Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh: "Ron Paul puts on the Tinfoil Hat"
Posted on 12/16/2011 3:18:22 PM PST by seanmerc
Here is Ron Paul in the debate last night. This is Bret Baier. [SNIP] Bret Baier: "Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say that Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the US sanctions on Iran, including those added by the Obama administration. So to be clear: GOP nominee Ron Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?"
PAUL: You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming! It is war propaganda going on, and we're arguing... To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran -- and -- and the sentiment is very mixed. We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.
RUSH: Now, you may have astutely noticed that Ron Paul didn't answer the question. So Bret Baier, after the applause died down, said, "Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you actually had solid intelligence as President Paul" that they got a nuke. We're not talking about being on the come. "I'm asking you about solid evidence they've got one, and yet you still at that point would pull back US sanctions -- and, again, as a GOP nominee, be running to the left of Barack Obama on this issue?"
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
In answer to your question: Rush Limbaugh takes Ron Paul seriously because Paul’s foreign policy—a foreign policy which is not in the interests of the globocrats who have abused our country’s resources and sovereignty, turned us into a bankster bailing-out paradise, and used our military as a big stick for multinationals and the U.N.—is the foreign policy most Americans support. Most Americans don’t want us in foreign wars unless our soil or our citizens are attacked. We don’t want to pay for the defense of other countries when those countries have their own means to do so (e.g., Korea and Germany) or aren’t our supporters in the first place (e.g., Kuwait and Saudi Arabia). Most Americans want our borders secured now. And all that scares the living crap out of the globocrats who set up this foreign policy of military mission bloat, shrinking national sovereignty, and transferring of power by treaty agreements to international bodies, all moves unapproved by popular accord but by sneaky back-door lobbying and legislation. The power players have spent many years and untold trillions to establish their view that our country’s thousands of troop postings abroad are all that keeps America safe. Rusty Limbaugh is a guy that these folks can call in the chips with whenever they really, really need a mouthpiece.
This is just Rush showing his yellow stripes again. I saw the same noise from others on Fox this morning. Ol’ crazy RP, look, he’s crazy, etc., etc. I suspect Rush and the amen corner of the national press will be making up more tinfoil hat crap right up until the election so as to drive away potential RP votes. God forbid we get a proven constitutionalist into office, and ruin the interests of Limbaugh’s clients with a foreign policy that stops our American military from being used as a police department for multinationals. That, of course, is why members of the military actually support Ron Paul via donations nearly ten-to-one over his closest primary competitors).
And it’s not as if there was ever any doubt Limbaugh would come out swinging against Ron Paul if Paul struck fear into the heart of the globocrats. Rush carried water for Bush the Elder back in the day that a far better option, Pat Buchanan, was running against that globoweenie, and he pushed for Romney against McCain—ROMNEY, the proven leftie who’s better than McCain because...well, because Rush said he was.
Rush is gutless anyway, because he COULD endorse a real conservative candidate when it might make a difference (Bachman, now, for example) but doesn’t. Instead he just dances around with the not-Romney crowd and now the not-Ron-Paul crowd and refuses to pick a date. What a complete wuss.
See my reply to TE...
You understood what I was saying...
>>> Do we really have iron clad intelligence coimg out of Iran?
You have the public pronouncements of the mullahs and the little nut job running the place - take them at their word. They want Israel wiped from the face of the Earth. And a President Ron Paul would let them.
Given the average age of a PaulTard that seems unlikely.
Or, Rush recognizes insanity when he sees it. With RP it’s hard to miss.
Kooks make for good comedy
Limbaugh never endorces in the primary.
Limbaugh does not take Paul seriously because Paul is delusional.
Most Americans understand defense, well those who do not support Paul anyway.
Who is the constitutionalist you are talking about?
What military supports Paul, paulbots say that and can show a few people that do, but I can tell you that my family who is in the military (special forces, Navy, Air Force) think he is a nut case.
Of course Limbaugh fears Paul, Paul is dangerous and delusional, anyone with a thinking brain can see that.
Just to name a few items.
It’s insanity. They’re all “Paultards” and “Paulbots” and loopy. That must be it. I bet you all convince a lot of people thinking about Ron Paul as a primary candidate to vote your way. Good work there! /sarc
It’s comments like yours, insulting the man instead of addressing the man’s politics, that made it so easy for me to vote Republican back when Reagan was being called senile, crazy, and fascist. So keep up the good work, get those independents rushing into your big tent!
And fwiw, I didn’t support Ross Perot and most Paul supporters I have met weren’t even able to vote while Perot was a factor. But this ‘crazy’ crap was leveled against Perot, too, and Perot has turned out to have been pretty prescient regarding the results of NAFTA and our national debt. I think that’s maybe the biggest failure your ‘insanity’ comments have when you spout them about Ron Paul—he’s been ‘crazy’ so long an awful lot of the folks behind the podiums up there are sounding like him. When all you’ve got is the “he’s got a wacky foreign policy” critique in an election that turns on domestic policy, I guess people like y’all are in deep $#!#.
The guy doesn’t “MIND” Iran getting DA BOMB...
So what if that is his policy? It's still gutless. Even the MSMers, who have subscribers to lose, still produce an endorsement. Limbaugh's too afraid. Either he'll lose listeners if he picks a milquetoast or he'll lose his cocktail party pals if he picks a conservative, so he wusses out. He's the most powerful single voice in the GOP today, bus has no pick in what might be the most important primary since Bob Taft was in the mix. Boy, he's a real brave fellow.
"What military supports Paul, paulbots say that and can show a few people that do but I can tell you that my family who is in the military (special forces, Navy, Air Force) think he is a nut case."
Right, your anecdotal evidence from your imaginary relatives trumps the facts.
Ron Paul receives more donations from people in the military than all of the Republican candidates combined (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jul/23/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-members-military-have-given-him-far-/).
Ron Paul received more donation money from people in the military than President Barack Obama or McCain in 2008 (see http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/29/ron-paul/a-military-victory-for-paul/) and in
"Paul is delusional...a nut case...dangerous and delusional, anyone with a thinking brain can see that..."
Speaking for those who aren't convinced he's a nut case, delusional, or dangerous, thanks again for making your case with such obvious interest in discussing his policies instead of insulting his person. I remember how liberals like you used to call Reagan a fascist and crazy and senile. Boy, did that ever get y'all votes back in the day!
No one has proposed that. It's insane to argue against a completely false straw man.
RP says: "we killed a million Iraqis."
That is wildly false. It's insane to say that.
RP says: "they want to kill us because we're bombing them."
In the entire history of the U.S. we have not so much as thrown a firecracker at Iran. His statements are utterly insane.
Ron Paul doesn’t mind because he can’t do $#!# about it, and neither can you. I didn’t see you here advocating that we nuke North Korea back in the day. Were you saying that with their situation, or is it just now that it’s Iran that it makes sense?
Or don’t you advocate dropping a nuke? What is it you think we should do, exactly, to stop them? Invade Iran?
It was well documented that he used them on his own people before we even went over there.
I know but killing a million of his own people and a bunch of Kurds is irrelevant to liberals and libertarians.
Sorry ‘bout that TigersEye. Meant to post that response to ColdSteelTalon.
I thought you were backing me up anyway. No harm done.
Really? Ann Coulter has. This thread says otherwise: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2819403/posts So much for 'completely false.'
"RP says: 'we killed a million Iraqis.' That is wildly false. It's insane to say that."
Oh, please. You're pulling a single line out of context. The man was saying that we've killed a bunch of them. And we have killed, by some estimates, in the tens of thousands, but that has nothing to do with his point, which was that the war in Iraq hasn't solved the problem of Muslim extremism and war won't solve the problem in Iran. We can't solve the problem. Reagan left Beirut after realizing that.
"RP says: 'they want to kill us because we're bombing them.' In the entire history of the U.S. we have not so much as thrown a firecracker at Iran. His statements are utterly insane."
Maybe the violence we support against these people is simply too attenuated for you to catch on. We've historically funded the strongmen that have helped turn that region's uneducated masses against us. We pay off the corrupt House of Saud. We pay off the corrupt Shah. We pay off the corrupt Musharrafs and Mubaraks and Husseins, and then we have the gall to be surprised when, after we turn against or otherwise remove the propped-up dictator, their countries fall to the only organized opposition to these folks. And that is the extreme Islamists who look at everything evil these bastards did, and see it as American-induced because yes, we did pay for a lot of it, and yes, it is all too often our fault for looking the other way as graft is rampant in these one-party states.
The same is true in central America and Asia, and you could see the process in action if you went there, because the liberal elites that run most foreign educational institutions point to that corruption-for-influence game in order to spark revulsion in nativists, then promote revolution and communism in a lot of places. I saw it in Korea and I've seen it elsewhere. Heck, it works that way at home: the American people saw the corrupt Bushes as presidents and thought conservatives and the GOP were evil, and as a result we got the far worse Clinton and Obama. What's tough about this to understand? If we stay out of it, they can't blame anyone but themselves. If we prop up these regimes or their opponents via government action, what happens is what always happens--government f's up. If it were a bureaucrat going into rural West Virginia you'd see it, but since it's a Green Beret going into Bushehr you just can't accept it.
Paul misstated Clappers testimony last night. Clapper didn’t say Iran DIDN’T have nukes or was close to getting them.
He said he DIDN’T KNOW if they did or were.
Frankly I would trust the MOSSAD over Clapper anyday.
Obamas intelligence chief ignorant of U.K. terror arrests?