This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul: "I Think Sanctions Give Iran Motivation To Want A Nuclear Weapon"

Tyler Durden's picture


There are those who say that while they agree completely with Ron Paul's economic policy of fixing the #1 issue that ails America (as a reminder, total US debt/GDP would only decline under a Ron Paul presidency) they disagree with Paul on his foreign policy. We wonder why when all he does is instead of appealing to the jingoism of warmongers and patronizing the basest of herd instincts, he simply tells the truth. Such as on Today's State of the Union show on CNN when asked if Obama has done "enough" to force Iran to stop its nuclear development via sanctions and others, his reply was spot on: "I think he gets too much involved. I think sanctions gives the motivation for them to want a nuclear weapon. We have 45 bases around them, we can demolish them within hours. And the worst thing the sanctions do, and Republicans and Democrats both support it and the other GOP candidates want war even more, the whole thing is there is a lot of dissension in Iran and we should encourage it by not interfering, once we get involve and threaten to bomb them, it becomes nationalistic - everyone joins the Ayataollah and Ahmedinejad. So there is a blowback - unusual circumstances and unintended consequences. So yes, our people are well-intended, but they don't realize how much damage they do by not accomplishing what they want and causing more harm to us. So our military personnel right now are very adamant not to be involved in a bombing of Iran, it makes no sense whatsoever to our military personnel, to the CIA, even though they are much more interventionist than I am."

And probably even more important in light of Obama's apology for burning down Korans (but not for pictures of torture), Paul had this to say: "I thought McNamara was rather astute when he they asked him about the mess he caused in Vietnam: "don't you think you should apologize to the American people and to the world" he said: "what good is an apology: if you make mistakes and you see this and you stir enough trouble, why don't we change our policy. That's what he said: "we should change our policy."  So if we have a policy going on in the middle east that is begging that we apologize now and then and others condemning it, I think we should reassess our foreign policy, and that is what I think we are not doing, and that is why I am quite different than the other candidates - the American people are sick and tired of the wars going on over there, we are going broke fighting these wars that are not legitimate in that we were not attacked, they were not declared, and the American people in their majority want us out of there." 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:49 | 2221880 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

And the way Qadaffi was overthrown having sucked up to his NATO overlords. And the way North Korea is conveniently left alone now they have nukes. Our foreign policy is completely stupid.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:16 | 2221947 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture


They gave China a discount to make that happen.  Then the price of oil went up and they are making the same money they made without the discount.


The beating of the war drums is just insane.  Just what is expected from all this?  Does the "moral war" faction from Hillary's State Department and the DNC expect a country that overthrew the Shah to embrace Islam more tightly would now suddenly open new gambling . . . pardon the expression . . . Mecca's?

Achmeblahblahjob WON HIS ELECTION.  There was probably cheating and his reported margin was likely larger than reality, but his margin was so large that even 5% cheating would still yield a win.  He won.  He is what the people there want.  (Of course, the Libyan majority were also very pleased at Gadaffi's paying 100% college tuition for their college aged children to go to university anywhere in the world, but that didn't stop NATO, whose oil companies informed their governments that they were about to lose their oil production contracts there to PetroChina and PetroBras, because Gadaffi wanted them out).

Iran is post Peak.  They are not the only source of nuclear weapon proliferation threat.  They are not desperate and not likely to attack anyone in desperation.  

The whole concept is election year politics.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:02 | 2222079 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture

It is only a matter of time for any idiot, if unrestrained, to reach nuclear capacity.

Technology becomes cheaper and more user friendly.

Information and know-how flows more and more over time.

Does this mean we should do nothing?

Quite the contrary, this means we should throw these people back to stone age and make sure we keep them there. And we should do it ASAP.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:05 | 2222090 Umh
Umh's picture

Why don't you go build a bomb?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:08 | 2222099 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture

I don't have to, my democracy has them for me.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:48 | 2222225 JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

You are a simpleton.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2222310 woolly mammoth
woolly mammoth's picture

Simpleton maybe, but more like being paid time and a half for working the blogs on a Sunday.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:30 | 2222325 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture


no pay here, no elephantiasis either.

Just a guy who believes the western civilization needs to confront the perils of nuclear proliferation.

Yes, in fact it is simple and I am a simpleton: I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:31 | 2222332 JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

There is only one country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country.


Do you know which one it is?



Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:32 | 2222335 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture

that is so boring

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:37 | 2222352 JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

I know. I'm sorry.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:05 | 2222538 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Here's a video you may enjoy: 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:00 | 2222407 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

There is only one country who has ever dropped a nuke on another country.


Correction.. there is only one country who has ever dropped TWO nukes on another country.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2222429's picture

That was a plus 1 comment -- literally.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:26 | 2222568 JohnnyBriefcase
JohnnyBriefcase's picture

Pretty insane and really puts current events in perspective.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 06:39 | 2223427 Element
Element's picture



... he simply tells the truth.


First whips the money-changers out of Dodge, then truth-telling to the sheep.

This has traditionally been the quickest way to get revered, then Crucified.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 01:26 | 2223305 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



I want to survive and I want my descendants to survive as well.

But you're ok with USA going around wiping out other people (and their descendants) under the banner of controlling nuclear arms?

If USA attacks / invades Iran, American cities will be nuked (by Russia).

So what's more important?  Keeping your sorry ass alive, or preventing Iran from having nukes?

With your sorry attitude you shouldn't be allowed to have any descendants.  You should be sterilized ...or better yet, killed altogether.

Let's hope you live in one of those American cities getting nuked.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 04:57 | 2223396 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture

I see you are much in favour of democratic, open, plural discussions.

Russia will not nuke America, that is nonsense.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:01 | 2222536 GubbermintWorker
GubbermintWorker's picture

Then find one for you to sit on.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:37 | 2222497 Michael
Michael's picture

I agree. Israel with its 300+ nuclear bombs should be thrown back to the stone age. That whole country is full of paranoid schizophrenic psychopaths.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:17 | 2222555 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

less than half it seems.  only the least able are in charge.  

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:03 | 2222754 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

Perhaps someone should look in their own mirror.

I've read a number of your comments and have gone to many of your suggested links and do find some of the links very interesting. You are obviously a very bright person. Here comes the but...

In spite of your claim of not hating and entire religious group you consistently tar ALL Jews in total when you make most of your derogatory comments. I am descended from people who consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself  of Jewish heritage but don't object if you want to refer to me as a Khazar though it may be inaccurate . I do not practice any religion. You know nothing about me yet you claim repeatedly the world would be better off without the likes of me. I suggest sir that the world would be better off without the likes of you. I mean no slander against any other person of your genetic pool or belief systems. I refer only to you as a peddler of hate to anyone who will listen.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 07:41 | 2223469 Element
Element's picture



Does this mean we should do nothing?

Quite the contrary, this means we should throw these people back to stone age and make sure we keep them there. And we should do it ASAP.


You and General Curtis Lemay would have got on famously, he was also psychopathically belligerent:


During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, LeMay clashed again with U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara, arguing that he should be allowed to bomb nuclear missile sites in Cuba. He opposed the naval blockade and, after the end of the crisis, suggested that Cuba be invaded anyway, even after the Russians agreed to withdraw. LeMay called the peaceful resolution of the crisis "the greatest defeat in our history".[31] Unknown to the US, the Soviet field commanders in Cuba had been given authority to launch—the only time such authority was delegated by higher command.[32] They had twenty nuclear warheads for medium-range R-12 ballistic missiles capable of reaching US cities (including Washington) and nine tactical nuclear missiles. If Soviet officers had launched them, many millions of US citizens would have been killed. The ensuing SAC retaliatory thermonuclear strike would have killed roughly one hundred million Soviet citizens, and brought nuclear winter to much of the Northern Hemisphere. Kennedy refused LeMay's requests, however, and the naval blockade was successful.[32]


I think we can file that sort of sad mentality under, "what not to do".

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:08 | 2222101 Troll Magnet
Troll Magnet's picture

spiral eyes,
norh korea isn't left alone because they have nukes. we leave them alone because they have nothing that we and our corporate overlords can steal and profit off of. no oil, no gold, no need for pipelines through it and no other tangible wealth? ok, then no US thieves. it's that simple.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:39 | 2222199 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

there's always a resource to be gotten from war:

more government largesse for the military-industrial complex.

we bomb somalia, but leave kim jong-un alone. hmm. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:40 | 2222201 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Their ability to put half a million artillery shells into Seoul in an hour might also be relevant.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:50 | 2222377 PontifexMaximus
PontifexMaximus's picture


Mon, 03/05/2012 - 07:56 | 2223481 Element
Element's picture

And let's not forget that last time Chinese soldiers and Russian Pilots kicked the 'UN' forces arse, for quite some time.


That also might have something to do with it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:40 | 2222203 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

They also have a Big friend named China.  The last time the U.S. tried to intervene militarily in N Korea we had the Korean War.

That went well.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:14 | 2222432's picture

They say that suicide is painless but I'd rather not find out for sure.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:48 | 2222518 Itzal
Itzal's picture


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:38 | 2223023 oldman
oldman's picture



The first of many losses?

Oh, shit----I forgot custer!

never mind                        om

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 02:55 | 2223349 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

Actually, the war was already well under way. South Korea was almost completly wiped out with only the Pusan perimeter holding out with their backs to the ocean. Only massive air attacks from Japan and US carriers and desperate close combat held off the North Koreans until the Inchon landings sliced all the supply lines and caused he NK army to utterly collapse. South Korean troops even managed to take Pyongyang and the North was almost finished. Had China not sent thousands of troops over the Yalu river and attacked UN forces into their flanks, causing a massive retreat of UN forces and the infamous Chosin Reservoir fighting withdrawel, Korea would be united today and probably nearly equal to Japan in economic power. Truman had his chance years earlier to really back up the Nationalist Army during the Chinese Civil War and defeat the Russian backed communists led by Mao, but he dropped the ball big time and Asia is what it is today because of it. Just saying.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 02:11 | 2223334 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

I think the real reason we leave them alone is because we actually learned a lesson at the Chosin Reservoir. China dosen't want anybody playing in their North Korean sandbox, even if it's filled with broken toys and smells like a sesspool.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:35 | 2222184 scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

I wouldn't be surprized if we start to see a rash of oil field related sabatage in those M.E. countries that we've swindle with paper printing. Not sure how our overlords would deal should that start to happen. Seemed strange how quickly S.A. denied the pipeline explosion as if to try and nip what revolt momentum might be building.


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:43 | 2222729 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Crashis: "Just what is expected from all this?"

Same thing as always, a continuation of the geopolitical and military dominance of the Middle East by the US and Israel without any potential input that might come from a nuclear armed Persian Gulf state.  That's what it's about, that's what it's aways about.  Fear of attack by Iran is just the BS spewed to whip up the fear factor of the typically ignorant citizens of the US. 

Any nuclear weapon from Iran or anywhere else has a return address on it, if not by the trajectory and flight characteristics of the missile then by the specific isotopic composition of the fissile material and fission products that can be analyzed after the blast.  Therefore, why should the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction work less well to deter a country with a few nuclear weapons from attacking the US than it did for the Soviets?  It should deter even better since the destruction would be mostly one way -- on the country that attacked the US.  The truth lies here: would the US have attacked Iraq for a "regime change" if Saddam had had nuclear weapons?  The answer is the same as it currently is for N. Korea and Pakistan who have nuclear weapons - NO.  And that is the major reason these small nations want nuclear weapons.  It's "regime change" deterrence.

Do I want US domination of the Middle East?  Yes.  But lets get real about the true reasons behind the news propaganda.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:10 | 2223488 Element
Element's picture



Do I want US domination of the Middle East?  Yes.


I was with you until THAT, but why do you want such a barbarous and unjust thing?

Ultimately you're saying that the guy with the most guns has all the rights on planet Earth, and that national Sovereignty and law of any other people must give way to US JDAMs.

If so, yeah, you'll definitely getting WWIII that way.

Because that shit is competing for the most Hitler-esque global conquest sentiment I've read so far today.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:15 | 2223491 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 might makes right? sounds like a very goood way to lose the support of all allies and lose that very hegemony

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:22 | 2223494 Element
Element's picture

I'm no Angel Ghordius, but I feel dirty every time I read one of these sick Iran-attack war threads and see what people are chomping at the bit for, and expressing quite insane attitudes and intents.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:27 | 2223501 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

I understand, though I have to point out that the American Vocabulary has somewhat evolved. Words like War on..., Fighter, Fight, Dominate, Dominance, etc. are more neutral/positive, i.e. less literal than in the rest of the world.

Exchange the statement with one with "arbitrate" or "monitor", for example.

Perhaps you have followed the statements going in the direction of "Germany wants to dominate...". About the same.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:01 | 2223547 Element
Element's picture

Ok, though I don't know if that equates to less offensive or less arrogant, or considerably more so? These words still have the same definitions, though they may be getting said in a more flippant and 'acceptable' manner, taken less seriously than before, mainly because people rarely shoot back, or at least rarely survive if they do shoot back at Americans, in the ME.  Maybe that's why they feel it's their place to use such outrageous sentiments, and don't suspect it's going to be a problem?  I suspect more of late that they're simply totally disconnected from the reality of such remarks and just don't give a shit, devoid of all human commonality.

'Unworthy' is the word that keeps springing to mind.

I've not read comments RE Germans etc.

Mon, 03/12/2012 - 23:11 | 2249479 Silver Bug
Silver Bug's picture

Ron Paul is the man.


Jewellery in Canada

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:42 | 2222918 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

And Saudi Arabia raised prices for Asian customers while lowering them for Europe and the USA, because they are among the most adament that Iran not get a bomb.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:34 | 2222002 Silver Bug
Silver Bug's picture

Ron Paul is the ONLY true man left running. Even if he doesn't win, his message will. Once again this is another great example of his wisdom. Ron Paul 2012!

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:54 | 2222051 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

The bankers/CIA are in control and they want their Romney. They follow my idea in Washington and ship in the senile seniors from their homes to vote. Fucking time for us to play dirty too.

Everytime I make comment have to clean up my computer ZH, WTF.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:06 | 2222273 falun bong
falun bong's picture

U.S. politics has become the laughing stock of the world. Nervous laughter though...because people know one of these nutcases might end up with his (or her) finger on a big fat red button.

It's only when I hear Ron Paul that I'm proud again. His words show the world that there are still a few who have a grasp of reality and are not just utter puppets of the corporate/banking/military monster.

What other country has an "evolution problem"? More than 100 Congressmen who do not even believe in evolution. No wonder America is 24th in the world in science & engineering. Again, the laughing stock.

We can only make a change as people get informed and aware. Keep working on it. Online, at the gym, at the bar, in your neighborhoods. The more people who know, the less power the fascisti can keep. Keep truthtelling as long as it's still (mostly) legal.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:31 | 2222479 Blano
Blano's picture

You were doing fine until the evolution shit.  Then YOU became the laughingstock.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:37 | 2222495 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Part of the problem of this country is the inability to differentiate reality from fiction....

Genesis is a nice story, but it has nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 01:39 | 2223314 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



Creation and evolution are nice theories but they have nothing to do with reality and should never be mentioned within the context of a policy debate...

Fixed it.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:42 | 2223627 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Playing the fool are we?

That being said, I do not see too many instances where Evolution would have a place in forming public policy...

Whereas Genesis seems to rear its ugly head far too many times and in too many legislatures...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:58 | 2222533 falun bong
falun bong's picture

Uh-huh, God stuck all the fossils of seashells inside the rocks on the top of Mt. Everest...was that on the fifth day, or the sixth? Go outside and look the sky green...or pink?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:34 | 2222799 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

he din't say anything about "god" that i see

he was responding to your "belief in evolution" thingy

and he did a damned good job, imo

that fact that "genesis" may be a, b, or c doesn't really effect the hypothesis that "belief in evolution" may be extemely shoddy science

now, does it?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:41 | 2222914 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Slewie, I really recommend that you fire up the recent NOVA on "What Darwin did not know"...

When you can identify the common genes responsible for limbs/fins I'd say you are on to something...

You do know that we have indentified the DNA responisible for the opposing thumb? 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:52 | 2223044 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

i did not mention darwin;  nor did anyone else

you can state whatever theory you are willing to accept

what the hell do i care?

nor am i talking about DNA, as my piece below, points out

i am also coming from a "material theory" flak:  metaphysics!

L0L!!!  here we have the "crazy idea" of "scale"

for example, we might say, as did the ancients and some of the moderns i have worked with too, that the earth is above the moon, metaphysically

symbolically, if you are enuf of a "scientist" to understand me, ok?

the sun is above the earth

now, it is not that there is only one-way tripping between the 'higher' and the 'lower' b/c it is two-way and that also should not be taken too literally, but as a symbol of relationship and what is known as transformation as in: the sun 'creating' weed and alcohol by various transformations, even as i write this nonsense

any_how, the hemp probably didn't cause the BEing of the Sun, if you follow...

so, we have the "metaphysical principle" that: >> the higher acts upon the lower<<  and i mean this primarily, not as an invariable rule

certainly, the moon is part of the gestalt in which my blogging is held, but i am trying to write about life on earth, of course

whenever slewie sees an "evolving" process, he likes to remember this simple yet ancient "fact" 

since we usually just figure "more or less" the actual metaphysical basis of the situ is often grossly distorted especially in "colloqual" thought

"higher" does not mean "more" [except as scale is taken account]

so much (admittedly "popular") "belief in evolution" seems to insist that eveything (!!!)  comes from "below", metaphysically

grave error is grave error;  and that is a grave error, BiCheZ!

trust me

and i, too, have a totally opposinging thumb, bro!

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:32 | 2223507 Element
Element's picture

i did not mention darwin;  nor did anyone else


That's ok Slewie, no one mentioned Genesis either ... until Flak did.

Can you say agenda?

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:37 | 2223616 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Element, you have already demonstrated your complete lack of analytic abilities elsewhere....

The only agenda I adhere to is one where rational thought prevails, not mystical bullshit and ideologically inspired "science" that you seem to prefer....

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:00 | 2223680 Element
Element's picture

You sound like a desperate man.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:38 | 2223753 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Explain to us why AGW is wrong.... in your own words, using scientific and not ideological arguments...

Show us what you got, buddy...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:50 | 2223049's picture

The opposable thumb is nothing but an instigator. I prefer the affable thumb.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 01:49 | 2223320 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



When you can identify the common genes responsible for limbs/fins I'd say you are on to something...

Great.  Now tell us how an organism consciously changes its DNA to "evolve" different traits in its offspring.   Then I'd say you're on to something.

Until then it doesn't matter how many genes you identify.  You're no closer to any scientific proof of evolution.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:58 | 2223400 i-dog
i-dog's picture


"an organism consciously changes its DNA to "evolve""

Where did you come across this novel 'theory' of evolution?!?

In Darwinian evolution, an organism does not change its DNA in any way. It mixes its DNA with the DNA of a mate and has a number of offspring -- each with a different DNA combination of its two parents (including a few random gene mutations unrelated to the parents). So, if the pairing has 4 offspring, each of those 4 will have different characteristics that will see each of them either survive and procreate or not. The more successful will go on to repeat the process for each of hundreds of thousands of generations over the span of millions of years, while the less successful will simply die off without procreating.

I'm not sure how your theory fits in with that?

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 15:00 | 2224696 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



One little problem with your theory.  No evidence of a species mating with a different species, yeilding different physical traits (like non-webbed feet offspring from a webbed-feet parent).

So your theory still has no scientific evidence to support it ...and you won't be able to find any in the future.

Your theory of Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a belief.  Just like religious beliefs. 

Darwinian Evolution is a religion, not a science.  It relies on mere beliefs with no scientific evidence to support them.

It means DE is no closer to science than Creationism.  Both rely on unproven (and unprovable) beliefs.

Theory is not fact until it is demonstrated (proven) via scientific method.

Therefore Darwinian Evolution should not be taught as fact, like it is in most colleges these days.  It should be taught as a theory, a possibility, not fact.

That's all I have to say about this.  No other argument you might come up with has any merit.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 15:13 | 2224795 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I strongly suggest you take the time to see the NOVA I pointed out..

You will be very surprised...

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 21:18 | 2234387 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

COG would not understand Nova so don't bother.  As to evolution, which by the way is no longer considered a theory but a proven law having been observed in great detail, not only can a member of a species change his/her body right down to it's fundamental building blocks scientists have recently observed that as well.

A single member of a species can change their epigenetics without necessarily changing their chromasomes or DNA.  And, most of our genetic material is "silent,"  It appears to be switched off at any given time, that part which is switched on and active, the expressed part you can see, is called epigenetics.  So, a person might drink protein shakes and work out to grow their body by 50 or 60 pounds above their usual weight and their underlying genetics will be the same, but their epigenetics have changed, science is now proven that is heritable. 

Of course no religious nut is going to read about it, understand it, or believe it.  You know I have met people here that insist that evolution is nothing but a trick the Devil plays on us to seperate us from god.  And there are people like that posting here, there are people like that running nations.

I do hope that those who support religion (any of them) are wrong, bucause if they are right the universe was created by an ignorant psychopathic bastard so mentally deranged that Adolph Hitler looks like a high functioning reasonable dude by comparison.  Thankfully they are full of shit.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:52 | 2223664 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

See what homeschooling and/or the teaching of intelligent design does? You are clearly confused about how things work...

It is that or a textbook case of Dunning-Kruger....

Maybe you should watch the NOVA in question, it is available online and explain to me the stickle-back fish observations...


Wed, 03/07/2012 - 22:41 | 2234541 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

That is some of the most dumbed down and pedestrian stuff I've seen. Doesn't even come close to addressing Intelligent Design. I guess it further disproves popular opinion and Catholic dogma of 200 years ago. Woopee.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, my neighbor homeschooled her son and he just graduated from a top three engineering school with honors. Go figure. Fucking NOVA, what a joke.

Most people don't even fucking know what evolution is. They think survival of the fittest means survival of the strongest or evolution is equal to progress. Science still doesn't know how to even define species for all of life. There are so many fundamental blank spots and NOVA goes out and finds fucking fly people talking basic gene regulation. Oh wow! Amazing! I'm sure all those fucking drosophila grunts slaving away with tiny fucking flies with terrible job prospects are all heartened. Then NOVA finds some fucking informatics guy who does the most boring human chimp comparisons. Fucking amazing shit, moron.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:11 | 2222977 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

many years ago, my daughter came to the place i was living out on the coast;  it was the thanksgiving recess of her freshman year at a university known for it's science, medicine and public health

after about the third time she used "evolve" as a verb to "explain" something not even remotely biological, i went fightClub on her!  L0L!!!

she did pretty well for a first-semester freshman!  after about an hour, a pot of coffee and two joints, she summed it up, as follows:  "DAD!!! everybody knows evolution is true!" 

she had learned that well! 

again, 'evolution' is, unfortunately, a "belief" system for many people.  they don't really understand the biological "theory" and what it might mean, IF it could, somehow be "proven" [like the acceleration due to gravity, for example] which, btw,  it cannot be.  it can be accepted, but not proven.  the gravitational constant of 32ft/sec2 can be measured, by contrast;  there is no evolutionary constant to be measured!

now, if you don't fall into this common "trap", great!

but when you write about somebody's lack of "belief in evolution", i kinda wonder, is all...

how you relate it "engineering" is a little bit weird tho...  genetics is NOT 'evolution', ya know!  you are aware of that, aren't you?  biology and mechnical sciences are really quite different, ya know?  but we use engineering and math in bio all the time, especially to design experiments and equipment!  and you prbably use biology in laying pipe, too...

and none of that proves or disporoves anything about "god" or "genesis" [you may not be able, cogently, to define either term, perhaps, from an engineering point of view, you know?] anyway, now does it?

but the comment i am replying to is pretty styoooopid as a response to what the person actually said to you and probably meant, do know at least that, don't you?

"belief in evolution" is a sympton of deep sleep which almost all "educated" people share just from hanging out and bullshitting in the dorm and over chow!

the real cases even "oppose" it to "belief in god" or "gelief in genesis" [whatever that means, except tp "prove" they are not scientific if they don't "believe in evolution", if you can still follow me here] 

for billions of people who can't think straight, this must be quite the conundrum!

if, an "educated" person is somehow able to escape from this mass conditioning about the "belief in evolution",  this does not necessarily mean that that individual MUST take the symbols of the bookOfGenisis in theBible concretely, or literally

only a complete and hopeless fool would assert such nonsense among thinking adults, especially here!

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:52 | 2223055 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Thank you for this. Let me sum it up for everyone: the theory of evolution is shitty science.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 23:15 | 2223106 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture


the theory of evolution is a scientific theory which should be discussed more scientifically than, say, emotionally, as we are best able to understand wtf we are talkin about

"belief in evolution" is an intellectual plague upon the planet, imo

but i cerainly have understood for going on 1/2 century that it is standard cirriculum and if ya wanna 'matriculate', ya gotta get that "sheepskin"!

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 23:54 | 2223184 Escapeclaws
Escapeclaws's picture

Slewie, I never understood how evolution could work with random mutations without having huge junkyards several miles high of failed experiments for every mutation that becomes a survival trait. Especially when you consider how absolutely fined tuned organisms are. While evolution undoubtedly plays a role in the forms of organisms, perhaps there's something else going on. For instance, one becomes familiar with attractors in differential equations, which are completely determined by the parameters of those equations and it can take the solutions forever and a day to find their way into a basin of attraction and they can circulate there forever in the case of a strange attractor. Many would call that basin of attraction a form of teleology. If our underlying variable is t=time units, then this basin of attraction is off in the future. Yet something like that could work along side random mutations and natural selection to explain why we do not see failed evolutionary experiments several miles thick. So the strict natural selection folks who have made a religion out of Darwin may be failing to see the forest for the trees due to their essentially 19th century worldview.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 04:47 | 2223390 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

i'm not sure i understand you

but i'll see, ok?

sound like you don't accept the theory of evolution in the first sentence

your scientific/intuitive reasons for doing so are gonna take me a minute

the teleological "basin of attraction" sounds teillhardian

teilhard was a catholic theologian;  theology = from within the church;  the pope/s had his/their hands full with this guy [teilhard deChardin], as with others, but the end result was dialogical and not too strict, either, imo.  as a trained scientist, he postulated the "omega point" as a teleological (and christ-like, i would say) "abstraction" with functional, develop-mental aspects similar to what you seem to be saying, here

in classical metaphysics, the "higher" is at a different "level" or "dimension" than the lower;  this does not refer to teilhard's thought; i an talking about  the fundamental mathematical expression;  those integrating/differentiating symbols

this is the faustian fallacy, in terms of psychological symbology, perhaps:  that wo/man can forget her/his "place" in the overall scale of things and still remain sane and healthy.  when we want too much "out there" we may become impoverished "in here" and perhaps vice-versa, too...

often, "higher" means "inner" in much of the symbolic lore; perhaps even teleologically

sun-earth-moon;  a little child can understand this;  it is part of the scale of the universe;  and it is not bullshit, either

how silly is that

personally, i don't understand "evoltution" and it doesn't matter to me to talk about it, as with you, it seems

i accept it as a mystery which i fail to comprehend;  not as a scientific "theory" which i fail to comprehend, if you will...

i agree with you that time is quite a thought-provoking subject

i have the speed of the electron in my body, informed by of DNA molecules which contail ancient codes about my people's people-people [just like mom&dad = required];  as you allude if i undertand your drift, who the hell could tell wtf is going on from here?

we can approach these things in different ways, from different parts of ourselves, perhaps, over time;  some memories and perceptions seem quite profound at times...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 07:28 | 2223448 prole
prole's picture

So-called "Evolution" is a quack religion, a neo- quasi religion for commies, leftists, trendy collectivists and other statists who have abandonded their Christian heritage, or who are not Christian to begin with, and are happy to join a phoney cult which is extinguishing Christianity.

I instantly doubt the sincerity of any RP "fan" who links Paul's Strong CHRISTIAN Libertarian aura/fandom with belief in stupid neo anti-religion/joke/science built on hoaxes "Evolution."

Addressing Falun Gong

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:30 | 2223603 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Are you familiar with the term whackadoo??

Look in the mirror...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:32 | 2223727 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Good grief!!

Are you paid to scare people away from Ron Paul? Or do you just do this as some kind of misguided "favour" (for god knows whom)?

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:13 | 2223703 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Claiming that because you do not understand something does not preclude from being understood by others...

If anything, you should be agnostic and simply shutup when these things are discussed, or simply state, I do not know...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:40 | 2224136 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

as i see it, flak, nobody "knows" in a way that can be "proven"

again, the "theory" can be accepted and used;  explored and investigated

however, that will not prevent millions of peeps from pretending they understand something of which a college freshman said to me: "everybody knows this is true!" 

i was trying to understand someone else's (escape_claws') comment, which was not entirely clear to me

did you see what he (not i) put up there in dialogue w/ slewie, NOT you, flak

thank you for the "advice" on what slewie "should" do

perhaps you can hear your own conditioned values more clearly after taking that dump!

the fact that i admit that this is deeply incomprehensible to me, logically, does not mean i can't  perceive when somebody is pretending to understand the processes so completely (and shallowly) that s/he is obviously just a highly conditioned "science" puppet, btw

others have also been trained in "method and approach" not dogma and doctrine

you seem to be accustomed to being regarded as some sort of an "authority"

krugman has a similar elevation by some who apparently think he really knows his stuff too!

academics are pretty insecure, at times,imo

so much is riding on how others "accept them" that much of their "science" is like economics, just some 'voodoo gobbledy-gook'

but voodoo is not "nothing";  neither is it, necessarily, false;  it depends on what people "believe"

when an FBI agent takes the stand he swears to tell the truth;  but if he said wht his guys did in the case, the perp would walk free

so, he lies.  we saw it in the oj case time after time with the "local" LAPD.  the dreamTeam just set em up and knocked em down like bowling pins!  the detectives, the evidence techs, the statistician were all caught telling lies to the jury, and the jury was not too happy with these fuking asswipes, either!

nuclear "safety" is presented "scientifically"?  no, we have the "scientists" lying!  for 1/2 a century and then some!  you see, some of the "peer review" is a business to make money by publishing pure fuking nonsense.  not all, flak, SOME

when the scientific bases of the "business of global warming" were being developed, the scientists made up data so their "theory" could become a "business model", it seemed to slewie.  remember?

so i question "authority" for quite a long time now, and i would suggest you perhaps might benefit from being a bit less "accepting" of bloviating blowhards theorizing4dollars while the flashbulbs are going off in their "scientific" faces

but, thank you for the advice!

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:54 | 2224183 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


         you are welcome for the advice.. but I must take issue with this nugget of yours

when the scientific bases of the "business of global warming" were being developed, the scientists made up data so their "theory" could become a "business model", it seemed to slewie.  remember?

No, I do not remember...could you refresh me on what data was fabricated by whom?

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 04:38 | 2223393 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

spot on, slewie

I use to remember to the youngsters I follow that there is no such thing as science - there is only the scientific method.

a scientist, (i.e. someone interested in what we don't know) sets up a theory and immediately starts to look for ways to disprove this theory, with experiments that can be replicated, i.e. using the scientific method.

As long as any theory is not disproven, it can be used, cautiously, as a working tool for the next big question. and still we know that any theory might be displaced by a newer, better one, with a different angle


having said that, evolution is a powerful and until now successful and usable theory that has withstood all attempts at disproving it - although in part because some major experiments that would really be needed cannot be attempted due to the time frame

the whole realm of theology is also a bit out of reach for the scientific method since it's still too difficult to fasten the divine to a workbench for dissection and particle bombardment - try to pin down angels, they notoriously dance on the pin's head

and still, the debate in the US about evolution is quite unique and in many ways a political one, packed into a unique cultural war - we foreigners mostly just watch in amazement...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 04:56 | 2223395 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

this is very kind of you ghordie

i don't sense that you would insist on "upside-down" mataphysics

theology is done from within the church and requires the "standpoint of faith";  metaphysics is not exactly faith-sterile, imo, but can be [and should be ?] approached from any "set" of beliefs, which may then be, somehow, transcended

or something  L0L!!!

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:36 | 2223586 Element
Element's picture


"belief in evolution" is an intellectual plague upon the planet, imo


"belief in belief" is an intellectual plague upon the planet, imo

Fixed it.

There's no believing in something that's actual, belief is then redundant, a bogus habit.

Years ago I came to a view that belief is an extreme symptom of profound psychological desperation.

Believers are deperados, and the desperate can do some nutty stuff to hold on to a mental habit.

It's this terrible inner desperation they have to deal with, not just the belief responses to it.

I eventually realised its not wise to vocalise a Truth to people who aren't ready for it yet.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:56 | 2223673 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This would explain your command of scientific matters...


Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:11 | 2223699 Element
Element's picture

Seriously Flak, how old are you?

You prattle on like a 22 year old with a bad case of zits and chip on the shoulder.

Go get laid you fucking loser.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:26 | 2223728 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Is that the best you got?? A couple of lame ad hominems...

You are a clown, clearly incapable of rationalism...

Your have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific knowledge or insight and yet you have strong opinions on scientific matters...

You are likely too ignorant to realize how ignorant you are....

Now run along... or surprise us with some actual deep thought...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:54 | 2224200 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

my dear friend!

element's comment @ 6: 36 is, again, to my previous day's 22:15

he agrees with something i tried to formulate here and you seem to just want to scratch his eyes out!

was he really being "clearly incapable of rationalism"?

he wasn't trying to "surpise w/ a deep thought" flak!  he was trying to communicate w/ slewie!

well, you sure taught him a lesson, here!  Hahahaha!

i liked what he said, and how he said it, myself

and i don't find his IDEAS threatening!  L0L!!!  i'm so styooopid, i don't even feel threated by iran! 

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 13:15 | 2224278 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well.. maybe you two should go off alone somewhere if you do not want people to is a public forum afterall....

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 12:58 | 2224212 Element
Element's picture

Well flak, the one thing you have persistently proven with utmost proficiency I might add, is that you're a complete and utter dickhead regarding any matter, and have your head lost in the reassuring falsehoods of puritanical rationalism, pretending to yourself you really know stuff via that process.  And you're so dull of actual capacity you probably think that is the crowning achievement of your development as a human being.  Well, you're welcome to it, I saw through it many years ago and will never drink that scientific 'rationalist' koolaide drivel ever again.  BTW, it's what's making you such a persistently childish dickhead.  Now go read a scientific american and surf this month's wave of dismal theoretical trivia and pointy-headed cleverness Dexter.

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 13:06 | 2224247 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture, someone seems very angry... Whats the matter, you don't like being exposed as the bullshit artist that you are? 

My crowning achievement is raising two children that would see through your bullshit and intellectual bankruptcy as easily as I do...And one of them is 14 years old...

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 13:09 | 2224254 Element
Element's picture

Frankly it's amazing anyone can stand to be around you, including yourself.

Troll away dickhead.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:55 | 2223063 oldman
oldman's picture

@ falun

A Great Stupidity requires a Great Wisdom to balance it

the rest of the world has gone ahead

we have been left behind

individual survival is in doubt

A Great Darkness requires A Great Lightness to balance it

laughter might work                         om


Mon, 03/05/2012 - 13:50 | 2224413 fockewulf190
fockewulf190's picture

I don't think this is an example of a great stroke of wisdom on Ron's part, Ron is just following the game plan of the Constitution and explaining it using common sense. I hope his wisdom will show when he announces his break from the republican party and takes his independant fight to the people. Right now, he's got four opponents running against him if you include the prez. After the republican convention, he'll be down to two, with the best chance ever of winning and with plenty of time to hammer Mitt the suit and Oblabber into the ground. I'm confident Ron is going to make the wise choice, because we are totally fucked if he doesn't...and he knows it himself.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:36 | 2222007 Unprepared
Unprepared's picture

We don't need no common sense, critical thinking or logic here. I'm blood, oil and fiat thirsty.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:48 | 2222032 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

spiral_eyes, Yes, of course we can see that NATO wants to disarm nations and once they are helpless, then they attack. Libya was the perfect example. NATO would be in Syria already had not Russia sent warships and merchant vessels with arms shipments. In a world where NATO demands nations not arm themselves and then uses their helpless position to launch attacks can't help but prompt a country like Iran to seek nuclear weapons. Russia itself only weathered the collapse of the Soviet Union without a NATO invasion because even the rump of the old USSR had nuclear weapons. And even today Russia's offical defense policy is a "first use of nuclear weapons is reserved to the Russian state to counter any force entering Russian territory that convential Russian forces can not defeat". In short they have promised to detonate nuclear weapons over any outside force entering onto Russian territory.

Thus the bombs would go off inside Russia and no one could accuse them of attacking anyone, purely self defense and the bad consequences would mostly be on Russian soil. I expect Iran would aim for a similar defense policy backed by the same doctrine.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:52 | 2222942 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

Ah yes, our good old friend Putin, never met a murdering dictator he did not like as long as it was a thorn in the side of the EU and America.  But, I am terribly interested in your position that NATO was poised to invade Russia when the Soviet government fell. 

This ought to be interesting.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 22:47 | 2223045 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

I don't own a shotgun to go to my neighbor's house to steal his silverware.

I do realize if I fire it indoors, my walls and hearing will be adversely affected.

However, I will use it to defend me and mine from unknown intruders, whether they be armed or not.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:53 | 2222050 midtowng
midtowng's picture

It isn't the sanctions. It's the fact that we are bombing a significant number of Arab countries, and call Iran evil.

Of course the establishment doesn't want Paul as president. There is too much money to be made in war.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:49 | 2222939 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

We have left North Korea alone since July 1953.  And only last week they announced a moritorium on all nuclear activities including enrichment and a desire to return to the six party talks instituted by Bill Clinton and dumped by George BushCo his second week in office.  Ummmmm, please though, don't let little old facts get in the way.   

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 09:48 | 2223640 Element
Element's picture

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched, I'm sure the US will come up with numerous ways to fuck it up and disenfranchise them again.

And let's face it, DPRK is the most propaganda mind-fucked country on earth today ... with the exception of the USSA ... so don't get your hopes up.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 21:32 | 2234417 boiltherich
boiltherich's picture

I know element, and I think they are as unstable as the isotopes they are playing with, but the fact is isolation and raw hunger has worn them down, this is a very positive step.  I also believe China has grown weary of their hard line communist (fascist dictatorship in reality) provocations to the west.  There was a time when China wanted to provoke the west, now it is too fat and happily capitalistic to let some bumbling pot head familial dynasty fuck it up for them on the Korean peninsula.  I think they have served notice on the Il family to get it's shit together and find a way to integrate the Koreas or simply face removal by the Chinese. 

I mean, was not Dong Wan on his way home from a "summit meeting" in Beijing when he died on the train en rout?  I think he got a talking to by his Chinese masters and told if he does not go along he will never see Pyongyang again.  But of course drugs and alcohol had wasted him, he was like the Elvis of North Korea.  Two weeks after that child inherited North Korea the government wants to return to the 6 party talks.  I believe in coincidences to the point they happen, rare and minor, this was an order from the top.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:50 | 2221882 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

You're a good man, Ron Paul.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:55 | 2221896 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Jon Stewart the other day, instead of talking about Paul's diplomacy, said Paul has never found a suit that fits, so let's point out to the babbling Jon Stewart that not only is Paul wearing a finely tailored suit, but the sweater is very in too.

Suck it Stewart.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:56 | 2221900 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

At least he talks about Ron Paul, which is more than can be said about almost any other "news" source.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:57 | 2221904 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

If the King's Court was to burn down I would say let the Jestor burn with it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:16 | 2221961 Doña K
Doña K's picture

The problem is that Paul is not only fighting an uphill battle with the stablishment, banksters and all, but also the mighty military industrial complex.

He may however, end up with enough delegates to be considered a true contender since he is the only one beating O'Bummer on a tete-a-tete. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 21:25 | 2222810 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

as i tried to pint out when those "facts" were presented here, the margin of error of +/- 3% makes such a statement suspect, or more accurrately:  meaningless

with that margin, there are "dead heats" all over the place from that recent poll

maybe next week, but thank you for pretending it already happened, just like the "headilne" said!

all the 'parade enthusiasts' think you're grrrreat, btw...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:22 | 2222563 Piranhanoia
Piranhanoia's picture

You really don't get the sarcasm behind what Stewart said?    only one without a very expensive, extremely tailored suit perhaps?  Made of cloth that doesn't reflect the light like real fabrics might.  Maybe, "you can tell the suit isn't empty"

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:11 | 2222764 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

"Oh, and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.
And while lennon read a book of marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died."

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:21 | 2221976 mendigo
mendigo's picture

He is after all a comedian.
And he may be allowed a different opinion from time to time.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:54 | 2222052 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Stewart is the ONLY one who talks about how Paul has been marginalized by the media. He's the ONLY one who talks about Paul's foreign policy opinions.

Why don't you direct your anger at people who deserve it, like the rest of the MSM.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:13 | 2222104 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

When someone paints a picture they have to have the right colors and the right shapes.  One without the other creates a lack of expresion.  Just because Stewart gives Paul some coverage by no means means he is doing Paul's cause justice.  He refers to Paul as an unelectable old man just as often as anyone, even if he points out that the MSM (which he is a part of) isn't covering him.

And, and by making light of it, it makes it less of a big deal.  Instead of his liberal viewers believing in justice, they laugh that no one is covering Paul.

Learn to mind the gaps, my friend.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:18 | 2222129 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Of course Stewart makes light of Paul. HE'S A COMEDIAN! His first obligation is to be funny.

What's more, he makes light of EVERYONE! That's his job.

As for referring to him as unelectable, he only does that when he makes fun of what the MSM says about him.

The simple fact that a comedian is doing a better job of covering Paul is an indictment of the MSM.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:25 | 2222156 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I don't like Stewart, you do, who fucking cares.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:55 | 2222388 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

I don't like Stewart either, but we all ought to fucking care.

It is ironic in the extreme that the only media talking head giving Ron Paul, the only truly conservative choice among the Republican contenters, the attention he deserves and a venue to air out his platform, is a foul-mouthed left-leaning Jewish comedian on Comedy Central! And while Stewart does crack jokes on Paul ("You're too consistent; you need to flip-flop more."), the jokes are all of the laughing-with-you variety, rather than the laughing-at-you type Stewart fails to spare his other targets. His coverage of Paul has been - at least to my observation - entirely positive.

This observation should give pause to all the Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/O'Reilly listeners who fancy themselves to be conservative.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:15 | 2222667 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Jon Stewart and John Oliver discuss Rep candidates and the only one they give props to is Ron Paul.

Starts at 3:29 mark

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:12 | 2222769 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

John Olver is a tool of his political party. The sky would fall before Olver ever said anything

that wasn't scripted. How do I know, you say? From personal experience.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:29 | 2222794 Seer
Seer's picture

Actually, best to watch all of it (except the commercial!) so that you get things in proper context, which, I'd argue, actually enhances the favorable props to Paul.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 18:20 | 2222558 BigJim
BigJim's picture

I do wish Ron Paul would spend more than $50 on his suits, though, so that we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 23:08 | 2223091 oldman
oldman's picture

@ Mr Lennon

Dear sir, Only as an independent would I consider voting for Ron Paul.

 Only as an independent can he be trusted.

Not personal, but rather an observation of a history that has never had an independent

or am I wrong

I can't remember so many things

As an independent, if he gained no more votes than did the only peace candidate---what was his name

We could all return home

Heads hung in shame

But at least we would know that he was the right man                        om

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:55 | 2222391 PontifexMaximus
PontifexMaximus's picture

The "other" medias are so scared to talk about RP, because they are aware of the position this gentleman WILL have.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:32 | 2222796 Seer
Seer's picture

I think that "instructed" is the word, not "scared."

If you don't say and do as your master says he'll take away your food bow.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:57 | 2221903 Dan The Man
Dan The Man's picture

i wanna have his baby


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:34 | 2222003 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

It is shameful that the political responsibility for telling 300+ million people the truth rests solely on the shoulders of a thin 76 year old man.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:35 | 2222490 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

+1. Wish I could have clicked it another 10 or 15 times.

It is shameful.

Where are the men in America?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 19:28 | 2222700 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Bought off or muzzled....

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 00:39 | 2223248 oldman
oldman's picture

Remember 'Love it or leave it!'?

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:50 | 2222041 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Ron Paul is a good American man. He seeks what is best for America. Thus he is an enemy of the Israel lobby, Mr. Paul needs to be very careful about his health and safety.

If it looked like he would win the presidency, expect a JFK to be pulled on him.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:17 | 2222778 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

Somehow I don't think the Israel lobby is his greatest threat. It is the entire One World Totalitarian Government that is his enemy and the movers and shakers that relentlessly push for it.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:31 | 2222175 resurger
resurger's picture


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:36 | 2222493 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture


Not too sure how the 'angles' are playing out, but he sure could use some angels on his side! ;-)

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 08:12 | 2223489 resurger
resurger's picture

you missed the chick that was sitting behind him ;-)

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:44 | 2222812 Sizzurp
Sizzurp's picture

We are very lucky to have men such as Paul. He's probably one of the greatest men to ever run for President of the US.  We had an historic opportunity to put this man in office, but we succumbed to corruption and fear. We have fallen ill from the siren song and once more wasted a chance to right this ship and steer away from the ruinous reef that awaits us. 

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:50 | 2221883 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah... sanctions, not to mention 60 years of the West meddling in their affairs...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 13:59 | 2221909 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

60 years???

I think Xerxes would scoff at that timeframe...


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:06 | 2221932 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Bad example.... Xerxes was meddling in the west, so to speak....

And I think you meant Darius...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:11 | 2221944 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I'll go along with that...

The macro point is the same though...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:06 | 2221931 Uber Vandal
Uber Vandal's picture

Actually, a century is more accurate when you consider how the region was formed after WWI.

And, the people of the region have very, very long memories and have not forgotten the Crusades either.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:12 | 2221945 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Fair enough... I took the real meddling to begin with the CIA-MI6 support for the coup of Mossaddegh...

There was also this:

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:19 | 2221971 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

The Crusades the Crusades, it is the West's fault.....Cow Manure....

So before the Crusades the arabs were just sitten around minding their own business and these blood thirsty Crusaders came in lopping off heads....

I am so tired of people trying to make apologise or be sensitive for something my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather might or might not have done....

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:25 | 2221983 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Two wrong will never make it right. At what point do we seek a mean reversion to a position of friendship and free trade with all...entangling alliances with none...for everything else, there's the Second Amendment solution?

As opposed to shoot first, shoot some more, shoot to make sure, then ask questions of anybody left alive.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:55 | 2222055 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Two wrong will never make it right

3 rights still do make a LEFT though...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:12 | 2222427 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Yeah (junker)... 3 rights DON'T, in fact, make a left... my bad...

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 14:58 | 2222066 mkhs
mkhs's picture

Prior to the crusades, Islam spread over north Africa, the Middle East, and southwest Asia by kindly muslims going door to door preaching.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:06 | 2222095 Hober Mallow
Hober Mallow's picture


Sun, 03/04/2012 - 15:26 | 2222160 Milestones
Milestones's picture

You seem to leave out the fact that were it not for Charles Martel stopping Islam at Tours, France in 732 all of Europe would be covered with mosques rather than Cathedrals.           Milestones

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:52 | 2222380 mkhs
mkhs's picture

Don't forget Vlad the Impaler in Transylvania.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 16:56 | 2222392 GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

There is still a minaret standing in Eger.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:40 | 2222808 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

The town wants to rent it out for $50K a year. Eger looks like a great place to visit. Lots of early architecture with no traffic in the historic center.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 17:00 | 2222408 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That is right.

Somehow, the northern crusades are quite left out.

As far as it is known, Islam spred the way it spred.

That is another thing to claim when you speak about the baltic countries, their religion and the northern crusades they had to suffer at the hands of the Germans.

Sun, 03/04/2012 - 20:43 | 2222814 Seer
Seer's picture

"all of Europe would be covered with mosques rather than Cathedrals"

Gonna call BS on this one.

This is the same "commies are going to take over the world" crap.  And, of course, it was also "the Nazis are going to take over the world" crap.  I'll also call BS on the notion that the NWO will take over the world.

Not saying that there can't be brief takeovers, but there will NEVER be any unified anything covering the entire earth, for ANY significant length of time, if EVER.  I make this statement based on how NATURE works, that it only succeeds ("perpetuates") via DIVERSITY.  I also believe that most folks here GET IT that centralization DOESN'T work.  BAD SYSTEMS FAIL!

The notion of the world being taken over by a given race or creed is the stuff that POWER loves to tout in order to maintain itself (at the expense of the common person [who is gullible enough to continue this nonsense that there HAS to be "leaders").

Mon, 03/05/2012 - 00:46 | 2223257 oldman
oldman's picture


Thank you for saying it!

Even a species that denies it is an 'animal' is still a part of the universe.

No one ever got out of the universe                                 om

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!