Ron Paul the appeaser

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Ron Paul as a Stooge for Adolph Hitler

by Walter Block

Believe it or not, Congressman Paul’s critics are now claiming he is a Neville Chamberlain, who would have, were he president at the outset of World War II, have given Adolph Hitler a free ride (see here). With Dr. Paul at the helm, the last century would have been the beginning of a Nazi Reich.

Nonsense.

First of all, a President Paul would never have foisted an oil embargo on Japan. So, there would have been no attack on Pearl Harbor, and no fighting with the Japanese military would have been necessary. This consideration alone means that hundreds of thousands of innocent people would not have perished. And, also, it would not have been the case that the U.S. would have been the only country in history to have actually used atomic weapons. (Is it not a bit hypocritical for the U.S. to object to Iran having a nuclear weapon on this ground alone?)

Second, Congress did indeed declare war on Germany; this is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, which Ron Paul, if no other candidate for President in 2012, fervently supports.

Third, and most important, it is unlikely that Hitler would have ever arisen to power in Germany without U.S. entry into World War I, in 1919. Although contrary to fact history can only be speculative, consider the following points.

Before the U.S. poked its nose into a war that was none of its business (neither side threatened us), the war was fought on a roughly equal basis. Thousands of soldiers, on both sides, perished in fighting over a few acres of trenches. Likely, this war would have petered out before too long, if only due to the fact that both sides were running out of material, human and otherwise, necessary to carry on. But, our ruling class had more bonds with the British than with the Germans, so our way ahead was clear, with no President Paul to save us from our folly.

As a result, the Allies beat the Axis powers. Following up on this, the punitive Treaty of Versailles was imposed upon the losers, who were declared solely responsible for the hostilities. This lead to the German hyper-inflation of 1923, which, along with the aforementioned Treaty of Versailles, reduced the German society and economy to a rubble. It was only in the aftermath of these body blows to the German people that a scoundrel such as Hitler could have arisen.

A Paul presidency in 1940 would have meant a war with Germany, but not Japan. However, a President Paul in 1919 would not have encouraged U.S. entry into that conflagration. If he was successful, there would have been no need for any declaration of war against Germany, as there would have been no Adolph Hitler and his Nazis in charge. He would have been, instead, an unknown house painter. With a President Paul at the helm, there would have been no holocaust; no 50 million people perishing during this war; no dropping of atomic bombs on innocent civilians, women and children, to our eternal shame.

Speaking of this "war" nomenclature, the historians have got it all wrong. There were not two separate wars, so-called World War I, and then so-called World War II. There was only one World War. It started in 1914 and ended in 1946; yes, yes, there was a slight cessation of hostilities between 1919 and 1939, but the so-called "interwar period" consisted of the Allies taking steps that brought Hitler front and center, in effect created him, and thus assured the continuation of this one World War. (In like manner, the historians who claim there was a "Civil War" in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865 are similarly mistaken. A civil war takes place between two parties each of which desires to rule the territory occupied by the both of them. The Spanish Civil War qualifies in this regard, because the Communists and the Fascists both wanted to rule over that entire country. But in 1861, while the North wanted control over the entire U.S. both North and South, the South only desired to secede. So, a more proper name for this conflagration would be, The War to Prevent Southern Secession, or the U.S. War of Secession.)

Can we be sure of any such alternative history of the sort I am assuming with Ron Paul as President during these earlier epochs? Of course not. But, it is more likely, far more likely, than the scenarios painted by the enemies of Ron Paul in their feverish attempt to deny him the presidency, and to deny the rest of us the peace and prosperity we all want. Contrary to fact history can only be a guess-timate. The critics of Congressman Paul maintain he would have been a pushover for Hitler. I maintain, to the contrary, that he would not have created a Hitler as did actually occur, and, had he taken office only in 1940, he would have presided as commander in chief over a war declared by congress. He would have won it more quickly, since he would have only had to fight Germany and Italy, not Japan too. Yes, Germany only declared war against America because of the U.S. declaration of war against Japan. But, as long as Congress declared war on Germany, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces Paul would have acted in a Constitutional manner in pursuing this war. Dr. Paul does not oppose war per se, only offensive wars not declared by Congress, as he has stated over and over again. Ron Paul is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force; he has served his country in a military capacity, unlike the hordes of chicken hawks now calling for unconstitutional imperialist wars but who sought deferments when they were young men.

The racism and anti-Semitism charges have failed. This Hitler criticism is just plain silly. They can’t call him a flip-flopper. They have already attacked his suits and his eye-brows. Yes, his eye-brows. I guess they are not sufficiently presidential. What smears are next for Dr. Paul, as he sweeps his way into the White House? We can only speculate. How about, Ron’s love child? Children? Or, his 15 mistresses? No, wait; here is a better one: Ron as child abuser. Remember those 4,000 babies he delivered? Well, he molested them all. This just in: they are now criticizing his investment portfolio. More fast breaking news: Ron is "indifferent to throwing people out of work." Will wonders never cease? It’s really hard to keep up with all the attacks. I mean, the man is a real ogre. Maybe we Paulians shouldn’t support him? Nah. He’s the best man to clean out the Augean stables. Congressman Paul might have some difficulty winning the Republican nomination, but when it comes to his face off with President Obama next year, he’s going to kick butt. Obomba’s supporters will desert him for his imperialist militarism, for his bailouts, for his opposition to drug legalization. Independents, and even Democrats, will prove Dr. Paul’s margin of victory.

December 27, 2011

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Thanks for the laughs I need that.So if Paul had been president then ww1,or ww2 would never had happened.If you belive the only reason for pearl harbor was the oil embargo then you have someting.However history shows us that Japan and the United states had already been shooting at each other befor japan attacked us.

So it is the US's fault that Hitler rose to power?Yep Ignor the facts.Hitlers want,to become a painter was killed by his father at a young age.Hitler wanted to go to school to be an artist yet his father forced him to a technical school so he could follow in his fathers foot steps in civil service.

There are many things that that helped not only shape Hitler but brought him into power.The Us was not one of them.So never mind the fact that Germany and japan were busy invading other countrys all over the world.Had the U.S not been "MEDDLING" according to the author both sides in the war would have ran out of money.Yeah because we know world leaders do not borrow money from other countrys or go into debt to pay for wars.This author along with many Paul supporters and Paul him self love to talk about the constitution and what our founding fathers ment when they were shaping this great country.YET SEEM TO FORGET THOMAS JEFFERSONS WORDS.

Because well you know when the axis got done invading the rest of the world they would have stopped at our boarders if Paul had been president because they would not have wanted to bother with the UTOPION WORLD that stayed out of there way and allowed them to kill millions of people.All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Thanks for the laughs I need that.
Same back at ya :D

This author along with many Paul supporters and Paul him self love to talk about the constitution and what our founding fathers ment when they were shaping this great country. YET SEEM TO FORGET THOMAS JEFFERSONS WORDS.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
No, they didn't .... because Thomas Jefferson never said those words.

He did say these however:

"But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims.

It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded.

They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the state of Virginia 1782

BTW, it's truly impressive seeing ya put the schoolin' on Walter Block.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
If Ron Paul had been president earlier, Germany wouldn't have been economically destroyed, making them willing to hand over their freedom to a madman who came along, promising them a return of the good times. Now that I think about it...that sounds awfully familiar. Where have I seen that scenario? Oh, wait, that's right...I'm LIVING IT.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

EASYTRADER

Expert Expediter
US policy toward Germany after WW1 was not punitive, in fact the US agreed as a way to end the WEIMAR inflation to wave both Brittains and Frances war debts if France and Brittian would wave Germanies reprarations. Brittain was willing but France was not. So Hitler was more a product of Frances greed. Read the book "The Lords of Finance", by Liaquat Ahmed for a finacial history of the time.

Having said that, the early 20th century was very strange for humans in a spiritual sense, it was an age of dictators practically every where. Franco in spain, Stalin in Russia, Moa Tse Tung in China, Hitler in Germany, Mussolinni in Italy, and Roosevelt in the United States. Yes, Roosevelt was a dictator, albeit not a socio-path like the others.

I enjoyed your post, I like Ron Paul but even he could not have prevented Hitler as the US did not cause him. In 1939 the US Army was smaller than Belgiums, I believe it was 20,000 troops strong. Hardly a force capable of dominating world politics. France had the largest army in Europe, followed by Germany. (Even though by treaty Germany was supposed to have a tiny ill equiped army)

Anyway world history aside the major cause of all the ills in te UNited States is the utter lack of regaurd paid the Constitution by the governemnt and the people. How many of you have actually even read it?

You'd be surprised by what "is" and "is not" in it. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachemann have actually read it and I think they believe in it which is as important as having read it.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums
 

EASYTRADER

Expert Expediter
PS I think the tyranny qoute is from Cicero not Jefferson, though Jefferson might have qouted it himself.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Just wanted to point out a couple things.

the first thing is ...

We need to put things in perspective of the times and forget our ability to look back. Without understanding the times and attitude, we are lost without their point of view which is very important.

So it is the US's fault that Hitler rose to power?

In many ways it was. We allowed more to happen in Germany than we should have, because we were part of Treaty of Versailles and had a hand in the Dolchstoßlegende that many felt was the root cause of the issues facing the Germans.

US policy toward Germany after WW1 was not punitive

It sure was, we agreed to the treaty as did everyone else so our policy at that time was very punitive in both form and function. The policy changed under Coolidge for many reasons, one was that Wilson was out of the picture and his draconian policies on people's rights and the constitution were being wiped out of the government as fast as possible within reason. You got to remember that we didn't stop France from screwing with the Germans and should have never entered the war to begin with. A lot of historians have been reexamining the role that England played in WW1 and an awful lot of them have said that England should have not come to the aid of France because the French relationship with Germany was more of an antagonistic one reaching back to the unification of Germany.

The question is what would Ron Paul do in 1914?

I think he would have stayed out of the European war altogether but also would not have been too happy with the involvement of South America or the Philippines - especially around 1914. I think he would have sided with the people on this one and not used the propaganda for things like the Lusitania or Belgium to rile the people into thinking that spreading democracy is our sole purpose in the world.

Would he have been an effective president in 1941 if Japan would have attacked us?

I think he would have. I think he would have been better organized and had a better vision of the outcome of the war. When one looks at FDR's administration at the time, they find a mess. By today's standards he wouldn't have been able to run a McDonalds but he ran the country because we didn't have anything else. His organization skills were poor and his ability to put the right resources in the right spot were nil, he handed that to others who did the work effectively.

I also think Japan would have attacked us anyway, their thoughts would have been along the lines to both prove something and to gain the territory we had. Reading what their thinking was in 1937 and forward, I was surprise they didn't start then.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Who are you and what have you done with the real greg334?

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just wanted to point out a couple things.
the first thing is ...
We need to put things in perspective of the times and forget our ability to look back. Without understanding the times and attitude, we are lost without their point of view which is very important.
So it is the US's fault that Hitler rose to power?
In many ways it was. We allowed more to happen in Germany than we should have, because we were part of Treaty of Versailles and had a hand in the Dolchstoßlegende that many felt was the root cause of the issues facing the Germans.

US policy toward Germany after WW1 was not punitive

It sure was, we agreed to the treaty as did everyone else so our policy at that time was very punitive in both form and function. The policy changed under Coolidge for many reasons, one was that Wilson was out of the picture and his draconian policies on people's rights and the constitution were being wiped out of the government as fast as possible within reason. You got to remember that we didn't stop France from screwing with the Germans and should have never entered the war to begin with. A lot of historians have been reexamining the role that England played in WW1 and an awful lot of them have said that England should have not come to the aid of France because the French relationship with Germany was more of an antagonistic one reaching back to the unification of Germany.

The question is what would Ron Paul do in 1914?

I think he would have stayed out of the European war altogether but also would not have been too happy with the involvement of South America or the Philippines - especially around 1914. I think he would have sided with the people on this one and not used the propaganda for things like the Lusitania or Belgium to rile the people into thinking that spreading democracy is our sole purpose in the world.

Would he have been an effective president in 1941 if Japan would have attacked us?

I think he would have. I think he would have been better organized and had a better vision of the outcome of the war. When one looks at FDR's administration at the time, they find a mess. By today's standards he wouldn't have been able to run a McDonalds but he ran the country because we didn't have anything else. His organization skills were poor and his ability to put the right resources in the right spot were nil, he handed that to others who did the work effectively.

I also think Japan would have attacked us anyway, their thoughts would have been along the lines to both prove something and to gain the territory we had. Reading what their thinking was in 1937 and forward, I was surprise they didn't start then.
Considering that all of the above is hypothetical and time travel isn't possible (except on network TV), what is it exactly that makes you think that President Ron Paul would have made all these supposedly correct decisions that may or may not have been possible to implement and be successful? Keep in mind that he's got ZERO EXPERIENCE as an executive managing even a small or medium-sized organization. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE dealing directly with foreign affairs situations of any significance. His isolationist positions on foreign affairs are based on THEORY and nothing else. What is in his record that indicates he would have been a successful executive in 1914 or 100 years later? Considering his pitifully ineffective record as a member of the House, having only passed ONE out of 600+ legislative bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in 14 years it's a safe bet he would be no more influential as POTUS. It's hard to imagine a less effective president than Barack Hussein Obama, but Ron Paul would probably be just that - hypothetically speaking of course.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Considering that all of the above is hypothetical and time travel isn't possible (except on network TV), what is it exactly that makes you think that President Ron Paul would have made all these supposedly correct decisions that may or may not have been possible to implement and be successful?
I'll pass on this one - since it wasn't my premise/assertion originally.

Keep in mind that he's got ZERO EXPERIENCE as an executive managing even a small or medium-sized organization.
Really ?

He returned $100,000 to the US Treasury from the operation of his congressional office this year - and he has returned money every year he's been in office, IIRC.

If he had no executive ability, I'd think that he'd be incapable of producing that type of result - nor would I think he would be effective in successfully serving his constituents and getting repeatedly re-elected.

Beyond that (and leaving aside other experience that may be applicable for the moment) let's see how just worthwhile and relevant "executive experience" is with just one contrasting example:

Mitt Romney [the "executive"] had been asked in an October 9, 2007 presidential debate in Detroit, Michigan, if the nation was sliding into a recession. Romney denied the nation was sliding into a recession, claiming:

"It's inexcusable that Michigan is undergoing a one-state recession, that the rest of the country is growing and seeing low levels of unemployment, but Michigan is seeing ongoing, high levels of unemployment, almost twice the national rate."

Meanwhile, Dr. Ron Paul said in that same debate:

"Today, this country is in the middle of a recession for a lot of people. Michigan knows about it. Poor people know about it. The middle class knows about it. Wall Street doesn't know about it. Washington, D.C., doesn't know about it.

But it's because of the monetary system and the excessive spending. As long as we live beyond our means we are destined to live beneath our means."

That's the difference between prescient ... and incompetent .....

He has ZERO EXPERIENCE dealing directly with foreign affairs situations of any significance.
Do any of the other candidates ? (Huntsman maybe ?)

Sounds like you're making a case to re-elect Obama .... :rolleyes:

His isolationist positions on foreign affairs are based on THEORY and nothing else.
First off, the statement above is a logical fallacy (the term isolationist is a strawman), since it is an attempt to frame the issue based on a false premise (his position on foreign affairs are non-interventionist, not isolationist)

If this was the first time this had occurred, it would be excusable, due to perhaps ignorance. However that is not the case - it's a long - repeated - pattern of conduct with respect to framing Dr. Paul's foreign policy position - despite repeated attempts (albeit unsuccessfully) to prevail to intellectual honesty.

It therefore qualifies as willful false propaganda (false, meaning untrue)

Secondly, the assertion that a foreign policy of non-interventionism is a THEORY is patently silly. Non-interventionism in foreign policy is practiced throughout the world quite successfully. And it was a fundamental premise of the Founding Fathers vision of this nation.

I find it quite odd to advocate for an interventionist foreign policy ... given the fact that it more closely resembles philosophically, the foreign policy of the old Soviet Union and Communist China than anything espoused by the Founding Fathers .... not an entirely surprising fact I suppose, considering what exactly the source(s) were that mainstreamed that ideology here in the US ......

What is in his record that indicates he would have been a successful executive in 1914 or 100 years later?
First and foremost, he has a track record of following the Constitution, secondly he's good with a nickel, and third he's a leader.

Considering his pitifully ineffective record as a member of the House, having only passed ONE out of 600+ legislative bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in 14 years it's a safe bet he would be no more influential as POTUS.
More logical fallacy (on multiple counts) - because it conflates being a (largely) co-equal member of a non-executive body in the Legislative, with being the Executive of an entire branch (The Executive) of government - therefore it is a false analogy - particularly because it ignores the degree of freedom the Executive has to act on his own (without the agreement of Congress) in many instances, and a host of potential differences in terms of political power between one position and another (possible repudiation of both parties of Congress and mandate by virtue of election results, effective use of the bully pulpit, etc.)

It's hard to imagine a less effective president than Barack Hussein Obama, but Ron Paul would probably be just that - hypothetically speaking of course.
You should have used "speaking in a fallacy-based hypothetical" rather than "hypothetically speaking" ....

The entirety of the above appears to be the mark of utter desperation to throw anything and everything at the man ...... and see what might stick ....

The commitment is certainly impressive ..... the reasoning and argumentation ..... well, not so much .....
 
Last edited:

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Considering that all of the above is hypothetical and time travel isn't possible (except on network TV), what is it exactly that makes you think that President Ron Paul would have made all these supposedly correct decisions that may or may not have been possible to implement and be successful? Keep in mind that he's got ZERO EXPERIENCE as an executive managing even a small or medium-sized organization. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE dealing directly with foreign affairs situations of any significance. His isolationist positions on foreign affairs are based on THEORY and nothing else. What is in his record that indicates he would have been a successful executive in 1914 or 100 years later? Considering his pitifully ineffective record as a member of the House, having only passed ONE out of 600+ legislative bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in 14 years it's a safe bet he would be no more influential as POTUS. It's hard to imagine a less effective president than Barack Hussein Obama, but Ron Paul would probably be just that - hypothetically speaking of course.

Oh but he does have EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE And under that leadership "Some one wrote racist letters using his name that he had no clue they were writing":eek:
 

EASYTRADER

Expert Expediter
The US doesn't need a leader. "The Leadership Principle" is socialist brainwashing. The US needs to have its Goveremnt brought back under control. The Federal Governement is so far off the tracks it is no even recognisable to the government we are supposed to have.

The reason why so many people think Ron Paul is a KOOK, I bcause most of you are brainwashed socialists and don't know it. Ron Pauls position on the Federal Governemnt is a Costitutional one, the reason he seems so out there is tht freedom has been dead so long in this country, It looks KOOKY.


Sent from my SPH-D700 using EO Forums
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Considering that all of the above is hypothetical and time travel isn't possible (except on network TV), what is it exactly that makes you think that President Ron Paul would have made all these supposedly correct decisions that may or may not have been possible to implement and be successful?

He seems to be a bit more consistent than any other candidate, especially Gingrich and Romney.

Keep in mind that he's got ZERO EXPERIENCE as an executive managing even a small or medium-sized organization.

AND?

Having business experience means nothing in politics, it seems to be proven by the present governor of my state.

Beside that, what experience does one need? No one seems to be able to actually explain that.

He has ZERO EXPERIENCE dealing directly with foreign affairs situations of any significance.

So did Bush and so did Reagan and so did Johnson, Kennedy, FDR and Wilson - if we include Wilson, he had less experience than the least qualified in the republican field, Bachmann.

His isolationist positions on foreign affairs are based on THEORY and nothing else.

You seem not to know much about foreign affairs and keep repeating the party line.

We can't return to the 19th century so isolationism is out of the question. Many believe that we need to bring back manufacturing and have only US made products but that's a form of isolationism. With Paul's position, he said we don't need to mess with other countries and get involved with their problems - this has cause us to be involved in seven wars where no one attacked us.

What is in his record that indicates he would have been a successful executive in 1914 or 100 years later?

I think you have to understand the context of the times that these decisions were made. In 1914, Wilson needed a war to grab more power and the Germans gave him the excuse. If you know anything outside of the wikipedia entry of the war, you can see where a different thinking president would not allowed us into that war.

Considering his pitifully ineffective record as a member of the House, having only passed ONE out of 600+ legislative bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in 14 years it's a safe bet he would be no more influential as POTUS.

Well see the only ones to judge him like this would be the ones who re-elected him. This is a representative form of government, not a theocracy so I would assume that if the people are happy with him, then that's fine with me.

He isn't no where near as bad as the reps we have in our state, or say John Murtha, he doesn't seem to be the one calling our troops bad things or slamming the president at every turn for stupid and insignificant things.

You got to ask yourself a question about this - not one law has been passed and not one of them has fought to get rid of Obama care, so where are the effective representatives in congress?

It's hard to imagine a less effective president than Barack Hussein Obama, but Ron Paul would probably be just that - hypothetically speaking of course.

I can, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney would be two that would just continue things that "worked" in the past. Bachmann and "I going to sue" Perry are another two that would be less effective presidents.

I think that Paul represents change that we need, even if he doesn't get elected to run, we need someone with different ideas and someone who hasn't actually changed their position through polls. If he wins, great, but if he doesn't that's great too because who ever we end up with at that point won't do what is needed and it will be a continuation of Obama's policies and Obama care.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Considering that all of the above is hypothetical and time travel isn't possible (except on network TV), what is it exactly that makes you think that President Ron Paul would have made all these supposedly correct decisions that may or may not have been possible to implement and be successful? Keep in mind that he's got ZERO EXPERIENCE as an executive managing even a small or medium-sized organization. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE dealing directly with foreign affairs situations of any significance. His isolationist positions on foreign affairs are based on THEORY and nothing else. What is in his record that indicates he would have been a successful executive in 1914 or 100 years later? Considering his pitifully ineffective record as a member of the House, having only passed ONE out of 600+ legislative bills he's sponsored or co-sponsored in 14 years it's a safe bet he would be no more influential as POTUS. It's hard to imagine a less effective president than Barack Hussein Obama, but Ron Paul would probably be just that - hypothetically speaking of course.

He has ZERO experience in treating the constitution like toilet paper. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE in violating people's rights. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE in spending profligately. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE inntreatingnthe rest of the world as US satellite states. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE in advocating socialism or fascism. He has ZERO EXPERIENCE in backing gun control, socialized medicine, or advocating a police state.

Being that everyone in the race with executive experience is advocating most or all of those things, give me a rookie any day. You could find a better president than our current choices by picking a randomly-chosen name from a randomly-chosen phone book. Sure, we might end up with an idiot, but if you elect someone other than Ron Paul this time around, you're for sure electing an idiot and a tyrant.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Having business experience means nothing in politics, it seems to be proven by the present governor of my state.

I couldn't have said it better.

A standing ovation for you.


standing-ovation-0907-lg1.jpg
 
Top