1 vote

A Patriot Action Network blog smears Ron Paul

Don't those people running blogs like this one ever stop losing creditability any more?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Reply to Ron Paul basher mikeymike143 at PAN

I'm a member at PAN and replied to the Basher here http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/cold-hard-reality

PAN is the porcess of moving so go here to see the original post http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/here-is-why-ron-paul...

PAN is getting better about bashing Paul, while it still goes on, they are trying their best to veil the bashing. There is a Big but dwindling RP Advocacy there.

my opinion

the easiest explanation is that ahmadinejad is really just a desperate man trying to hold on to the bit of power that he's clinging on to. in fact, ahmadinejad's visibility and power have been bolstered by the barry's of this world.

ahmadinejad is facing serious opposition from the ayatollah, he's facing opposition from the clerics, and he's facing opposition from the young people. he has a lot of adversaries.

ahmadinejad rattles his saber, which provokes the u.s. into a war of words and threats, he quite happily ups the ante, and the u.s. responds in kind ...providing ahmadinejad's required propaganda to help him hang onto power. he remains in power simply by virtue of FEAR. he uses the fear of israel, and the big bad old united states, on his own people, and they in turn support him for a little while longer. our government uses the same type of manipulation on us.

i ask everyone here this very simple question: if the israeli leadership has knowledge of a credible and authentic verbal threat, and knowledge of iran's ability to carry it out now, or very soon, then WHAT EXACTLY IS ISRAEL WAITING FOR?

i tell you why they haven't acted. they haven't acted because they know the threat is neither real, nor imminent.

israel should have no problem mopping the floor with iran. so why do they constantly bring in a "heavy" (that would be the united states) that destabilizes all interactions, negotiations, or even opening a dialogue? i'll tell you why. it's because there is a high probability that israel is not self sustaining. that is why.

and as long as there is conflict, there will be billions over the table, and countless more billions under the table, flowing to israel and it's companies, regardless of the money we send to other parts of the middle east.

the so called madman in iran is just trying to hold on to his job, and he accomplishes that very well, with a lot of help from israel and the u.s.

israel benefits from the volatility and the rhetoric in the same way. 7 million people shoe horned into one of the most volatile regions in the world. why? some political maneuvering, and back room deals, many decades ago. a lot of people are starting to wonder if they aren't a self sustaining sovereign nation. and so the billions we give them directly from the government and indirectly through central banks and corporations, are like an allowance. we pay it, but it's no enough, because of the volatility, we have to invade and nation build all over the region.

i have a solution.

let all the israeli's come to texas. we have resources here, and they would be a wonderful asset to our little state.

then we could round up all the dual allegiance people over here, and send them off to defend that hunk of rock over there, with zero aid from us.

fer crying out loud, ahmadinejad was here in this country just a few years ago,and he's been in europe, don't tell me that the mossad couldn't have got him. should have been a piece of cake. but then what? then they lose the one thing that keeps israel in the news night after night.

the simple truth is, it's all one huge contrived situation that benefits all the politicians and power players on all sides, and the moment we stop participating, and israel figures out once in for all whether they can stand on their own two feet or not, if they can, fine, act like a grown up country, and extend some honest efforts toward settling with iran and the region, or declare war. one way or another. and all of israel's efforts whether it's the olive branch, or the sword, will be viewed by the region a lot more seriously, if "daddy" wasn't around to keep interfering.

I agree!

The reason that Jews support Democrats most of the time is that most Jews are Socialists. Plain & Simple. You are probably correct about the Israelis not being able to sustain themselves.

Personally I'm tired of Israel, they are God's favorites apparently, God should have no problem protecting them.

I like you plan the best. The folks who are willing to die for that land should put on their boots and kiss their family good bye.

I respect your opinion, but...

From everything I have ever been able to gather about Iran to include messaging with Iranians who live in Iran the Mullahs are in charge of the country lock, stock, and barrell.

Ahmadinejad serves at their pleasure.

Ahmadinejad is merely a figure head and his Presidency is just a bully pulpit.

The Mullahs run the government of Iran as a kind of a ruling Senate, or College of Cardinals. It is not a dictatorship as I have heard many describe it as.

The Mullahs also pretty much control all the major business interests in the country, so they are not merely religious leaders.

Texas' resources are under huge threat . . .

from the worst drought in recorded history?

Otherwise, your solution is clever--*wink*

Am I the only one worried about the aquifer and the tinder-dry vegetation and the high temperatures in Texas?

I haven't seen much about this on DP--

but I know people "on the ground" in Texas, Ron Paul people, who are . . . very concerned.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I join in your concern for

I join in your concern for the welfare of Texas. I lived in Madisonville for several years (just recently moved to The Woodlands); it is a small, rural community 1 1/2 hours north of Houston. My work as a REALTOR® took me out to farms and ranches frequently. Farm jobs and agriculture represent a majority of the work done in that Madison County area, and the people there are truly suffering from this terrible drought. We Texans are in desperate need.

David Companik serves as a REALTOR® in the Greater Houston area. As an avid Ron Paul supporter, David provides a uniquely free market perspective on the economics of real estate. Visit http://davidcompanik.com to learn more!

thank you . . .

I no longer live in Texas, and I wasn't born there, but my family goes back there four generations--

(on one side)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

no- youre not the only one

furthermore, the whole report on the hickory aquifer is somewhat alarming also- i just learned that good ol boy Rick Perry has made deals to bury even MORE spent fuel rods in Texas.... will it ever end?


it feels, at times, that war has been proclaimed on . . .

Texas, and the governor is sympathetic to the enemy.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

got rain

we did get some rain this last week.

not enough...

just enough to breed mosquitoes.

San Angelo, Tom Green County, TX

Want to get out of this town and go somewhere smaller, like Robert Lee or Bronte...

some parts of Texas are hoping to get rain tomorrow, too--

we can hope!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Link update

FYI the link in the article is currently not accessible. PAN did not remove it however. PAN is switching from a Ning based network to a WordPress based format. Upon the completion the article should again be visible under the old PAN 1.0 ning format for a period of time but will eventually disappear after we have given our members time to acclimate to their new 2.0 surroundings. For historical purposes you may wish to copy it for your member to know what was originally said when 1.0 is back up.

Paranoia about Iran

serves the useful purpose of enabling the US to threaten and abuse the people of that country, without domestic "blowback." Without protest.

Meanwhile, how many authors who tackle the subject will admit to the great significance of Iran's oil and natural gas supplies? Iran is third in the world for oil, second in the world for natural gas.

With the creation of the Iranian Oil Bourse in 2008, the US's antagonism toward Iran has dramatically increased.

I see a pattern of war propaganda being launched against countries that are rich in key natural resources, prior to attacks and/or occupations of those countries. Don't you see the pattern?

Are so many people STILL naive enough to think that these wars are NOT about oil and natural gas? You say below that you have done extensive research on Iran. Why haven't you addressed the issue of Iran's refusal to trade oil for dollars yet?

Post correction

Just to set your record straight, your headline is incorrect. Yes numerous members have posted things negative to Paul and other post things positive to Paul, just as with other candidates. We recommend people to do their own vetting of candidates and not just go on what someone else posts. The post you refer to is not an official PAN position post on Paul.

While I strongly disagree with Dr. Paul's stance on a nuclear Iran, I respect him greatly regarding his view of fiscal policy and the Fed.

Please, just as we recommend people do their research of candidates, I personally ask you do your own research on PAN and our allowance for debate.

Thank you and may liberty reign again in America.


While I agree with Paul's position on foreign entanglements (ie they're expensive and a waste of our time. Let the morons over there blow each other up, I don't want my friends on the ground there as targets), it takes balls to come over here and post like this.

Whoever is giving down votes on this post, lighten up. Just because you don't agree with the guy because of his war stance doesn't mean he's not being civil or respectful in clarifying the position.

If it's not PAN's official position then it's not PAN's official position. We're looking at one blogger on a blog network, and part of liberty is allowing for civil discourse and difference of view. Beating Barry here isn't going to change anyone's mind on the war, only rational discourse and interaction will. Quit with the ethnocentricity here.

Eric Hoffer

Barry, what do you not understand about Iran being

a sovereign country? Unless we are directly threatened or attacked, we have no business interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries. That includes Iran and it includes Israel, who most assuredly would take care of any Iranian nuclear threat to them.

The only threat Iran might pose to the US would be to our troops in the Mideast - who have no business being there and would be swiftly brought back home once Ron Paul becomes Commander in Chief.

Bring our troops, our and our strings attached foreign aide back home and stop trying to be the world's policeman for the sake of the global elite.

Check out my new site to help promote and fund Ron Paul: http://www.bestronpaulvideos.net/

SteveMT's picture

Then what should be done? Preemptive war with Iran?

With less than five days as a Daily Paul member, I first want to welcome you here. I also want you to consider that our present foreign policy, which has been in place for over 50 years, has resulted in wars with Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Re: then what

First off thank you. I'm not sure I will be here much do to other duties but i thank you all the same. Also, I could not agree more. The problem here is that too many Presidents have violated first principles to make their place in history until now it is difficult to differentiate between justifiable and unjustifiable. In this age of nuclear proliferation and the fact that we are not talking about dealing with the Russians via M.A.D.D. there is simply a different dynamic involved which I have addressed in several places in this discussion with yet a response. I have studied this madman in Iran and am convinced like many that M.A.D.D. is humorous to him.

What to do? Very good question. I have made no suggestions here nor will I. I have simply brought out the unique risk to the entire world posed by this nut and suggested that M.A.D.D. principles are not likely to work. There seems to be a convenient application of history by some (not yourself) that fails to recall how regional and world wars often begin. They usually spread from the unresisted actions of a nut who often telegraphs his intentions to the unwilling to hear. Then, when they refuse to put him in his place he does exactly what he says he'll do.

There is no simple easy answer here, but with certain world figures in history solely reactionary policies lead to bigger problems. In the nuclear age that's a huge gamble.

Double think

Double speak. The visitor's comment speaks for itself.

When the goal is to kill people

it's not hard to find a convenient "nut" to victimize, along with the millions of innocent people in his country.

This is the same rhetoric used in all the worthless debacle "Wars" that these neocons wage. "Oh, this time it's REALLY dangerous, and so we HAVE to kill all of them". And we have watched as nation after nation was bombed and occupied with millions of dead civilians, and NOT ONE OF ANY OF THEM EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, or anything else. They were just trying to live their lives in their own countries, when the neocons decided to blow them and all their families to oblivion for no reason at all.
It's always the same.

Eventually, people will wake up to the evil that is being spoken by the warmongers.

What about Israel? They have nukes, and they are full of "nuts" over there. How about a few bunker busters on Tel Aviv? Would the warmongers go for that? Of course not. Tel Aviv is giving them their orders.

Re: When

So hands off on crazy men but bunker busters on Tel Aviv. Just want to have that straight.

Not sure which warmonger you are speaking of so its impossible to address properly. If your inference is that I have warmongered via taking a firm stance without making specific recommendations you might want to read up on Neville Chamberlain. While being famous for appeasement he wasn't quite the appeaser he was made out to be yet even that stance proved insufficiently firm to deter Hitler.

While I do not blanketly support war by any stretch of the imagination I must wonder if you would actually defend a ally or let them be overrun. The Brits are grateful you did not have a say.

Respectfully of course.

My point

is that the aggressors lately are ALWAYS the US and allies, and NOT the countries who are being attacked. The US and allies are clearly the aggressors in these "wars".

There can always be some excuse manufactured for "why these people need to be 'liberated'(exterminated)". And that is what the gov't propagandists and their media do.

As for the Tel Aviv comment, my point there is that they have nuclear weapons, and that they are a known terrorist country who is even now perpetrating extreme hostility against its own residents within its borders(Gaza), has demonstrated open hostility against the US with its many spies caught here stealing military top-secret information, and attacking US vessels(USS Liberty) and international vessels in international waters(Gaza Aid Vessels) and killing those people, unprovoked.
That's right. They killed and injured US Navy servicemen in cold blood by the hundreds on the USS Liberty, and they killed an American citizen on the Gaza Aid vessel. How many Americans were killed or will be killed because of the Israeli spying treachery against our nation?
So, why are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, etc, singled-out for attack, when clearly Israel is just as much a threat, and actually more so when you look at the record?
Well, it's because they don't accept Israel, and this is all about Israel, and what Israel wants.
Israel is NOT an ally by any stretch of the imagination. The record shows that they are one of the worst enemies, yet we do nothing to them, and in fact we carry out their foreign policy at our own peril so that they are at less risk.
To directly answer your question, I think Israel can protect itself, and if it cannot, and it is "over-run", then that's too bad for them. I won't be shedding any tears.
And if they want to attack Iran, then I say let it be them, and let them take the retaliation.
The US has no business or any responsibility to protect Israel. But Israel certainly has its hands all over the US gov't, and it needs to get out. And it needs to fend for itself.

And to follow up with the lawful point, where is the Constitutional authorization for your wars? There is not. And there has been none for 60 years. You let your desire to be the world's cops overcome your concern for your own nation. You allow its law to be subverted just so you can achieve your global conquest desires. You don't even follow the law. It's overt aggression without the rule of law or will of the people. It's no better than any other tin-pot dictator who does the same. And the tin-pot dictator gins up lies and false evidence to perpetrate his aggressions, just like the US did under Bush, and continues to do under Obama. The propaganda mills are in full swing.

And finally, where is the moral authority? There is none.
From lying to the people? From unprovoked aggression against others? From torture? From military occupations?
These are things that American traditionally would have not participated in, in the distant past. Now it's S.O.P..
You seek aggression on countries and people who have not attacked us. You bomb and occupy civilian populations, claiming "liberation", yet they are all worse-off now than before we attacked them. The people who live there and attempt to protect themselves from our Soviet-style aggression are called "terrorists" and "insurgents" because they would dare to not lay down and be subjugated by the occupiers. I'd like to see what you would do if China decided to come and "liberate" your town. Would you be a "terrorist insurgent" against them, or would you lay down and lick their boots?

Oh, one more thing.
Where do you intend to get the money for your new "escapade in world violence"?
Because in case you didn't notice, we're broke from your last escapade.
It's so comical to look at the liberals who are demanding the continuation of their welfare state, and the neoCons who are demanding the continuation of their warfare state, neither one willing to accept responsibility for their parts in our financial destruction.
In fact,it would be comedy if it wasn't so dire. And sad.

I'd suggest that you sit down and contemplate these things.
Because in all your "war fever", you have not noticed that when the Berlin Wall came down, freedom didn't necessarily go in, but Soviet-style gov't did come out. And it landed right in Washington DC where it is operating very strongly right now. It's doing exactly where it left off when it "fell". It's taking over central Asia. It's now just got a new name, called the "US". And the shots are being dictated out of Tel Aviv via its control over the US Congress and Senate and many agencies. And the muscle to motivate the US is being supplied by the International Banking structure which was behind the formation of Israel(see Balfour Declaration).
There is really so much you need to learn about this which is so much deeper than just "who's football team you root for".

The Brits...?

The Brits, the Germans, and millions of others would have been even more grateful if we did not have a say in WWI when we forced ourselves in upon a stalemate and force-fed a miserable treaty that created the desperate environment in Germany, which in turn led to an anarchy that spawned Hitler. Not only that, but it also arbitrarily drew boundaries around non-cohesive factions of tribes to create the perpetually unstable countries of...(drumbeat)...Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

Millions of people would probably have been grateful (and alive) if these progressive, "American System" R's and D's from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush hadn't had a say.

What gives anyone the right

What gives anyone the right to tell a sovereign country they cant pursue nuclear power? Or even a bomb?

I don't believe for one second that our CIA didn't know about pearl harbor or 9/11 before they happened. Our corrupt leaders chose to let them happen so they could engage in war and justify THIS type of behavior.

Waging a war over an assumed crime or a thought crime is a violation of the fundamental natural basic principals of life.

IRAN DROPPING A BOMB, would be a death sentence unto itself. They would be wiped off the face of the planet.

Re: what gives

You pose a good question. Here is your answer. The nation of Iran is sovereign, the people are not. They are hostage to a nut. Did we resist France or China or Japan or Pakistan or India from developing nuclear? Why didn't we? Was it possibly because they didn't promise to start a world war with it so that the prophecies of their 12th Imam returning could finally be fulfilled?

Unless you mistake my words let me make clear I am NOT suggestion we go into Iran nor go to war with Iran. However when you take options off the table you spread a table for your future enemy.

It seems to me

that Bush could be accused of the same thing. It was discussed quite commonly during his tenure that he felt he was being "led by God", and often rumored that he was doing it to "usher in the End Times" on a more rapid timetable.
Dude, that's the same schtick as Ahmadinejad.
And there are millions of other people with similarly bad theology, who think that can be done, and want to do it. Right here in the US.

Methinks you are not aware of all your "enemies". You worry about the one "out there", while you allow the one "in here" to make the real gains over you, and subjugate and bankrupt you and your fellow Americans while they point at the "enemy out there" to distract your attention.

How to stop?

My problem comes with the "how to stop them" them motif.

Trade embargoes merely starve the people in an already poor country. The unfortunate problem we have is that the current regime in Iran is our fault for meddling over there in the first place. While I'm not a fan of a nuclear Iran either, they've really complied with all of the asked for restrictions on their nuclear program.

While I don't agree with everything written on all the articles there, I do find this post informative:


And for those who knock Paul as weak on defense, he has a long record of supporting defense spending, just not the current overreaching policy. http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/8677-ron-paul...

The only method I can see to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon is a full scale invasion. Other countries (Russia, China) will happily sell them supplies under the table regardless, so I can't see anything short of actual military strikes stopping this process in the long run.

Welcome to the Daily Paul btw, not all of us are itching to reach down your throat, and I for one welcome a differing opinion.

Eric Hoffer

Re: How to stop

I for one do not accuse Paul of being weak on defense and in fact acknowledge his view as closer to the Constitution than any other. However our founders were not against standing up to tyrants and thugs when they deemed appropriate.

I agree that there is no easy solution. Invasion is the last thing anyone wants yet a youth coup is not practical. Honestly I believe our greatest action begins be restoring American exceptionalism (not in the neocon sense) through a robust economy. People are sheep for the most part in that they follow the leader. If we are not leading radical Islam and its facilitators will flourish.
If we follow the lead of men like Paul and McClintock and get our financial house in order our renewed influence will help put pressure on Tehran and embolden their people as they move from being very young, to men in their 30',s no longer satisfied with the status quo (we know the social unrest is boiling). Maybe then the earlier suggestion by a commenter will come to fruition.
However containment can only succeed (at best) if the nuts with the big boy bombs understand they may get obliterated. Problem is (as stated previously) that these crazy leaders believe a nuclear confligration is the very event that will usher in their Messiah. This is why the arguments often made (not by yourself) that "Everyone is ALWAYS accused of being crazy" just doesn't fly. Spend a day reading this mans words and watching videos of him. Spend some time reading about modern Islam from those who were on the inside (not that you haven't) and I believe it will be hard to come away without a heightened fear for mankind.

Tell it...

like it is Dan!

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin