Comments on: Update II: Bachmann & Paul Against Bernanke

By: Roy Bleckert

Roy Bleckert — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:30:17 +0000

I could support either Paul or Bachmann for POTUS, I think peeps put too much focus on the Rock Star Status that has become of the office of POTUS

We should be focused on the 2010 elections & make sure RP & MB are reelected to congress along with the RP endorsed Tom McClintock http://tommcclintock.com/blog/the-dawn-of-the-american-reawakening#comment-2515

Bachmann & McClintock are on the left’s list as ones they are targeting for defeat in there seats

If we have a majority of Reps with the character of Paul, Bachmann , McClintock, even with a screw ball as prez, the checks & balance’s of a constitutional republic will counteract anything Hullabaloo Hussein can dream up

It is up to us to put the right people in all elected positions.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:29:06 +0000

Glisson’s (and Diane West’s) Sgt. Major seems to know his stuff. Ron Paul got the most contributions from the military. I think they know when they are being led astray on a bull***t mission. And it isn’t about “training friendly Afghans” in the 9th year of a war….

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:05:48 +0000

Ooops – I put my comment on Michele under the “Beating Back the Feds” comment.

Haym: The same appeasing “isolationist” Chamberlain who did not have the great British land army (!!) fought to keep 3 million Nazi loving Sudetens from joining their lederhosen wearing buddies in Deutschland

(see the Czechoslovakian election of 1935:
en.wikipedia.org/…/Czechoslovakian_parliamentary_election,_1935 )

went to WAR with Germany 11 months later.

No – I would NOT go off the limb like Pat Buchanan and make Chamberlain out to be a reckless warmonger provoking Hitler whom Pat elevates into a German Mohandas Ghandi…. BUT, in the neocon mentality – every thug is Hitler – every crisis is Munich – and anyone who doesn’t immediately go to war is Chamberlain. After Vietnam and Iraq, isn’t it time to stop this eternal paranoid interventionist drumbeat??

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:31:38 +0000

I almost missed your revival of “That Persian Pussycat” on the right side of the menu. However, I think Diana West’s 9-28-09 “http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1042/A-Marine-Corps-Sergeant-Major-Speaks.aspx” also relates to the “Hotair.com” links. We Civilized can not civilize that which doesn’t want to be civilized. Intervention in the affairs of other nations led to WW1, WW2, and all of the minor wars of the last century and almost ten years into this one. The US has not tried Ilana’s and Mr. Paul’s policy ever, who knows, maybe it will work, nothing else has.

By: Jack Slater

Jack Slater — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:51:03 +0000

RE: Haym and Isolationism. I do not see Paul’s words from 18:38 – 19:00 as anything remotely close to isolationism. To desire a foreign policy founded on peace, free trade, and diplomacy is in no way a policy of appeasement.

Red Herring….

By: haym

haym — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:43:06 +0000

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/26/ron-paul-on-iranian-nuke-site-im-tired-of-all-this-military-industrial-fearmongering/

By: haym

haym — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:40:35 +0000

I like Bachmann – she does not agree with Paul on foreign policy. Paul’s isolationism is no different than Chamberlain’s appeasement. There is no practical difference. His domestic policy has many positives. His foreign policy would be a disaster: he would be arguing about the libertarian view of non-intervention in the Middle East while Iran shoots a nuclear-tipped missile where the sun don’t shine.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/02/ron-paul-on-iranian-nukes-i-wouldnt-do-that-much-about-it/

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:02:44 +0000

There you go. I don’t care if she looked like the “Troll under the bridge after the party is over.” If she understands the money, I’m on her side.