The first American trucks will begin crossing the border, confirming deeply held fears in Mexico that Mexican sovereignty has been lost. Juan Martínez says, “Terrorists were exclusive to the [United States] but now with the open borders, terrorists can come to Mexico too!”
“What will be of our jobs, now?” Martínez continued. “I just don’t think I can trust gringos to drive safely here in Mexico”.
Martínez, along with others, expressed terror at the thought of being unable to differentiate between American truckers and terrorists.
Julia Guillén de Chapultepéc wonders, “How will we know if the truckers are American or Saudi terrorists? Do they look the same? I don’t know…”
Guillén’s sister Laura is not worried about terrorists. Her fears involve drug trafficking into Mexico: “You hear all these stories about American truckers taking amphetamines and other stimulants to stay awake. Soon our children will be corrupted by drugs, too. We must put an end to this.”
Guillén’s daughter, a fifth grader, is worried that American truckers will bring guns into Mexico. “Americans have no respect for the law. I just know they bring guns into Mexico and sell them in the black market. They also trash our hotels and and leave our toilets unflushed. No wonder our country is going down the sewer”.
“What a slap in the face to Mexican workers, opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, an [American] holiday,” said a motor vehicle department official. “Plus, I don’t think these gringo drivers understand how driving works in Mexico. I can estimate a 20% increase in traffic accidents. We must close the borders soon […] My 12-year-old son drives better than the American tourists that rent cars here. One can only imagine the amount of destruction and chaos.”
“But will they understand the road signs? I studied abroad in the United States, and kids my age could hardly read in English,” says Pablo González, who recently graduated from secondary school.
Martínez ended our interview solemly. “With terrorists easily entering Mexico through the United States, we are now vulnerable to terrorism, too.”
Amid public discontent, the borders will nevertheless open, leaving Mexico wide open to terrorists currently residing in America.
The point of voting in the elections isn’t to predict the winner. If it were, it would be called gambling, not voting. People vote to *choose* the winner, not to give away the little influence they have to yellow journalism.
People sometimes vote for whom they perceive will be the winner, because they feel like they have more control over the outcome. But that’s just an illusion, because you rejected your first choice. In reality you lost AND you didn’t even try. In reality, you forwent the little control you had, just to make yourself feel good.
That’s cowardly.
Consequences of pursuing the illusion
When you vote based on popular perceptions, you are handing your vote over to the media, as they control perceptions. You are perpetuating their illusion.
Exceptions
There are strategic times to vote for a second or third choice; which is why it would be good to have multiple choices and run-off votingrange voting (thank you to commenter Bruce for this reference). However, if your first choice is Ron Paul, when all democratic and neoconservative candidates look the same, it is illogical not to vote for your first choice.
A Solution
If you need to predict the winner in order to feel good and impress your friends, create a time capsule and jot down your prediction; or spend your money on exotic gambling. If you predicted the winner, congratulations, you have a license to impress. If your favorite candidate won, you should instead be ecstatic.
Teach your friends and family to use the internet.
Show them a clip of their favorite TV show, or music video on YouTube.
Help them look up a Ron Paul video and ask them what they think.
If they can use the internet, they have complete access to Ron Paul. The rest is up to Ron Paul, and he sells himself remarkably well.
Try a video with Tucker, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or if they have a decent attention span, this video:
If you understand the nuances of true conservatism, or classical liberalism, strike up a conversation with a friend who is undecided. Someone who thinks for himself/herself, dislikes the war, or dislikes dogmatic infringement of personal liberty will respond quite nicely. Others will too.* Everybody likes freedom.**
These are good places to brush up on liberty as it pertains to government:
Bring the internet to the older generation, and Ron Paul will do the rest.
* Some older people dislike paying for expensive medication (courtesy of the FDA) when it is cheaper abroad; or being restricted to picking up their medications every month, instead of once every 3 months (which is more convenient). Young parents may be concerned that they can’t afford to move to a wealthy area with good schools, (easily resolved with school vouchers or other privatization), and being told they cannot send children to the school of their choice. A small business owner may want the government to ease up on time-consuming and inconvenient regulations. A smart college student who has done his/her research may want to choose his own anti-depressant, instead of requiring a prescription from a general practitioner (who will simply select the medication via trial and error, anyway). A lot of people may not want heavy surveillance, REAL ID, or any more of the Patriot Act (a real misnomer). More politically inclined people may simply want government transparency. Ron Paul means all these things.
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper, and current libertarian county chairman, Michelle Shingal. They regard Hillary Clinton as the candidate of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”
His colleague asks, “Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul”, to which Tucker responds, “That’s the question I think millions of Americans are beginning to ask themselves.”
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.
CNN exhibits its bias; College Democrat displays ignorance; Ron Paul Republican represents Paul supporters well.
Shows how uninformed people are, and how biased the media is. Ron Paul’s current odds according to betting sites hover around 8:1. And the trend is in Ron Paul’s favor. My prediction is they will soon come to be 5:1 based on recent polls.
You may have read a great article by Arthur Silber pointing out that, You, Too, Can and Should Be an “Intelligence Analyst”. The basic premise is the intelligence community has little more access than you do to critical information, and that privileged information becomes irrelevant too quickly to be a major factor in foreign policy decisions.
Thus, the decision to go to war has less to do with military intelligence than it has to do with whims and irrational internal politics (read: whatever is convenient for the people in power). After all, you have an essentially unlimited number of choices from everything to what you will wear, to what you will have for breakfast, and just how you’ll get your work done today. Why is foreign policy any different? The choices aren’t only “war” and “cut and run” as this administration would have you believe. Did we have to give Saddam Hussein an ultimatum (leave the country or prepare for war) even if he had WMDs?
Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. It helps to have been trained-as my contemporaries and I had the good fortune to be trained-by past masters of the discipline of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, anyone with a high school education can do it. It is not rocket science.
You’d have to believe your government is incompetent if our only choice was to invade Iraq. Or maybe you’d believe it anyway. But our intelligence agencies aren’t incompetent. The problem is, as Arthur Silber points out, intelligence is irrelevant.
Intelligence is completely irrelevant to major policy decisions. Such decisions are matters of judgment, and knowledgeable, ordinary citizens are just as capable of making these determinations as political leaders allegedly in possession of “secret information.” Such “secret information” is almost always wrong — and major decisions, including those pertaining to war and peace, are made entirely apart from such information in any case.
The second you start arguing about intelligence, you’ve given the game away once again. This is a game the government and the proponents of war will always win. By now, we all surely know that if they want the intelligence to show that Country X is a “grave” and “growing” threat, they will find it or manufacture it. So once you’re debating what the intelligence shows or fails to show, the debate is over. The war will inevitably begin.
Gabriel Kolko explains:
It is all too rare that states overcome illusions, and the United States is no more an exception than Germany, Italy, England, or France before it. The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century. By and large, US, Soviet, and British strategic intelligence since 1945 has been inaccurate and often misleading, and although it accumulated pieces of information that were useful, the leaders of these nations failed to grasp the inherent dangers of their overall policies. When accurate, such intelligence has been ignored most of the time if there were overriding preconceptions or bureaucratic reasons for doing so.
Because when intelligence doesn’t support your goals, you can just dismiss it and revise history:
What’s next? On to Iran
Since we are labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq” and since we are already over there, why not? It appears that the main reason for going to Iraq in the first place was to maintain a foothold in the Middle East and secure the region for our perpetually-muddled “ally” Israel. If the door starts to close because our military is spreading thin (as shown in the video above) the only way to keep it open (and transfer some of the responsibility for the war to the next lucky administration) is to engage Iran militarily (but it’s not really Iran, it’s the terroristic Revolutionary Guard! Oh, the wonders of the vague war on terrorism!) Of course, this is irrational, because we don’t belong in Iraq in the first place, and second, if Iran had invaded Canada or Mexico, you can be sure our government would be supplying Iran’s enemies with weapons, to maintain some control over our neighboring terroritory and protect ourselves passively by proxy.
They usually mean the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But it holds true to neoconservatives, because they too are terrorists.
They hate us for our freedoms
First, they want us to stop criticizing the war. They want to wiretap our phones. They want to control the flow of information on the internet. They want you to get a REAL ID, so they can track your movements “in case you are a terrorist”.
They hate our troops
They want to send our troops to die in a meaningless war.
Meaningless? That’s right - The war in Iraq is meaningless because there is no winning or losing. The point of the war is to taunt Iran and launch the United States into a global conflict that extends the global reach of a few power-hungry politicians. This brings me to the last point:
They hate the United States
By compromising our freedoms, the lives of our troops, and our national security, the neoconservatives are destroying the United States and what it stands for: liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Am I exaggerating? No. If you are a neoconservative who is serious about bringing democracy to the world, you could do it the right way: without force. The world will then stop hating us. If you want to stop terrorism, then look at why the world hates us: our foreign policy.
If you want to incite more hatred and make the world less safe, continue nation-building. If you want to take away our freedoms continue sending our soldiers to meaningless wars. Continue violating our privacy and our right to keep to ourselves. Continue instigating fear with meaningless terror alerts and empty rhetoric. Continue dividing the United States by pretending dissent is un-American.
“I have received more emails than I can count from people around the world who write to say that they wish they could be American citizens in order to have the privilege of voting for Ron Paul.” -Thomas E. Woods, Jr. from Having Fun Doing Good
Blogs in the international community are spreading Ron Paul’s message of freedom and giving tutorials on libertarianism, hoping to inform their fellow compatriots and to rally U.S. citizens in support of Ron Paul. The phenomenon is becoming widespread and growing as meet-up groups form around the world as far as Australia, Belgium, and Baghdad to discuss Ron Paul and create inspiring videos. This is what the world is saying about Ron Paul:
Can you imagine the the effect these kinds of politics would have on our [Latin American] countries, eternally paralyzed in the notion that everything that happens to us is the fault of the gringos? Chavez’s tantrums and his assassination paranoia would fall on completely deaf ears. One less tool in the recruitment arsenal of the [Venezuelan] left.
We want to be a bridge between Belgium and the Ron Paul campaign. Mainly to inform Belgium about Ron Paul—we think Belgium has more to learn from Ron Paul than Ron Paul from Belgium—but also to show to Ron Paul that when he becomes president and visits Belgium, there well be cheering crowds, not demonstrations!
Undoubtedly, Ron Paul is an exemplary model for libertarians around the entire world and Europe in particular. Since the Second World War, Europe got stuck with an increasingly sweeping welfare state which cost more and more money to European states. Reagan and Thatcher also had their influence in Belgium, for example, think of the nickname of the then still young Guy Verhofstadt who was called ‘Baby Thatcher’. When both Thatcher and Reagan disappeared from the picture, Verhofstadt had also went with the European flow. He could, as it turns out, not pursue liberalism alone.
Regardless of of how weak the dollar is currently, the United States is still the leading monetary power. In the case, and I realize that this approaches utopia, that Ron Paul succeeds in eliminating the power of the inflationary Federal Reserve, this undoubtedly will have consequences on the European central bank (ECB).
People who want to seize liberty in their country must for this reason look across the borders. This opportunity is undoubtedly available to those in the US themselves. There is an extremely large chance that the Democrats will win the elections, as people there do not understand the disadvantages of the welfare state the Democrats are enamored with.
He is a principled libertarian/classical liberal by political and economic philosophy. That is enough for him to have many new friends in India and Pakistan — both enormously large countries which are sorely in need of libertarian/classical liberal political and economic philosophy to develop themselves. Moreover, Dr Paul advocates a non-interventionist American foreign policy in the world, and he was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from long before it started. That too is something that people in India and Pakistan appreciate. […]
There are rich Indian-Americans paying big bucks to get close to people like Hillary Clinton. They need to stop being so opportunistic and instead look to what is truly in their adopted country’s and the world’s best interests: that is a Ron Paul Presidency.
[Translation: People in other countries wish they had what we have: Ron Paul.]
America launching aggressive wars in the world is not the way to earn the world’s respect or its leadership. Ron Paul, alone among the likely contenders, knows that.
Maybe this will give people in the United States a sense that there are other people out there who care about what we are doing in the world and who would respect us if we had a leader like Ron Paul and a respective foreign policy.
Ron Paul has become the third most searched name in Google and his videos have transformed into the most watched on YouTube. Nobody has probably heard him mentioned, or ultimately, you have heard his name in passing. It’s about a congressman for the U.S. Republican party who wants to be president in the United States in 2008.
Now, one could ask, what makes a Republican politician so special?
The answer lies in his history and his proposals, since Ron Paul seeks to return liberty to the citizens of the U.S. embodying the original principles of the revolution that gave the country its opportunities. An example we should attentively look at from Chile.
[…]
Ron Paul thus embodies the spirit of the North American “founding fathers”, who drew up the Constitution with the idea of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of the State. In this sense, Ron Paul embodies, the original North American idealist, largely devoting himself to libertarian ideals more so than the conservative ideals.
His discourse and relevance are causing him to win all the debates for the Republican primaries. […]
From now on, [he is] my favorite candidate for the U.S. elections in 2008.
Because Britain is suffering the EXACT same symptoms as the USA. We are being ruled, instead of having real representative democracy. Like us, the USA are being deceived too. Britain has almost being totaly swallowed up by a corrupt, undemocratic European Union. The USA are starting to go down the route of North American Union.
[…]
The USA has managed to do what we haven’t so far and got itself a champion of freedom. The Americans aren’t quite as docile and ready to accept a police state as we seem to be, so they have rallied behind the one politician they have with integrity. Maybe Britain doesn’t have such a person and thus why we are floundering.
Ron Paul winning in the States will send shockwaves of freedom around the world. Maybe the British will rediscover our spines if he does?
Public Polish Television (TVA), supported by our taxes, reported on the online presidential campaign in the United States on August 5, 2007. Peter Krazko informed Poles that the most popular candidate among online users is Barack Obama, an obvious lie. In the course of several minutes, not once is Ron Paul’s name mentioned, who definitively leads on YouTube, the biggest online portal in which users can upload videos, also political in nature. The Polish Television propanda is exposed here.
If I were an American I would vote for this guy, no doubt. I had been having this theory that it was the American foreign policy that was so messed up and it was the reason why America was so hated throughout the world and Ron Paul honestly supported my idea during the second GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina. During the debate Ron Paul, a congressman from the state of Texas, courageously pointed his finger at American foreign policy of making terrible blowbacks in foreign nations. Ron Paul said that America should listen to the the people who attacked America about the reason why they did it. Ron Paul suggested that the only reason why America was attacked was because America had been messing around in other countries. A statement that resulted a hot debate with Rudy Rudy Giuliani. But I have to say, Ron Paul beat him. He said, “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” […]
Untuk Tasa Nugraza Barley: Aku akan memilih Ron Paul untuk kepentingan kamu dan siapa saja yang tidak dari Amerika Serikat. Terima Kasih untuk artikel kamu yang mendangkan ilham; dan salam Indonesia!
Some people ask us, why we care about an old Congressman from Texas. They ask us, what it has to do with Europe.
Well, it`s pretty simple: we support the only honest politician around. We support the only politician who addresses the REAL problems, who stands up against the lies we are being told.
It`s not our fault we don’t have any of those in Europe.
This is not about the USA. This is not about national entities. And, by the way, this is not about being “Anti-European“. The politics of the EU are “anti-european” as they breed conflict among us.
Thanks for the post. We must secure our own Ron Pauls here in Europe - it is extremely necessarily. And we will do it! The European r3volution will come, it will be so memorable we will tell our children about it :-))) heartfelt greetings, Tuur (RP Belgium)
Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is especially interesting for functioning with an unknown degree of spontaneity and decentralization. It compels one to imagine a similar occurrence here in Brazil, right?
Ron Paul’s position on the Iraq war deserves special clarification - not only because this is one the more controversial aspects of the campaign, but mainly because it has great chance of being misunderstood by the majority of the Brazilian public.
Ron Paul, like the majority of Brazilian journalists, is against the Iraq war; however, his reasons for it are very different from that of our journalists. […]
[He is] against the war, but not against the United States […] He can be against the war and at the same time defend American values […]
Military force does not generate democracy: the futility of artificially creating new social orders […] The idea of spreading democracy through military intervention, therefore, is strictly anti-conservative, therefore a true conservative would know that each social order has deep roots in the culture of a people, and could not easily be modified through an external influence - less so if the external influence is military force, which tends to only disorganize effective institutions, without provoking changes in respect to values and ideas.
Therefore, Ron Paul contends that the only role the American government must have in relation to the internal affairs of the other countries is “to give a good example”. That is, the American government must show to the world the benefits of a free society, without involving itself directly in the decision of whether other countries imitate the American model or not. […]
The media has put out the idea that somehow Ron Paul isn’t right for our national security. Really? I wonder how much these critics know about Al Qaeda, our real interests, strategy or world politics.
Students and schools in Belgium and around the world outdo their counterparts in the United States; but it’s not about lack of money, it’s lack of competition and a surplus of bad teachers who have no incentive to teach well. But guess what? Independent schools that spend less money per student, but more per teacher in the United States outdo our public schools as well. How do we fix the problem? Increase competition. Does it still sound strange when Ron Paul says he wants to do away with the Department of Education? Don’t miss the following video:
Stupid in America
Do you want to learn more about Ron Paul? Visit RonPaul2008.com and watch the following video:
One consequence of Ron Paul’s sound foreign policy, is that people around the world will stop hating us - what will that do for terrorism?
Request: Please inform me about any translation errors, particularly in Dutch and Polish. If you come across any notable website supporting Ron Paul, particularly in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, please send us a link, or post it under comments!
Why does anyone want to vote for these idiots? You’ve got Giuliani pretending to be tough on terror (even though Chris Matthews considers him a terrorist); Fred trying desperately to win by laying on a couch all day and riding around in a golf cart, possibly still hoping his YouTube video will go viral and magically incite a Ron Paul effect; and finally Mitt Romney, who took a page from Rudy’s kindergarten playbook and started whining “what about 9/11″ in a poor attempt to draw attention to himself at the Iowa debate.
The remaining choice is obvious. But in keeping with the tradition of the old media, I won’t even mention the name.
So Rudolph Giuliani has finally come out and revealed what kind of amazingly stupid dick he can be. When he was criticized for not really caring too much about the health problems the 9/11 rescue workers were suffering from he said something to the effect of he had spent as much time if not more than the majority of the people trying to dig bodies out of the rubble of 9/11. Well, he had to backtrack because it sounded like he was saying he was more heroic than the firemen and all the other ACTUAL heroes of September 11th. But that’s not why he’s less intelligent than most high schoolers. Most high schoolers understand that statements like that can be verified quantitatively, which is what the New York Times did. And what did the New York Times find out? That Mayor Giuliani spent about 29 hours total in the area where the World Trade Center fell. Which means the vast majority of rescue workers spent more time by September 14th at Ground Zero than he did. Rudolph Giuliani has apologized again, but not before having someone write a rambling article under his name in Foreign Affairs.
That article deserves its own paragraph it’s so god damn stupid. It’s like Giuliani had Norman Podhoretz drink five bottles of Wild Irish Rose and then sit at a laptop and just type, because it’s really the most delusional piece of writing this side of Little Green Footballs’ insane fascination with Islam in southeastern Asia.
America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists’ War on Us, abandoning a decadelong — and counterproductive — strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come.
In what universe? Firstly let’s be real, we have hardly responded forcefully to the terrorists’ “War on Us.” A forceful response would have been to carpet bomb Afghanistan into absolute nothing, which I’m not advocating, but I suspect al Qaeda would not be as resurgent in Waziristan right now had we used Barry Goldwater’s approach to Vietnam. Secondly, a forceful response to al Qaeda and those who support them would have meant dealing seriously with countries like Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers came from the Kingdom, and the head of al Qaeda is a Saudi. Telling the Saudi royals to fuck off, which Rudy rightfully did when they promised 15 million dollars with the stipulation that Israel be criticized, is not necessarily a forceful response. And finally, in that paragraph, we have set in motion changes to the international system. We have allowed democracy to flourish in Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. What has that brought us? The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas. You know, it may not be politically correct to say this, but giving the Arabs the right to make their own decisions usually leads to bad decisions being made. Even my friends from Morocco think that.
Next up, Fred Thompson. He is still trying to fight the image that he’s a lazy asshole. He did so by going to the Iowa State Fair and riding around in a golf cart, unlike any of the other candidates. The man is a genuine idiot. What has he done for his campaign so far? Seen a ton of butter shaped like a cow, and made an incredibly stupid video response to Michael Moore challenging him to a debate. The YouTube video has him claiming his schedule is full. Well yeah, he’s got sleeping to do. Who does Michael Moore think he is trying to interrupt the sleep time of the GOP’s Garfield with things like debates and issues? He’s also using idiot terms like Islamofascism and talking about fighting the terrorists, while hiring people for his campaign staff who are admittedly more sympathetic towards groups like Hezbollah. Nutjob Debbie Schlussel won’t support him now because he hired someone with somewhat sympathetic ties towards other people in the Middle East besides the Likud Party’s members.
He also refuses to abide by his campaign financing rules. He was an outspoken supporter of the hideous McCain-Feingold campaign financing laws, but is right now avoiding all of that by not announcing that he’s running. So right now he could conceivably collect much more than $2000 a donor because he’s not running for anything except tallest douchebag to see 2000 lbs of butter shaped into a bovine.
And finally, Mitt Romney. It’s like the man has no brain in his head. I just relistened to the Iowa debate from two weeks ago, and it’s absolutely amazing how stupid he is and how stupid he thinks the voters are. When they replayed Sam Brownback’s critical message of Mitt Romney’s position on a woman’s right to choose, he said none of the message is true. When pressed which part in particular was untrue, he said “well I’m pro-life.” Well that’s not the point of Sam Brownback’s advertisement. Brownback’s advertisement is filled with direct quotes of Governor Romney saying he’s an advocate for a woman’s right to choose, which Romney refused to refute.
This was all within a month of him claiming that his sons trying to get him elected Chief Executive is equivalent to serving in the Armed Forces, holding up a sign which implied Barack Obama is worse than Osama bin Laden, praising Hezbollah (which Crooks and Liars agreed with, but Crooks and Liars also blamed Robert Mugabe’s odious actions on the United States), and then laughing while telling a story about his dog essentially being tortured while on a family road trip. I mean seriously, the man might be genuinely dense.
