservatives. The roots of traditional conservativism are still alive even in those who have supported these two wars. Many still have a fundamental problem with concept of nation building and endless war, although they have been duped by the neo-conservative line of thought. For the neo-conservative, the wars are about spreading American exceptionalism through force. For the traditional conservative, the wars are about protecting American security. This does not mean that traditional conservatives are correct about American Security. Simply that we MUST recognize the difference

My point is that the term neo-conservative has been used here to describe anyone who is not anti-war, and its use is innaccurate. Neo-conservatives will NOT become disallusioned with nation building and ongoing war. Traditional conservatives will. Traditional conservatives can serve as political allies at the Federal Level, despite our differences on social issues. True neo-conservatives can not.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Knightskye
07-08-2010, 12:57 AM
It's like a giant dam, and more cracks keep appearing.

George Will.

Michael Steele.

Ann Coulter.

Who's next to admit the truth?

someperson
07-08-2010, 02:55 AM
Honestly you have no idea what my point even was.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Allow me to try to spell out what I think you were trying to say; please correct me where I am mistaken. You seem to believe that it's more logical to begin evaluating an individual based on the label that they've been, in many cases, indoctrinated to accept. From there, perform a consistency test, of sorts, to see how well the individual matches up with the label, in their actual beliefs and behavior. After all of this, informed interaction may ensue.

What you seem to be suggesting:
Meet individual -> Discover label -> Recall common label stereotypes and "label ideas" (like those really exist, in practice) -> Determine what the individual actually believes -> Compare -> Profit

What I try to do, though, no one is perfect:
Meet individual -> Determine the ideas and philosophy of that specific individual -> Determine whether they understand why they believe as they do -> Profit

I'm sure you can see that the label of the individual is superfluous, as it only serves as an unnecessary abstraction layer, obfuscating the true ideas of the individual. All too many individuals are pressured, and in some cases coerced, by family, peers, the media, and the state to adopt a specific label; as such, these labels obscure ideas as often as they illuminate. A label can never truly represent what any given individual believes; they only serve to promote ideological misrepresentation, misunderstanding, stereotypes, and primitive group identification.

As far as I'm concerned, evaluating an individual, using a label as a starting point, injects poison into the process. Time is wasted shifting away from what you were initially misled to believe about the person, when you could have already been trying to learn why they believe the specific ideas that they do.

Once again, I apologize if I have misunderstood your ideas. Please correct me, if you have time. I don't expect you to accept my reasoning, but I hope you can understand that I was being sincere when I wrote the following:


What someone labels themselves as is irrelevant to me... Ron Paul Republican, Jack Frost Antarctican, Democratic Libertarian Minarchist, Barack Obama Skydiver (lol what?)... I couldn't care less. In the political sense, I evaluate an individual, not by their label or adopted group identity, but by the specific ideas that they promote and whether or not they seem to possess a thorough understanding of why they support those ideas.

It's obviously subjective, but if I determine that an individual fails to truly understand why they support any given idea that they promote and I find positive, I cannot bring myself to support them. If, in time, I'm satisfied that they've come to understand the underlying philosophy, I may support them in their promotion of those specific ideas. However, I won't support their label, their party, or any other individuals by association.

I don't expect others to evaluate candidates in the same way; I'm just throwing this out there for consideration. I'll probably use this method of evaluation for as long as elections exist ;)

someperson
07-08-2010, 03:59 AM
And now, for some humor ;)

Scenario #1: GO LABELS!
Candidate: Hi, I'm John Smith! Send me back to Washington for a second term as your Republican Senator!
Person thinks... ok, Republican, label = must be fiscal conservative | probably likes war | more useless stereotypes
Person: Those bailouts were terrible, huh? I can't believe those Democrats are destroying the country!
Candidate: Actually, I voted for the bailout, but...
Person reevaluating..... please wai------- Fatal exception: Republican + Bailout != Fiscal Conservative, rolling back mental state, catching...
Person: Oh, yeah, that's good. I'm Republican and, since you voted for it, it must have been for the good of the country! (typical group identity-based defensive irrationality)
Candidate: Can I count on your vote?
Person thinks... other side, Democrat. label = not fiscal conservative | probably didn't like war (lol, I so despise this primitive garbage)
Person: Yes, I'll vote for you! You're Republican! LOLZ.

Scenario #2: NO LABELS. NO ASSUMPTIONS.
Candidate: Hi, I'm Jane Doe! Send me back to Washington for a second term as your Republican Senator!
Person: Yeah, republican, whatever. So, what position did you take on the bailouts?
Candidate: I voted against the bailout! [PHASE 1: PASS]
Person: Why did you decide to vote against the bailout?
Candidate: The Democrats were voting for it, so I voted against it. [PHASE 2: FAIL]
Person: I see.
Candidate: Can I count on your vote?
Person: I'll need to do more research on all of your specific positions... at this point, leaning toward no.

Scenario #3: NO LABELS. THE SEQUEL.
Candidate: Hi, I'm Barack Obama Jones! Send me back to Washington for a second term as your Antarctican Senator!
Person: Yeah, antarctican, whatever. So, what position did you take on the Iraq war?
Candidate: I voted against the Iraq war! [PHASE 1: PASS]
Person: Why did you decide to vote against the Iraq war?
Candidate: As I believe in the non-aggression principle, I find the initiation of force by the state in this case unconscionable. From a constitutional perspective, those individuals in the congress never even proposed a declaration of war, which I still would have voted against as interventionism of this sort has no merit. For these reasons, I voted against the authorization of force that became the Iraq war. [PHASE 2: PASS (good, it seems you know why you voted against it, and your reasoning was rational)]
Person: I see.
Candidate: Can I count on your vote?
Person: I'll need to do more research on all of your other positions... at this point, leaning toward yes, I will support your promotion of the specific position of being against the Iraq war, as it violates the NAP, violates the philosophy of foreign and domestic non-interventionism, and, of somewhat lesser importance, violates the constitution.


I don't know... when it comes to politics and evaluating candidates, I prefer scenarios #2 and #3. Maybe I'm just crazy.

What the phases of evaluating a candidate are, if you didn't see the previous posts:
[PHASE 1: Discover an individual's specific ideas and determine if the ideas, themselves, have merit]
[PHASE 2: Evaluate the grasp that the individual has on the philosophy that underlies their belief in those ideas]

dean.engelhardt
07-08-2010, 06:51 AM
I just read an article from Ann COulter and agreed. Should I admit myself to a mental institution?

jmdrake
07-08-2010, 06:54 AM
Very little. A Ron Paul Republican puts up with the neocons at the Republican Party meetings and educates them about freedom and liberty.

A Ron Paul Democrat puts up with the liberals at the Democrat Party meetings and educates them also about freedom and liberty.

Many people love learning about freedom and liberty, and many people in both parties haven't got a clue and need to be taught.

The difference between the two Parties? Democrats want food stamps and welfare to go to Americans, and Republicans want to give food stamps and welfare to corporations, foreign countries and entities.

I have had more success with leftest Democrats than with neocons. I'm sorry, but talking to neocons is like talking to monkeys, and I ran out of peanuts.

No need to defend your position. (Or at least you shouldn't have to). Part of the rEVOLution was supposed to be about breaking out of the false left/right paradigm. Besides, the MSM always talks about "Reagan democrats". So what's inconsistent about a "Ron Paul democrat"?

jmdrake
07-08-2010, 06:57 AM
I just read an article from Ann COulter and agreed. Should I admit myself to a mental institution?

LOL. What's really funny is you just read an article from Ann Coulter about war and foreign policy and agreed. :p We're used to the "Faux News" types being right for standing up against an ever expanding welfare state and the Olbermann/MSNBC types being right for standing up against stupid wars. Now if Olbermann and/or Maddow come out against the next democrat expansion of the nanny state I'll really freak out.

dean.engelhardt
07-08-2010, 07:03 AM
Whats a Ron Paul democrat? :scratches head

I would not go as far as to state Bill Clinton was a Ron Paul democrat (as President). Comparing his term to George W's he kind of looks like one.

If the republican win a majority this year, look for a lot of Liberty democrats running in 2012.

Bruno
07-08-2010, 07:07 AM
Link in OP doesn't work for me.

The page you requested cannot be found. The page you requested cannot be found.



She stole the title from Raimondo's column.

Anyone else notice that?

Good catch!

sailingaway
07-08-2010, 07:29 AM
I would not go as far as to state Bill Clinton was a Ron Paul democrat (as President). Comparing his term to George W's he kind of looks like one.

If the republican win a majority this year, look for a lot of Liberty democrats running in 2012.

He put the law in place that brought us into Iraq. Ron Paul spoke out about it at the time. He had the benefit of the dot com bubble and the contract with America congress, though. Do remember WHY he had the Contract with America Congress.....Hillarycare.

nbruno322
07-08-2010, 07:36 AM
It's like a giant dam, and more cracks keep appearing.

George Will.

Michael Steele.

Ann Coulter.

Who's next to admit the truth?


Add to that list a couple of conservative radio hosts who have come out against the war in Afghanistan:

-Michael Savage

-Jason Lewis - ( I recommend you check out his July 2 show archived on his website, very good stuff)

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-08-2010, 08:13 AM
I can't believe you guys get suckered with the BS. Wheres that thread Conza made again? Coulter is a partisan, like every other pundit, or in other words a contrarian.

Savage....hahaha! He's about as anti-liberty & freedom, as Olbermann. Needless to say, if McCain would have been elected everyone here would be praising Olbermann, or Maddow for being contrarian. They are roleplayers. Ignore them. Make them irrelevant. Listen to people like Free Talk Live, and other liberty activists.

Bruno
07-08-2010, 08:16 AM
I can't believe you guys get suckered with the BS. Wheres that thread Conza made again? Coulter is a partisan, like every other pundit, or in other words a contrarian.

Savage....hahaha! He's about as anti-liberty & freedom, as Olbermann. Needless to say, if McCain would have been elected everyone here would be praising Olbermann, or Maddow for being contrarian. They are roleplayers. Ignore them. Make them irrelevant. Listen to people like Free Talk Live, and other liberty activists.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=177088&page=15&highlight=media+conza

klamath
07-08-2010, 08:36 AM
Very little. A Ron Paul Republican puts up with the neocons at the Republican Party meetings and educates them about freedom and liberty.

A Ron Paul Democrat puts up with the liberals at the Democrat Party meetings and educates them also about freedom and liberty.

Many people love learning about freedom and liberty, and many people in both parties haven't got a clue and need to be taught.

The difference between the two Parties? Democrats want food stamps and welfare to go to Americans, and Republicans want to give food stamps and welfare to corporations, foreign countries and entities.

I have had more success with leftest Democrats than with neocons. I'm sorry, but talking to neocons is like talking to monkeys, and I ran out of peanuts.

Generally what you say is true but the stereo type of republicans being for corporate welfare don't quite add up anymore. Go back and read the roll call vote on the the biggist corporate welfare check ever handed out, TARP. The democrats voted for it in a majority while the republicans voted against it in a majority.

lester1/2jr
07-08-2010, 08:47 AM
I hadn't thought about ann coulter in at least 5 years. She stole raimondos article title but who cares this is fucking awesome!

YumYum
07-08-2010, 08:52 AM
Generally what you say is true but the stereo type of republicans being for corporate welfare don't quite add up anymore. Go back and read the roll call vote on the the biggist corporate welfare check ever handed out, TARP. The democrats voted for it in a majority while the republicans voted against it in a majority.

Wasn't the first TARP ($350 billion) pushed on America by Bush? He laid the ground work for the next $450 billion, which was the second phase of TARP.

The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans for screwing up this country; you have no argument from me on that point.

But Republicans are for corporate welfare and government subsidies. It started with Henry Clay's "American System", and the Republicans gave billions to the railroads.

Democrats are in bed with big business too, but unlike Republicans, they want to give welfare to their fellow Americans. As long as there is welfare, I would rather it go to American citizens, than the corrupt foreign countries who exploit our politicians. We have to bribe Egypt and Israel to keep them from killing each other. Charity begins at home.

specsaregood
07-08-2010, 08:54 AM
Democrats are in bed with big business too, but unlike Republicans, they want to give welfare to their fellow Americans. As long as there is welfare, I would rather it go to American citizens, than the corrupt foreign countries who exploit our politicians. We have to bribe Egypt and Israel to keep them from killing each other. Charity begins at home.

If you think either party is more inclined to give away money to foreign countries than the other.....well you haven't been paying attention. Both are perfectly fine with giving away our money, equally.

lester1/2jr
07-08-2010, 08:54 AM
okay having just actually read the column http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/07/07/bill_kristol_must_resign

it's not THAT good and is one of those "iraq has oil so it was the good war, afghanistan isn't useful" type of arguments but it's something.

YumYum
07-08-2010, 09:06 AM
If you think either party is more inclined to give away money to foreign countries than the other.....well you haven't been paying attention.

No, the Dems are just as guilty as the Repubs, but the Dems are willing to throw a bone or two to the American public. The Democrats and Republicans are socialists when it comes to giving foreign welfare.

Last night on Larry King, Prime Minister Netanyahu was bragging how Israel's economy is booming, and that even the Palestinians in the West Bank are benefiting, at a rate of 8-9% growth, from Israel's economic prosperity.

I thought "So, why are you taking our money?"

If we are going to give welfare to people, lets give it to Americans first, and not to unappreciative foreigners who manipulate our politicians. That is a message that resonates well with Democrats.

klamath
07-08-2010, 09:14 AM
Wasn't the first TARP ($350 billion) pushed on America by Bush? He laid the ground work for the next $450 billion, which was the second phase of TARP.

The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans for screwing up this country; you have no argument from me on that point.

But Republicans are for corporate welfare and government subsidies. It started with Henry Clay's "American System", and the Republicans gave billions to the railroads.

Democrats are in bed with big business too, but unlike Republicans, they want to give welfare to their fellow Americans. As long as there is welfare, I would rather it go to American citizens, than the corrupt foreign countries who exploit our politicians. We have to bribe Egypt and Israel to keep them from killing each other. Charity begins at home.
Yes Bush pushed TARP and was voted for by Obama. The biggist reason for the rebellion against the republican leadership is because of the TARP vote. To a majority of Republicans it was corporate welfare and they didn't like it.

TNforPaul45
07-08-2010, 09:22 AM
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Droidekea/Imagenes%20para%20foros/its-a-trap.jpg

tjeffersonsghost
07-08-2010, 10:40 AM
If we are going to give welfare to people, lets give it to Americans first, and not to unappreciative foreigners who manipulate our politicians. That is a message that resonates well with Democrats.

I agree. Keep our money in house instead of shipping it to western europe and china. Right now we are subsidizing western europes welfare because they dont have to spend any money on military because we spend it all for them.

John Taylor
07-08-2010, 10:59 AM
I agree. Keep our money in house instead of shipping it to western europe and china. Right now we are subsidizing western europes welfare because they dont have to spend any money on military because we spend it all for them.

Same thing with Israel, they have a socialist economic system in many sectors of their economy which is supported by taxpayer dollars.

Bring the troops, AND the dollars.... HOME.

tjeffersonsghost
07-08-2010, 11:11 AM
same thing with israel, they have a socialist economic system in many sectors of their economy which is supported by taxpayer dollars.

Bring the troops, and the dollars.... Home.

+100

silentshout
07-08-2010, 11:16 AM
Yes, but I just thought there was a fundamental divide. :shrug

Nope. That's why I like him. His philosophy brings in people from all political stripes, except extreme statists :)