Monday, September 3, 2012

A Disappointing Comment Debate

A few days ago I added a few comments to a post on what has been my favorite blog sice about 2004.

"RONPAUL!!1!!! NOT ROMNYE!!!!1!"

This post was created by a contributing writer to the blog.  He thought that it would be a good idea to insult Ron Paul fans.  The relevant comments follow:

Tim says:

As someone who supports Ron Paul, and who has been a regular reader of since at least 2004, I would like to say that some Ron Paul supporters are odd. But we think the same of the people who think that Romney will be much different than Obama has been. Will Romney nominate good supreme court justices, who will strike down Obamacare, like John Roberts? Will Romney support anything like the flat tax? Will Romney’s replaced healthcare plan reduce the size of medicare or medicaid? Will Romney veto bills like TARP, or the auto, or bank bailouts (all of which Paul Ryan voted for, btw)?

Who are you going to vote for in November? One of the only two executives, in this country, to sign socialized healthcare into law? Or the other one?

 Harvey says:

Tim – blunt time: I like everything about the Libertarian party except their idea that national defense mean sitting around waiting to be attacked. I have no problem with pre-emptive foreign military adventures in sh!t-hole 3rd world countries that can’t even grasp the concept of freedom. Better on their soil than ours.

That said, I agree that Romney is a spineless compromiser and may well sell out his principles for a mess of bipartisan pottage down the road. I don’t trust him one bit to keep his word.

But I trust Obama even less.

And the Presidential election isn’t about who I wish were President (that’s Herman Cain). It’s about the lesser of two evils. The primaries were about picking the best man, and those are over now. Take what you can get instead of fighting the last war when it’s too late.

Christ, I thought you people were FAMILIAR with the writings of Ayn Rand.

 Tim says:

I would have agreed with you, Harvey, on Ron Paul’s foreign policy before I read his book “Liberty Defined.” The only time I’ve ever changed my mind on an issue was after reading that, I came to realize that his position, on foreign policy, was the right one.

If Romney is going to continue to spend like there’s no tomorrow and not change much of anything, why would you want to support him? Obama could hardly be worse, but what is it that you expect to change when Romney is elected? I hope that Romney wins, but he’ll have to do it without my vote.

Freemon Sandlewould says:

I agree with you guys most of the time but you really go wrong when you talk against Ron Paul. You get really moronic when it comes to Ron Paul.

But what can i saw appears you guys believe in Santa Claus and Gawd. I am a conservative but I know I’m smarter than you guys when hear you blow it and try to pretend Ron Paul and followers are anything but cutting edge. I’ve vote for Romney because that is the choice. But you guys are a bunch of fools who think you can write. You’re just another moron when I see this.

 Tim says:

I agree to some extent with Freemon Sandlewould. This has been my favorite website since I’ve had a favorite website, but you’re wrong to criticize Ron Paul. Its just like how I was at a concert in Madison on Monday and had to ignore the pro Obama baloney from the opening musician. I liked the music, but it would have been better without the incorrect political statements.

The first two paragraphs of the forward to Dr. Paul’s “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” (read it for free:

“Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should
be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be
restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to
achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty
of the people, and violate rights.

Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or far flung? Once
you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction
between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of
the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor
activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint
at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own
interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in
all areas of life lest freedom suffer.”

mikeszekely says:


“What would be inconsistent would be to favor
activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint
at home and activism abroad.”

While this logic might seem obvious to you, it’s the same kind of logic that says that a pen can be used for writing and stabbing people in the eye, so if we favor restraint on stabbing people in the eye with pens it would be inconsistent if we didn’t also favor restraint writing with them.

Out of control social programs and rampant nanny stateism is contrary to the founding principles of this Republic. That is why we favor domestic restraint.

A strong national defense, making treaties and allies, and the ability to fight and protect our hard-won liberty through diplomacy or, if diplomacy fails, overwhelming military force, is NOT contrary our country’s founding principles. It’s one of the constitutionally legitimate purposes of the federal government.

Do I wish that we didn’t spend so much on foreign aid to countries that continue to hate us? Sure. But Paul’s ideas go too far in the direction, and are akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. We won’t be any safer, and those that hate us won’t stop just because we’ve withdrawn from the world stage.

Come November, is Romney my ideal candidate? Nope, not even close. What he is, though, is a better alternative to Barack Obama. If you hope Romney will win, vote for him. All you’re doing by sitting this one out is increasing the chances of an Obama victory. November isn’t the time for ideals, November is the time to get Obama out of the Oval Office.


I was busy and did not respond to this last comment.  If I had responded it would have been to give a better description of the foreign policy favored by Ron Paul.

I find the occasional insults directed at Ron Paul and his supporters to be tiring.  How does having people on the right insult others on the right help anything?  But I'm beginning to see why Vox has so little patience for those who he should have much agreement with.


Many republicans will insult Ron Paul, admit that Mitt Romney is a useless squishy moderate, and then wonder why Ron Paul supporters aren't going to vote for Romney.

No comments:

Post a Comment