Mark Steyn on Why No One Should Vote for Ron Paul

Steyn was on the Hugh Hewitt show and took the words right out of my mouth on why no one should be supporting Ron Paul for anything. You Paulnuts take three minutes out of getting stoned and watching child porn to get educated.

Comments

5 Responses to “Mark Steyn on Why No One Should Vote for Ron Paul”

  1. Abraham Iker on December 26th, 2011 11:29 am

    Rob, thanks for posting this audio. I have come to appreciate your site for covering stories and issues I often do see otherwise. However, I will say that I am disappointed that you insult Ron Paul supporters by saying they are get stoned and have and watch child porn. I don’t agree with all of what any candidates opinions or policies, but I do consider myself a libertarian and I did indeed vote for Paul in the previous primary. I have never used illegal drugs and have absolutely no interest in child porn. Steyn, by the way, uses illogical arguements (“if he can’t run a newsletter, how can he run a country” they aren’t the same thing) and large words to try and support his opinion. I don’t know who he is trying to impress but it is not working on me. No one at Paul’s level of management (of his campaign) oversees everything and sometimes things get overlooked. He could have done a better job of saying that, I’ll give you that one. He is a little too isolationist for me, but overall I believe he is honest and most of the other candidates are not.
    Keep up the good work and I will keep on reading and commenting, but please cut back on the generalized insults. Specific insults are fine. I’m fine with you saying I’m a moron because I don’t know how to find the pause button on an audio post, but not that everyone who rides a motorcycle is a fithly degenerate. You have said neither to me ofcourse. It is just an example. Regards, Abe

  2. Rob Taylor on December 26th, 2011 2:03 pm
  3. Abraham Iker on December 26th, 2011 3:56 pm

    Jesus is reported to have kept company with prostitutes and criminals. I am not christian, but Jesus seemed to be a well meaning fellow regardless of the company he kept. I see your point though, it would be nice if he would rebuke the supporters with those unfavorable ideologies. However, it seems to me that they support him, he does not support them. Their beliefs may overlap on foreign policy or strict constitutionalism. I disagree with full legalization because it would commercialize the production, which would give companies incentive to create a bigger market. It is such a complicated issue of freedom and protection. I don’t care if someone wants to use heroin, but I do care if they use it and that use causes them to neglect their children or hurt someone. I think Paul’s take on that is neglect and harm is criminal and that should be punished, not the use that could lead to it. Drinking is not a crime in most cases, but drinking and driving is. We have the same issue with alcohol but I don’t think prohibition solves the problem. One possible solution would be to drastically increase the penalty for crimalal actions under the influence of drugs, including alcohol.

    There are certainly some screwy people in the world and it seems that there are a number of them that support Ron Paul. My hope is that he will lead the country in a more successful direction toward sovereignty and liberty without empowering any organization founded on hate or exploitation. I think that hope is more likely with him than any other candidate, or the current employee.

  4. Rob Taylor on December 26th, 2011 4:33 pm

    I’m not a Christian but if I were I would rebuke Jesus if he hung around rapists – but of course he didn’t according to Christian myth. He reformed a prostitute and preached that people could give up their evil ways.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is that if we allow the Islamists to wipe out the Jews (including the ones here – as Hamas’ charter explicitly states) they’ll be friendly with us. That’s asinine. Paul’s stance on drugs is that people would use less drugs if they’re legal. That’s asinine. Paul’s stance on our sovereignty is that if we disband our strong military and trade freely with communists and Islamist there’d be no war. Also asinine. The marine corp was invented because Islamists were attacking American ships unprovoked and took thousands of Americans into slavery.

    I don’t care if you support Paul, but don’t pretend that weakness, depravity and perfidy are noble virtues that will usher in peace. Weakness invites aggression, depravity destroys society from within and betrayals like allowing a second holocaust to happen is something no decent person will tolerate.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/flashback-ron-paul-defends-hamas-says-israeli-blockade-act-of-war/

    http://www.breitbart.tv/ron-paul-1991-nothing-changed-under-reagan-no-difference-between-parties/

    http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/

  5. Abraham Iker on December 26th, 2011 5:47 pm

    Religious stories aside…

    I read the articles a watched the videos you linked to. Thanks for the info. I read reports of his lack of support to Isreal and support of the palestinian elected governenment. His reported opinion was that they elected Hamas, and it would be wrong to say say “but you elected the wrong people.” It doesn’t say anything about Jew in America except the report by the former staffer, who happens to be jewish, that stated his problem was with financially and militarily supporting a jewish state of Isreal rather. If the religions were reversed, he would change the opinon because he seas it as an unneccessary intervention. He is indeed an isolationist in that regard and many others. But none of the reports said or implied he would allow Hamas to “wipe out the jews here.” He was reported as saying that we should not have involved ourselves in the European side of WW2 unless Hitler actually attacked the US. I disagree with that. Sometimes humanitarian aid, including military intervention is appropriate as in the case of WW2. If your summaries were accurately his opinions and policies, they would be asinine, but I find no evidence that those are his opinions.
    None of the articles you linked to in the most recent comment talk about drugs, but you are correct that he is in favor of decrimalization of all drugs as a matter of federal policy. He stated in one of the links higher up that he didn’t think decriminalization would increase drug usage. I did not see any report of his saying it would decrease usage.
    I have looked around a bit, but I can’t find a quote or direct report of Paul disbanding our military. If you can provide a source, I will be glad to read it. I can infer that he would like to scale it back to not be involved in overseas confilcts. My personal opinion is that those conflicts should be evaluated individually to determine involvment.
    Your most recent post seems to be off the mark Paul’s opinions and statements. I completely agree with your statement; “Weakness invites aggression, depravity destroys society from within and betrayals like allowing a second holocaust to happen is something no decent person will tolerate,” but I don’t think Paul’s proposed policies are encourage “weakness, depravity, or perfidy.” I do not think they are noble virtues and have never stated anything of the sort.
    I think removing ourselves immediately and completely from the Isreal situation would be disasterous and wrong. I also think the way we established the Isreal state was wrong. Offer asylum and allow immigration after WW2 would have been a better alteranative to creating a country for them. I like Jews just fine. I am not a Zionist, but I am not anti-semtic either.
    I am learning alot from the links you post, even if I think you represent them incorrectly.
    Thanks for taking the time to further this discussion, and I’ll be damned if I didn’t have to look up perfidy (nice usage by the way). Respect and Regards, Abe

Leave a Reply