Liberal or Conservative, Romney Critics aren’t that bright…

Conservatives can be a dumb bunch at times.  From the social conservative for whom there is nothing conservative about using government to run other people’s lives (how exactly is that different from liberals?).  Then you have the Ron Paul section of the party a bunch of cowardly isolationists who like to hold to an extreme view of an idealist economic philosophy (Austrian economics have many good points, but they are extremists who don’t want to worry about real world problems on in their little ideals).   And we certainly have our share of RINOS who want to be loved more by their liberal friends than having any fidelity to reason, truth or justice.  Not that liberals aren’t stupid (good lord they are) nor are true libertarians less insane than Ron Paul Republicans…but we conservatives have our share of idiots, no doubt.  And one can often see this stupidity in such publications as very inappropriately named “American Thinker” which seems to appeal to all strands of conservative idiocy.

For instance in a time when Republicans need to close ranks around Romney…hell even if you can’t see that he is in every way the inheritor of Reagan’s legacy, we’re fighting against the second-coming of Jimmy Carter meets FDR meets Benedict Arnold!    It’s time to close ranks.  But no, no, let’s let idiots complain about Romney on supposedly conservative web sites…and let’s let them use liberal talking points to do it.  Like this article “Mitt Flunks Education 101” by Robert Weissberg who as far as I can tell is a moron.  Why do I say that?  Well, going back over some of his other articles he states as a complaint against the election system that is designed to elect moderates like Romney (who really isn’t a moderate) and that “The system is supposed to produce moderation, not “full-strength” candidate [sic] such as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.”   I’m not sure when “full strength” became a synonym for “f*cking psychopath,” (not to mention homophone in Ricky and anti-Semite in Ron) but the use of the term really makes me doubt Weissberg’s intellectual credentials.

But it’s this hack’s work attacking Mitt’s education plan that I want to deal with today.  Why because it’s all the liberal BS talking points on education in one place. 

1.  The genius begins his complaints of six things wrong with Romney’s stance on education with something that isn’t even a proposal, rather Romney simply offering a statement of fact.

“He begins by calling the gap between whites and minorities (assumed to be blacks and Hispanics) ‘the civil rights issue of our era.’  This gap may, in fact, be a civil rights issue, but nobody, regardless of ideology, has any solid idea on how to close it.”

Um, actually genius, the solution would be in the next five points.  Although if you want a specific point to address the gap in minority scores then we could look at the one thing Bush got right in education reform—complaining about “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”  I’m a teacher and trust me, there are many in education who are bigots and simply think that if minorities get a C then that’s the best they can do.  I actually once had an argument with a school administrator over who to give an award for academic achievement to—I wanted to give it to a high performing AP student, this administrator wanted to give it to a C student and his actual argument was “Yeah but she’s white, this kid is Hispanic do you know how hard it must be to get a C.”  Took everything I had not to punch the asshole in the face.  And it’s not just race, there are low expectations on gender and income level as well, despite the fact that I have learned you can push any kid from any background to any level so long as you have high expectations and the student is willing to learn.  But even though recognizing this as a problem, the only solution to this problem lies in points 2-6.

2.  Romney, quite intelligently, supports Vouchers and Charters, the idiot complaining about Romney seems to think they don’t work…and I love how he quotes a report, from a newspaper (I’m sure they’re qualified to run this kind of high level analysis), that shows charters don’t outperform regular schools.  (Let’s ignore that charters appeal to lower end students which removing them from the pool raises the public school numbers…and shows charters can bring the worst up to average level).  Heaven forbid we should look at real data that shows some charters do work.  I’ll be the first to admit that not all charters work, but the fun thing about charters is that unlike public schools, if they don’t work, they close and are replaced by something else.  I would also point out that it is simply impossible to judge any school until it has been in operation for at least 3 years—I’ve been involved in opening a school from the ground up, your first year you take whatever type of student you can get and have to deal with a myriad of education deficiencies caused by previous public school incompetence…it takes time to identify and put in systems to correct the most common problems and set up a culture in the school that encourages success, but once in place that culture is effective and hard to destroy. In the real world the same capitalistic market forces that create high quality low price goods for us, create high quality low priced education when competition is allowed to flourish.

The genius ends his critique of charters with what I assume is attempt at wit “Where are all the Bain Capital accountants to calculate gains versus losses?”  Ummm….as the people at Bain are quite good at what they do I would assume they put the profits as far exceeding the losses.

It gets even funnier however when you read this guy’s follow up article on what Mitt should do for education.  Weissberg says “Then dismantle all the Department of Education one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency.  And on and on.  In an instant, teachers could teach, not battle Mickey Mouse rules, and students will benefit.”  So what Mitt should do is let schools be free from the rules to experiment and try new things to see what works without overbearing control from above…which, in the real world is called, charter schools.  So advocating charter schools is dumb, because what we really need is charter schools.   Man, Weissberg, you are such a genius!

But don’t worry that the statement about freeing schools from “one-size-fits-all mandates on testing and proficiency” appears in paragraph 6 of his article on what Mitt should do.  In paragraph 8 we should “add nationally certified ‘super schools’ drawing on the top 1% or 2% as established by tough, no-nonsense tests.”  So testing is bad, what we need is testing.  Got it.

And you wonder why I find Mitt Romney critiques stupid?

3.  Next up he tries to hit Mitt for calling for Teacher Accountability.  And his proof that teacher accountability doesn’t work is that Mayor Bloomberg in New York has tried to do this and it’s been a disaster.  I’m shocked a big government statist like Bloomberg doesn’t effectively put into practice what should be a capitalist metric that is supposed to be controlled at a local level.  It’s like saying capitalism doesn’t work, because the economy didn’t do well under Obama.

Teacher Accountability should be an issue for principals and school boards, judging by open and fair, but local, criteria that can be adjusted to the needs of the individual school.  This will help address the needs of the students and reward those who meet those needs the best.  This is the advantage of charters, they have very local control. When controlled by a big government, pro-union, damn near fascist state like Bloomberg’s New York, of course it’s not going to work.  Duh.  More importantly Unions should not be in government – what exactly do they need protection from?  If schools were not protected by unions and worried about litigation we probably would not have as many teacher/student molestations as these people would lose their license and schools would tell other schools why they no longer work there – but that would never happen now under current conditions.

4.  Individual report cards for schools is apparently also a dumb idea of Mitt’s.  Yeah, why should parents know if the school their kid goes to is failing or not.  Why not?

According to Weissberg…because there’s been a lot of cheating involved.  So instead of coming up with rules and procedures to reduce cheating (outside proctors, not letting teacher’s proctor their own students, off site testing…you know all the things the SAT does) no, let’s just throw out any legitimate way to judge schools.  And again rather than look at where this has succeeded in raising the bar, let’s judge this by how Bloomberg has failed to implement it.  Schools need to be compared to minimum standards nationally along with all the local schools that should be in competition for a better way to make decisions.  This is how business does it – they have company standards and then they also compare along those lines to local competition.

5.  And Mitt is wrong for being anti union. “But unions are not the problem.”  Dipshit, unions are a huge portion of the problem.  Huge.  They are standing in the way of every major reform ever attempted.  There is a reason why everyone agrees the lawsuit against the California unions is likely to succeed…because the teacher’s unions protect bad teachers!  That is their only purpose.  To protect what is wrong in American education. And how does Weissberg show unions aren’t the problem?  Pro-union Massachusetts (which ironically also has school choice because of the efforts of a previous Governor…Mitt something or other) does better than anti-union South on school tests.  This is stupid because, first, as every state comes up with its own tests, or who gets tested in national tests, it never apples to apples comparisons; second, because, even I’ll admit socioeconomics is a greater predictor to performance than anything else (see point 1) and, last time I checked Massachusetts has better socioeconomics as a whole than most states in the South.  It would be like comparing a union public school in Beverly Hills against a non union charter in Watts and saying that because the charter school’s scores weren’t higher clearly the union isn’t to blame and charters don’t solve anything.  The rest of us realize that parents and culture are more important than school, school is supposed to be the stop gap against those forces which work against education, not merely a reflection of it (which Mr. Weissberg seems all too comfortable with).

And socioeconomics is an indicator only because the majority currently do not value education for their children and are not involved in their children’s lives, look to D.C. and those parents who cared and got their children into the better schools saw an improvement that has been substantiated in studies, despite low socioeconomics, thanks too…charters, vouchers, teacher accountability, grading schools, not having low expectations and…#6

6.  Finally he critiques Mitt’s push for parents to have the right to move their children out of failing schools.  Because why should you have any liberty, after all we live in a fascist/socialist regime where you have no rights, why should you question the government monopoly on education?  Oh, wait.   Why is school choice a bad thing?

“More important, again, past failure is crystal-clear.  Troubled students bring their troubled habits with them, and, more important, they typically undermine their new ‘good schools.’”

And while I’m sure that I’m just reading vehement implicit racism in that statement (the soft bigotry of low expectation), I’m sure no racism exists whatsoever in Mr. Wesissberg.  On the other hand as a charter teacher who has dealt with those students who bring their bad habits, I will simply say that good teachers, given time, are in the job of correcting bad habits and replacing them with good ones.

But Weissberg creates a preposterous example of what would happen if more students want to leave a school than there are slots for students in a good school…are we to shove some of the students that already go to the good school and force them into the bad?  This is stupid beyond belief.  We have lotteries for when there are not enough slots…and we would have more good schools if idiots didn’t oppose charters and vouchers.  Further, .  he is not accounting for the fact that even if there were no slots the schools that the parents want to leave would realize that they were losing students and would slowly need to compete – thus improve and they would realize – this will be a shock- but since the system is based on acquiring money (ADA) and they would need to improve so more people would want to bring their students to that school so they could make more money – what a concept.

Finally he complains that while Mitt’s idea to cut spending to the Department of Education is a good idea, it will fail because Mitt can’t pull it off…because Mitt has such a history of failure (so long as you ignore the history of success at Bain, the Olympics, Massachusetts…I mean if you just ignore the mountain of good stuff then Romney’s a complete failure at everything he does).

In the end Weissberg gives Romney an “F” on education.  Reason, logic, and common sense would give Weissberg a grade lower than “F” if such were possible.  In fact, saying this as someone from the trenches, Romney gets a “B” in education.  He’s saying the right things, identifying the problems and the correct solutions.  Now if he can actually pull it off, which will require a lot of fighting with liberals tooth and nail, then he gets an “A”.  And I think he will get an “A”, if the GOP backs him and ignores idiots like Weissberg.

Meanwhile you might want to read “A Chance for every Child” the 35 page proposal (because Mitt is always short on details) on what needs to be done about Education.


Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Racism, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions

21 responses to “Liberal or Conservative, Romney Critics aren’t that bright…

  1. nicholasawesome

    I’d like to know what your problem with Ron Paul is honestly? from the research Ive done, he does have some silly ideals but none that make me despise him. what im trying to figure out is why you seem to absolutely HATE him i guess, considering his ideals and beliefs are not THAT far from you own… Not that im a Ron Paul supporter or anything, honestly at this point I’m not exactly a Romney fan either. .

    • Not that this really has to do with the particular post, but my problem with Ron Paul is that he is a racist, anti-Semite, a vicious isolationist, and a hypocrite (all of which I have well documented here I hate that his supporters, who know nothing about history, economics, or philosophy act like only they and Ron understand these things when they know nothing about them and are beyond reason in trying to have anything resembling a reasonable conversations about these facts. Whenever anyone this flawed has a following this blindly loyal (be it Obama or Paul) they need to have their ignorance shoved in their faces at every chance because otherwise it spreads (like it did with Obama and Hitler) and that always leads to very bad things.

      As to the Mitt Romney issues…where do you find deficiencies in Romney’s character, experience, or proposals?…perhaps I can change your mind.

      • nicholasawesome

        We’ll honestly my biggest problem with Romney (as with other candidates) is that he is a politician. I need to be convinced that he isn’t going to do what a lot of Republicans from the November 2010 election did and just go play politics in Washington for a couple years after running on tea party values…I do not want to see the people i vote for giving into media attacks and hyperbole (like with the whole shutdown “crisis” last year)

        • Well, I’ll admit I can’t dissuade you of that because he is running for political office. Of course every other Republican (with the exception of Bachmann) was a career politician, whereas Mitt has only ever held one term of one elected office (hell even Reagan had served two terms as Governor of California). And unlike Obama whose only jobs have been academia, community organizer (I still don’t know what that is) and a short stint in a law firm before a life time of career politics. Also I would point out that his list of advisers on his website, while it does have politicians, is more just a cross section of experts from government, business, and academia.

          I can also point out that while Massachusetts under Romney didn’t become conservative he made sure that the legislation was moderate as opposed to the bleeding heart socialism the Democratically controlled legislature wanted (also that he vetoed a lot of stuff they did pass, but had his veto overridden).

          And I can tell you every action in private and government life has been as conservative as you can get (…but the fact of the matter is that unless we give him Republican gains in the House and a 60+ GOP Senate so that even the RINOS can’t betray us, he will have to cut deals, that is the nature of game as the Founders intended it to be set up as. Now if Massachusetts is any indicator he will not be unafraid to use his veto and will push hard in negotiations for conservative beliefs…but unless we take total control of the executive and legislature, there will be deals cut.

          As to how hard he will push conservatism in those deals, from his past actions I have faith that he will get as conservative a deal as any human can get. But without a functioning crystal ball I will admit it is a bit of merely using history as a guide and a bit of faith on my part.

      • nicholasawesome

        Also that’s a lot of stuff that I did not know about Ron Paul there for sure, I might have to pass that on to my RP friends…

  2. Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

    You misrepresent Ron Paul’s views. There’s a difference between isolationism and non intervention. Non interventionists want to trade and talk with other countries but not get involved in their internal affairs. I don’t see how not wanting to overthrow and install governments around the world is isolationism. So, in order to not be an isolationist in your view you have to go around the world bombing people and installing governments that we see fit, and the people of those counties don’t have a right to determine their own governments. This is why we are hated around the world. We should have gone after the terrorists with letters of marque and reprisal; which is essentially bounties. We would have gotten the terrorists quickly, with more cooperation internationally, and a lot of lives and treasure would have been saved. Instead we are led around by the nose by the intelligence community and the military industrial complex. But when the FED can longer fight inflation, and interest rates are forced to rise, the government will default on its bonds and have to cut spending and the troops will be brought home not because we want to, but because we have to. The question is, how much longer is the ticking time bomb gonna take. Fortunately for the U.S. the problems in Europe have given a temporary rise to the dollar, but the longer we wait to raise rates, the worse this next crisis is going to be.

    Oh, and I know I’m probably going to hear a diatribe about how the terrorists hate us for our freedom, but ask yourself this, have countries like Canada and Australia had problems with terrorist attacks? No. Why? What’s the difference? It’s the foreign policy. Why do Muslims in the Arab world hate us? Here are the six policies that Michael Scheuer, a 22yr CIA agent who was head of the Bin Laden unit from 96 to 99 has identified as the Muslims reason for hating the U.S.

    U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
    U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
    U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
    U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
    U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
    U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

    As for the anti semite accusation, the media calls anyone an anti Semite if they don’t support giving aid to Israel, even though RP supports eliminating all foreign aid. Which he says is nothing more than taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

    Ron Paul has never said or written anything remotely racist in almost 40 years of public life.
    Ron Paul opposes the drug war and the death penalty, which disproportionately affect minorities
    The smear regarding decades-old newsletters has been investigated and dismissed; The New York Sun says Ron Paul “has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic.”
    President of the Austin NAACP, Nelson Linder, who has known Paul for 20 years “unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts.”
    According to Business Insider, some speculate that political commentator Lew Rockwell may have been responsible for the newsletters without Paul’s knowledge, but this is without proof.
    Paul has stated he has no knowledge of who wrote the newsletters.

    The only difference between Romney and Obama is one wants a little less of more government than the other….what a joke!!!

    People should be skeptical of the media whenever they overwhelming love or hate any candidate. Unfortunately among the anti-paul people of all stripes, it seems they buy the media smear tactics without checking the facts of what Ron Paul really believes. It’s a shame, we could have nominated a statesman, but instead we settled for a politician that will be and say anything to get elected.

    • I love how you put a comment about foreign policy and Ron Paul in a blog that is primarily about Romney’s education plan…it’s not like I haven’t repeatedly dealt with Ron Paul being an F’ing psycho in a lot of other places ( But let’s ignore your inability to discuss the topic of the work.

      You have a very impressive paragraph on non-intervention that boils down to, if we don’t call it what it is, then it’s not isolationism. Your definition of non-intervention is we don’t get in other people’s problems….problem is that this is exactly the problem of isolationism, it defines every act of evil as “not our problem” and as I have previously shown (
      ) the funny thing is that “evil is an outreach program” as P.J. O’Rourke put it and has a disturbing track record of becoming our problem. Also I appreciate your lack of human compassion and morality in willingly saying evil can survive as long as it doesn’t bother me personally…very moral of you.

      So let’s go over your BS reasons for why we have problems with terrorists

      “U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis’ thrall.
      Of course it’s only the presense of Israel that stokes Arab genocidal hatred. Which is why the Mufti of Jerusalem was in talks with Hitler in the 1943 to wipe out all the Jews in the Middle East, or all the anti-Semetic literature to come out of the Middle East for the last century, or the history of genocidal anti-Semitism in Islam dating back to Muhammed ordering the genocidal massacre of the Jews of Medina and refers to Jews as “pigs” and “apes” (Koran 2:61, 5:65, 7:166) …because years before Israel was even created, the Arabs knew what what those dastardly Jews were up to and knew they had to be stopped before it even happened. All I have to do is ignore the basic law of physics that things in the present or future don’t affect things in the past.

      “U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
      Actually the some of the countries where we have the most troops placed for the longest periods of time (like Kuwait, where we have been stationed since the first Gulf war) love us. And many other nations in the Middle East we are more than popular, (U.A.E, certain sections of Lebanon, Jordan, to name a few), but why should facts get in the way of a really great line of propoganda.

      “U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
      You’re right it’s our occuption of Iraq and Afghanistan that caused the Lockerbie boming in the 80’s, and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the 1998 attack of US African Embassies, and the 1999 attack on the Cole, and 9/11/2001…again all I have to do is ignore that cause preceeds effect.

      “U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
      Up until this dipshit President I don’t think we’ve been on great terms with Russia or China and turning a blind eye to their human rights records…as for India, like Israel, they’re kind in a war with a Muslim nation and most of what they do, as far as I know they have never strayed outside the laws of civilized war…and given that you have absolutely no proof back up your point about Inida, I’ll assume it’s overblown lies that Paulbots trade in until you show me otherwise
      “U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
      That would be capitalism…or do you want to get rid of that too.

      U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
      I’m fascinated by your use of the word “apostate” as this is religious term, which while technically valid for use by all religions, is predominantly used by Muslim. Do we have an unstated bias here? As to the government we support. Let’s look at what we supported we supported the Shah who was reforming Iran into a first world nation…can you say with a straight face that what came before or after the Shah made the Shah look like a Saint…yes we’re supporting a corrupt government in Afghanistan (I blame the idiocy of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama) but they’re still leagues better than the Taliban.

      So, to believe it’s all the U.S. fault is I have to ignore facts, history, and reality. A typical move for a Paulbot.

      “Ron Paul has never said or written anything remotely racist in almost 40 years of public life.” That’s hilarious. All you have to do is ignore the numerous statements he’s made over the years (document here

      “Ron Paul opposes the drug war and the death penalty, which disproportionately affect minorities” what does that have to do with this argument?

      “The smear regarding decades-old newsletters has been investigated and dismissed; The New York Sun says Ron Paul “has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic.”” And all I have to do is ignore the “Ron Paul Newsletter” that made numerous racist and anti-Semitic remarks…see above link.

      “President of the Austin NAACP, Nelson Linder, who has known Paul for 20 years “unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts.”” Ah the NAACP, an organization which for the last 20 years worked to stoke the fires of racism, truly a source for which anything from their Austin, Texas chapter is beyond reproach. Also does this stink of anyone a little too much of “I have black friends.” As I can find NOTHING about the man himself, beyond the fact that he defended Ron Paul (not exactly working in his favor) I cannot speak to his actual character and thus can’t decide to trust him or not…which makes me revert to the FACT that Ron Paul has said numerous racist and anti-Semitic things.

      “Paul has stated he has no knowledge of who wrote the newsletters.” But he was more than happy to collect the money it made. So he hires evil people to make him money and doesn’t care how they do it…oh yeah, that’s the kind of leader I want in the Oval Office.

      “The only difference between Romney and Obama is one wants a little less of more government than the other….what a joke!!!” No the joke is that you have done no research whatsoever…do tell, give me one thing where Obama and Romney are the same.

      “it seems they buy the media smear tactics without checking the facts of what Ron Paul really believes. It’s a shame, we could have nominated a statesman, but instead we settled for a politician that will be and say anything to get elected.” You’re right it’s a shame that every piece of real information out there shows Ron Paul to be psychopath. And it’s a shame we couldn’t get a man like Ron Paul who believes in limited government and not being in government so much he’s served in Congress for 20 year, and sent billions in pork back to his state, all the while collecting his rather generous Congressional salary and benefits. It’s a shame I have to settle for a man who has only held one office for one term and took a salary of a single dollar a year and no salary at the Olympics, just a dirty life long politician out to make a buck for himself. (

      You have truly convinced me through your complete lack of facts and logic to endorse that little nut job.

      By the way did you have any actual comment on Romney’s plan to get government out of education…or is that more of how he’s exactly like Obama?

      Thank you for showing the title to be very, very accurate.

      • Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

        During the conclusion of the war between the Soviet Union and the Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden used the network he developed during the conflict to form AL-Qaeda in 1988. The purpose of AL-Qaeda was to repel non-Muslim countries from intervening in Middle Eastern affairs and to ferment Islamic revolutions throughout the Islamic world. Bin Laden returned home to Saudi Arabia following the conflict as one of the leaders of a hardened group of Muslim fighters and the founder of an international terror network. Soon conflict broke out in 1990. When Iraq, a Muslim country ruled by a secular dictator, Saddam Hussein, invaded oil rich Kuwait to pay for Iraq’s financial loses brought on by their war with Iran during the 1980’s. With Kuwait under Iraqi control the Saudi Arabian government feared that Saddam would turn his guns against them. The Saudi’s looked to the international community led by the United States for help. The United Sates was eager to protect Saudi Arabia as war between Iraq and Saudi Arabia would disrupt their supply of Saudi Arabian oil. Simultaneously bin Laden recommended that Saudi Arabia use his seasoned Mujahedeen fighter to repel Saddam if needed. The Saudi Arabian government decided to use an international coalition led by the United States. The “allies” drove Iraq out of Kuwait and thwarted any potential for Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia. Seeing infidels occupy the holy land angered bin Laden and he shifted his focus to opposing United Sates influence throughout the Middle East. U.S. troops would remain in the Islamic “holyland” until 2003. The deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia would be one of Osama bin Laden’s main grievances against the United States during his 1996 Fatwa. The presence of U.S. troops gave Al Qaeda a rallying cry for Muslims around the world who opposed American military presence there. Al Qaeda would stage numerous attacks against the United States throughout the nineties; with attacks against U.S. troops in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks against U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The terrorist attacks culminated with the 9/11 attacks. Al-Qaeda killed over 3,000 U.S. citizens and destroyed both World Trade Center towers in New York City on September 11, 2001.

        The U.S. policy to intervene during the first Gulf War did have the unintended consequence of fanning the flames of the Al Qaeda movement. Without the United States intervening in the Persian Gulf conflict and the subsequent deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden would not have had as much fuel to recruit killers to target the United States. Therefore this historical example provides proof that supports Dr. Paul’s argument that United States policy played a part in encouraging the attacks on 9/11.

        Also, why no terrorist attacks on Canada and Australia? There way of life isn’t much different from the U.S.

        Michael Scheuer contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. He cites Clausewitz’s dictum that one must strike one’s enemy’s “center of gravity”, and pairs it with an al Qaeda writer’s assertion that “the American economy is the American center of gravity”.
        In a videotape released around September 7, 2007, Osama bin Laden stated, “If you want to understand what’s going on and if you would like to get to know some of the reasons for your losing the war against us, then read the book of Michael Scheuer.

        The fact that the NAACP didn’t come out and attack him suggests that there isn’t much to the news letters, because they’re always the first to scream racism even when it’s not present. If there was a sliver of an opportunity to smear a racist republican, the NAACP would be the first to do it. The NAACP may not agree with RP on economics or the concept of individual rights, but they do agree with him on a lot the civil liberty issues that are important to blacks.

        As for RP sending billions back to his state, he voted against the spending, but earmarked money for his district so they would get their fair share. Any funds not earmarked by congress is spent by the executive branch, and it’s congress that has the constitutional authority to designate spending. And he also returns part of his congressional office budget back to the treasury.

        As for Romney and education, I’ll believe it when I see it. Mitt has said numerous times that he has no intention of cutting spending. So it’s news to me he wants to cut the dept of education. I would love to see that, and I would love to see a voucher system or some form of competition. Then again that’s up to the states.

        • Good lord, can you take a lot of time to say nothing. Your first 2 and 4th paragraph suggest that lunatic are operating based on reasonable action, that if we hadn’t done x, y or z then we would all be friend and sing kumbaya…and not deal in reality where crazy people do crazy things. Every culture has crazy people, the problem is that certain cultures cultivate and reward it. The subcultures of Wahhabism and Islamofascism fit the bill.

          As to Canada and Australia…well Canada thwarted a Al-Qaida terrorist attack in 2006 (, Australia’s embassy was bombed in Jakarta in 2004 by Al-Qaida ( and the Bali bombing in 2002 killed 88 Australians (more losses than any other nationality). But more importantly it’s like asking “Why didn’t Hitler invade Ireland?” “Why didn’t Tojo attack New Zealand?” Because even lunatics have a basic understanding of tactics. There are two targets you take out (A) the ones you can take out for tactical gain and (B) the ones who pose the most threat to you. Australia and Canada don’t offer much in the way of tactical gain if you attack them, and they aren’t the Great Satan.

          But please answer for me two questions. (1) Is Islmofascism (be it Iran, Syria, The Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Qaida) evil? and (2) as human being do we not have a moral imperative to stop evil and defend the innocent when we have the power to do so?

          Then I love your idea about the NAACP not attacking so clearly he must be okay. Again you don’t have a good understanding of tactics. Do you remember the DNC coming out with the big guns attacking Rick Santorum for being a nut job homophobe? No. WHy? Because every attack only has a certain self life with your average voter who doesn’t care that much. If you use the attack too early by the time the election comes around it will be old news. It’s why a lot of people’s first run for politics air a lot of second rate scandals which by the time they run the second time are old news (like McCain’s massive amount of kickbacks and corruption in the ’80’s that was so worn out even Obama couldn’t use it). If by some act of the force of darkness and insanity Ron Paul did become the nominee, if you don’t think there would be constant nonstop endless streams of the truth that he is a racist, you’re beyond deluded.

          I love how Paulbots justify the very evil they hate, earmarks and pork, when it’s done by their Messiah. I have’t seen tap-dancing like that since Fred Astaire died. Either he’s a man of character and doesn’t do earmarks, or he’s corrupt and does them. Either-or. And as to your “fair =-share” BS, I’m capitalist, I don’t care about “fair-shares” or even what’s fair. I care about what’s right. Earmark are the hallmark of corruption. ANd have you looked in the BS he’s spent that money on, not one cent of it is with the federal government’s Constitutional powers. (

          ” And he also returns part of his congressional office budget back to the treasury.” THat was Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, who sent money back to the treasury ( …and if I”m not mistaken. Rand’s endorsing who? Oh, that’s Mitt Romney.

          “Mitt has said numerous times that he has no intention of cutting spending. ” Really where? Please provide me that quote. Considering that points 8, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53,54,55,56,57,58, and 59 of Romney’s 59 point plan ( deal with cutting spending, please tell where he’s said he’s never going to cut.

          “As for Romney and education, I’ll believe it when I see it” And you don’t see any irony that you have this attitude to a man who was successful in the private sector, successful in Massachusetts, successful turing around the boondoggle of the Salt Lake Olympics…but have endless faith that a man who in 20 years has never been able to get a single piece of legislation passed will be able to fix everything.

          Oh just in case you forgot, I asked for a single issue where Obama and Romney are the same as you claimed in your first post.

      • Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

        Also, the list of grievances I posted was originally stated by Bin Laden. Like it or not, our unwavering support for Israel angers Arabs. I know it’s news to you that AL-Qaeda is not some irrational band of terrorist that hates America because we’re free, but believe it or not, they have real grievances, whether you acknowledge it or not. Unfortunately, these wars aren’t going to come to an end until we have a bond market/dollar crisis. With the amount of debt we’ve accumulated, if interest rates even go to 4 or 5% the interest payment of the debt alone will be over a trillion dollars a year. Our current levels of spending are unsustainable, and the levels of debt monetizing by the FED have been rising.

        • I chose the bullshit about grievances because that gives them credit they don’t have. It’s like saying Hitler had grievances about the Sudetenland. They hate because they hate, it’s a common policy for tyrants. You stoke up hate…they don’t hate us because of our freedom as you keep going back to as if I said it, which I didn’t (it would greatly help this discussion if you would attack my point rather than some fictional straw man you think is easier to attack), they hate because every tyranny on earth has to keep their people hating someone else it’s how they control their people.

          Again I will repeat myself answer for me two questions. (1) Is Islmofascism (be it Iran, Syria, The Muslim Brotherhood, or Al-Qaida) evil? and (2) as human being do we not have a moral imperative to stop evil and defend the innocent when we have the power to do so?

          And do most people cower when you start quoting random things about economics like you actually know something? I would agree that our debt levels are a problem, but our biggest problems are from entitlement payment not military spending (again it’s this little thing called research). Also if you knew even the first thing about business or economics you would know that raising the interest rate would stimulate the economy and help us get out of debt faster. Yes our current levels of spending are unsustainable, but the main problems are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, followed by employee salaries and benefits (more at the state level for that one). Would you like to deal in reality and talk about those?

          • Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

            And is Romney going to cut social security and medicare…..No!!! You be real. Romney isn’t going to cut anything, and you embrace the foreign policy of democrat.

  3. Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

    Got it, they hate us for our freedoms. I guess all the other stuff we do in the Arab world doesn’t count. I guess a small band of terrorists has the strength of the Nazi empire, which was an entire country. That makes a lot sense. I guess we need to occupy and install new governments where ever they are in the world, no matter the cost. I love how you address my write up on the on the first gulf war and the unintended consequences of it.

    As for earmarks, it’s congress that is suppose to designate the spending. What don’t you understand? RP votes against the bill, because he doesn’t want to spend the money, but if the other members of the house are going to pass it, then why shouldn’t he earmark it? He didn’t want them to spend it in the first place, but if they are going to, then he is going to get some of his constituents tax dollars back. Congress designates spending, that’s their job!! Nice remark on capitalism you idiot. So wanting to get your fair share of tax revenue returned is socialist, alright buddy.

    • And why shouldn’t Ron Paul earmark? Oh I don’t know, principles, ethics, morals. The little things. “then he is going to get some of his constituents tax dollars back. ” Are really so foolish to actually believe that it’s going back to his constituents? They’re pork projects, they don’t benefit the tax payer, they benefit the person to whom the pork money goes.

      And I know you have issues with research and fact…but did you even look at some of Ron’s pork projects? Explain to me how $8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers benefits all of his constituents more than the contractors hired to build it.

      “So wanting to get your fair share of tax revenue returned is socialist, alright buddy.” Clearly you don’t understand capitalism. Capitalism isn’t the government takes my money and then gives me back some of my money. That’s socialism, and that’s actually what you’re justifying with Ron Paul. Capitalism is the government doesn’t take my money at all (or more accurately only takes enough to run military, police, fire, courts and the other true functions of government) and we don’t talk about getting my “fair share” because my money has never been taken from me in the first place.

      • Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

        “Capitalism is the government doesn’t take my money at all (or more accurately only takes enough to run military, police, fire, courts and the other true functions of government) and we don’t talk about getting my “fair share” because my money has never been taken from me in the first place.”
        So if you don’t pay your taxes you don’t go to jail? I mean I know the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified by the states, but the courts still enforce it. Before that the federal government was financed by tariffs and excise taxes, and only spent 3% of GDP in 1900. Money wasn’t being redistributed like is today. It was going to fulfil the basic principles of government, to defend life, liberty, and property. If the government is going to spend people money in the name of equality, than it only makes sense for people to try to get back some of what they paid in. Is that any different than a millionaire who paid into social security all his life at the max level trying to get back some of what he paid in. The government shouldn’t be in the business of redistributing wealth period. If the government is going to hand something out, you might as well take it, because if you don’t, someone else will. Morality has already gone out the window once the government decides it’s going to hand out money.

        • oooh…conspiracy theories on the 16th Amendment. You are on a whole other plane aren’t you?
          “If the government is going to spend people money in the name of equality, than it only makes sense for people to try to get back some of what they paid in” Or I could have some self respect and moral and not take the money that was stolen from me and thus not allow myself to become dependent on the government

          “Morality has already gone out the window once the government decides it’s going to hand out money.” no morality only goes out of one’s personal life when one allows it to, the outside world has nothing to do with the personal choices on makes.

          Although I find it hilarious you’re trying to take the high moral ground after already saying mass genocide can be going on and if they’re not Americans you don’t care.

  4. Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

    “as human being do we not have a moral imperative to stop evil and defend the innocent when we have the power to do so?” No we don’t, our obligation is to defend Americans, not people under a different flag. Let those people fight for their own freedom and establish their own government. Even when our intentions are good, the native inhabitants of these countries don’t look at us that way, they look at us occupiers. There is misery and oppression all over the world, and what makes one situation more dire than another? We can’t solve the worlds problems. If however you would like to donate to overseas causes that you deem worthy, by all means do so, but don’t force other Americans to risk their lives and their money. Put your conscience in action. America has done more to raise the standard of living of the third world through capitalism than through military intervention.

    Romney is all over the place. Here’s an article quoting him that cutting spending would put us into a depression. Romney is all talk.

    • “No we don’t, our obligation is to defend Americans, not people under a different flag.” Ah the popular, Jefferson only thought that rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness applied only to all men in America theory…sorry I always forget I don’t have the copy of the Declaration with the RonPaulbot notations. Also my copy of Aristotle’s Ethics is a little worn and dated, I have this foolish notion that ethics applies to human being, not just Americans. How silly of me. ” they look at us occupiers.” If you ignore, France, Germany, Kuwait, Japan, the Virgin Island, Puerto Rico, and host of other places…I know I should just forget facts.

      “Put your conscience in action. America has done more to raise the standard of living of the third world through capitalism than through military intervention.” No I think WWII still hold the record.

      And bravo on your reading skills in not being able to understand context. Romney is talking about making massive cuts in one fell swoop, which anyone from Milton Friedman to F.A. Hayek would agree with him on. Government spending while a problem cannot just be disentangled immediately or your risk violent social problems. It needs to be cut a maybe 10% of it’s current levels, but to cut it immediately would be insane. (See here for further discussion of this point

      • Neocon's are a modern liberals best friend

        I think you miss the point that we don’t have that kind of time. The bond market, like the housing bubble is a ticking time bomb. Prices have been rising and yields have been falling for decades. The bubble could break from a rise in yields or if prices don’t rise. Either way, when it happens its going to force a debt restructuring, and massive cuts in government spending. The longer we wait, the more debt we accumulate, and the worse it’s going to be. The other worse case scenario is we don’t let rates rise no matter what and we end up with government checks that don’t buy anything. I don’t think they’re going to let rates rise because the banks they just bailed out will fail.

        • And you clearly don’t understand economics. You may like to throw around words like “bond market” and “yields” like you have a deep understanding of what of the driving forces of economics, but you don’t. You’re screaming like chicken little that the sky is about to fall and the end of the world is upon us…it’s not. What is upon us is another recession, the one we should have had in 2000 but that government intervention has been putting off for a while…now the good news is that optimism from the massive deregulation and tax you would see from a Romney Presidency should counter some but not all of the effects of that recession when you start cutting…but the kind of cuts Ron Paul is suggesting would cause us to go into a full scale panic followed not by a recession but a full on depression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s