I can't believe you could be so stupid or illinformed to trot out the same tired misrepresentation that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Investigate the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism if you want your opinions to be taken seriously.

btw, as you don't seem to have noticed, people are waking up and doing their own checks and no longer accept or trust MSM, if nothing else this will be a lasting legacy of Ron Paul's for anyone can now see what a nasty pox they are to a free society.

The neoconservative empire is about to cave in.
Federal debt totals $455,000 per family. Only Ron Paul has the plan to bring us back from the brink.

I'm very sympathetic to the small government, fiscal responsibility argument, but this figure is way off. The national debt is a little over $9 trillion. The population is a little over 300 million. That is $30,000 per person. I don't know the average size of a family, but it isn't enough to make their share of the debt $455K.

Sound finance...wow, what a concept! Imagine that instead of the United States being number one in only one thing: DEBT, that we would once again be a nation standing on sound economics.

The Canadian Financials state:

"Paul has been studying the most uncompromising branch of free-market economics, the one propounded by the Austrian School, for more than 30 years. That sets him apart in a political and academic world where supply-side, monetarist and other neoclassical ideas usually dominate free-market discourse. From an Austrian viewpoint, these are hopelessly muddled creeds that have made their peace with big government, and especially with what for Austrians is the central issue of government manipulation of the money supply.

His decision to first run for office in the 1970s was spurred by Nixon's decision to take the U.S. off the gold standard. He's been writing articles and books and giving speeches about the evils of government intervention and fiat money ever since. These themes resonate more than ever at a time when the greenback is sinking, financial bubbles are bursting, the country is drowning in bad debt and a credit crisis is in full bloom.

Whether one agrees with him or not, Paul is so serious about economic theory that he has become some sort of standard bearer for nerds in politics. David Frum, an unpaid Rudy Guliani advisor, was far off the mark when in this paper last Saturday he accused Paul of not having the faintest idea what he was talking about and being "too lazy or too arrogant to learn."

A Ron Paul administration, though not in the cards, would turn conventional political and economic thinking upside down.

All of a sudden, all those on the left who have been denouncing the American empire and its military adventures would find an ally in the White house. Ron Paul not only wants to bring back U.S. troops home from Iraq, but also those stationed in Europe and Asia. Cutting the half-trillion dollars a year military budget is a central part of his plan to put the country's finances back on a sound economic footing.

Paul never voted for a tax increase or for spending that he deems unconstitutional, which includes pretty much everything contained in federal budgets nowadays. He wants to abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service. He would also eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, get rid of corporate and agricultural subsidies, foreign aid, and a host of other programs. He would allow young people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and let these two massive unfunded entitlement programs for the elderly slowly disappear.

The effect on the U.S. economy of such policies would be tremendous. Ottawa would have to react, or else we could lose the little competitive advantages that fiscal prudence has earned us over the last decade. Reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15.5% to 15% will not do it. And who knows how far the loonie would fall back again if hard money and sound finances were to prevail south of the border?

Ron Paul policies would also threaten what has been a fundamental feature of Canadian economic policy for the past two decades, free trade -- or rather, relatively free managed trade -- with the United States. Paul's idea of free trade is to get the government out of the way, not to create more international bureaucratic structures that are not accountable. That would raise interesting debates. Would the NDP and the Council of Canadians denounce the threat of genuine free trade and launch a campaign to save NAFTA?

However many votes Paul ultimately gets, we shouldn't wait for an U.S. politician to force those reforms on us, especially one who wants to do away with Yankee imperialism. Freedom is a universal, not an American value. Free markets work everywhere. Why not get rid of all this government deadweight of our own volition, and for our own good?"

Think about that will ya? America an Economic Giant again instead of the largest debtor nation.

Here is a small excerpt from the Canadians:

"Paul has been studying the most uncompromising branch of free-market economics, the one propounded by the Austrian School, for more than 30 years. That sets him apart in a political and academic world where supply-side, monetarist and other neoclassical ideas usually dominate free-market discourse. From an Austrian viewpoint, these are hopelessly muddled creeds that have made their peace with big government, and especially with what for Austrians is the central issue of government manipulation of the money supply.

His decision to first run for office in the 1970s was spurred by Nixon's decision to take the U.S. off the gold standard. He's been writing articles and books and giving speeches about the evils of government intervention and fiat money ever since. These themes resonate more than ever at a time when the greenback is sinking, financial bubbles are bursting, the country is drowning in bad debt and a credit crisis is in full bloom.

Whether one agrees with him or not, Paul is so serious about economic theory that he has become some sort of standard bearer for nerds in politics. David Frum, an unpaid Rudy Guliani advisor, was far off the mark when in this paper last Saturday he accused Paul of not having the faintest idea what he was talking about and being "too lazy or too arrogant to learn."

A Ron Paul administration, though not in the cards, would turn conventional political and economic thinking upside down.

All of a sudden, all those on the left who have been denouncing the American empire and its military adventures would find an ally in the White house. Ron Paul not only wants to bring back U.S. troops home from Iraq, but also those stationed in Europe and Asia. Cutting the half-trillion dollars a year military budget is a central part of his plan to put the country's finances back on a sound economic footing.

Paul never voted for a tax increase or for spending that he deems unconstitutional, which includes pretty much everything contained in federal budgets nowadays. He wants to abolish the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service. He would also eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, get rid of corporate and agricultural subsidies, foreign aid, and a host of other programs. He would allow young people to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and let these two massive unfunded entitlement programs for the elderly slowly disappear.

The effect on the U.S. economy of such policies would be tremendous. Ottawa would have to react, or else we could lose the little competitive advantages that fiscal prudence has earned us over the last decade. Reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15.5% to 15% will not do it. And who knows how far the loonie would fall back again if hard money and sound finances were to prevail south of the border?

Ron Paul policies would also threaten what has been a fundamental feature of Canadian economic policy for the past two decades, free trade -- or rather, relatively free managed trade -- with the United States. Paul's idea of free trade is to get the government out of the way, not to create more international bureaucratic structures that are not accountable. That would raise interesting debates. Would the NDP and the Council of Canadians denounce the threat of genuine free trade and launch a campaign to save NAFTA?

However many votes Paul ultimately gets, we shouldn't wait for an U.S. politician to force those reforms on us, especially one who wants to do away with Yankee imperialism. Freedom is a universal, not an American value. Free markets work everywhere. Why not get rid of all this government deadweight of our own volition, and for our own good?"

Ron Paul votes against all of the pork, so this writer is lying. Paul argues that if the money is going to be spent anyway in spite of his vote, then the taxpayers in his district should get a fair share of the benefits. Who disagrees with this? Does this writer think that they should not?

To suggest that Ron Paul doesn't care about Israel is dishonest psychobabble. It's not his job to care about them. It is their job and they are fully capable, as he pointed out, of doing so. Our military is there for oil and empire, not Israel. And Israel has no need of them against Iran. Iran is a threat to no one. Fox news is not a source for reality-based information.

To suggest that he is a confederate sympathizer is ignorant psychobabble. Questioning the unnecessary deaths of over 600,000 soldiers does not make you a sympathizer of anything but sanity. Ron Paul knows the history of the war and that it was not about slavery, it was about economics and trade policy. It was about centralizing economic control in the North and over-ruling the constitution ("saving the union"). Slavery did not become an issue until well into the war and Lincoln only freed the slaves in those states which were hostile to him -as a punishment for opposing him. Read some history. There's more to it than what you were fed in the government school.

Just because we don't contact you or let the main stream media know these things does not mean they aren't happening. Obviously you aren't part of the movement and will never know the goings on of the REVOLUTION. Its a mind revolution, not fought with guns or weapons. We meet in coffee houses, bars, basements & on the streets. We are every day people and we want our Country back!

-AK

[it's not] A sign of the general nosiness.
[me English teacher at SAC, 1986?] "I passed"

Stop anyone in a supermarket anywhere in the USA.

Show them a picture of John Sides and ask if they know the name of the man in the picture.

When they say 'no', ask if they know where John Sides works.

John Sides is a nobody, except to sandbox Ivory Tower quackademics.

You wrote story based fully upon the Opinion of a Nobody. How amusing.

Oh, and who are you Chris Lawrence?

Lets hope, for the sake of your intellect, that its B.

If for some reason its A. Grab any political science reader and check out the definition of isolationism.

You will find that it means non interventionist foreign policy combined with a protectionist trade policy. Buchanan is an isolationist, ron paul, as he is a free market, open trade guy, is simply a non interventionist.

I came here from central Europe in 1984 to escape exactly what is now happening here or starting to happen. I'll go back. I don't even vote, and I spent over $700 on the campaign so far.

I was mulling it over for a couple of years, and now it become quite clear. I'm putting my things in order and looking for a place to live in the 'old country'.

Also, your comment: "it’s that Paul doesn’t care whether or not Iran is a threat to Israel."---Ron Paul and his supporters don't care MORE about Israel's threat from Iran, than ANY OTHER COUNTRY'S THREAT FROM ANYONE!!!....Why do YOU think Israel should get special treatment?

I'm a 56-year old grandmother of seven, and I definitely see a BIG DIFFERENCE in how Ron Paul's message is affecting the election process...Have you noticed that all European countries, plus Venezuela, Australia, and Canada have campaign groups supporting Ron Paul for President of the United States? I've NEVER seen that in my lifetime.

Your assertion that Paul is a "neoconfederate sympathizer" decidedly misses the mark. While his functional viewpoint might be the same as said neoconfederate sympathizer (both ultimately questions the efficacious nature of the war), the philosophical and intellectual rationale are worlds apart.

More than 600,000 men died in the Civil War, and to lament that loss of life is not indicative of any human or political shortcoming. Noting in history's rear-view mirror that there might have been a more rational and humane solution shouldn't be a reason to get out the tar and feathers - or to reduce a reasonable, learned individual into lobbing ad hominem intimations (that no one should buy into his reasoning simply because it is universally panned, rather than refuting his arguments).

You are clearly able to cobble together a better refutation, so one has to wonder if you're just pandering to the mentally hobbled Fox news crowd (says a 2000 GWB voter). The alternatives to pandering are that you find such tactics to be intellectually permissible (a simultaneous violation of both acceptable journalism practices and logical discourse); that you launched the missive without really reading/listening to Paul's words, and didn't realize that the two arguments were not even similar; or that you are simply a shill, doing anything you can to wage an ideological campaign against Paul. I'm assigning the least nefarious motives, and will assume it's just pandering for traffic (I mean hey - you gotta pay the bills).

Accepting the sainthood of Lincoln is of course part of the dogma of the arbiters of what are acceptable lines of thought about the Civil War. One questioning anything about the myth risks the ire of academia and media-shaped popular opinion. Unfortunately, this Orwellian imposition lies in contravention of sound scholarship.

Lincoln was a powerful and cunning man, a skilled politician and practiced rhetorician. He left an indelible mark on the US, and is certainly a figure who casts a long shadow on our early history. There is certainly a case to be made for the greatness of the man (a subjective concept), but it shouldn't be enforced orthodoxy to those who operate in the arena of ideas.

He was, after all, a man. A fallible, flawed man. And one who oversaw the forced military subjugation of internal dissenters. And suspended the most basic civil rights of the people he governed. He oversaw a slaughter on our own soil unrivaled in our history.

I am not arguing against his greatness per se - there are persuasive pro-greatness narratives to be made, for sure. But there are also reasonable arguments to be made that the net effect (the end of slavery) might have come about in a less costly manner in both economic and human terms, and it is reasonable to consider whether the regrettable Jim Crow era might have been avoided altogether.

Asking the questions such as Russert asked are low blows and should be recognized as such by anyone who fancies themselves intellectual or simply interested in practicing sound logic. They are asked simply for the easy-to-demagogue responses. The only thing that can fit in a sound bite is him speaking the perceived sacrilege, and it's sure to have O'Reilly going for demagoguery's gold medal (he's looking out for us). It might be indicative of a political naivety on Paul's part, but it certainly doesn't make him a closet neoconfederate or the equivalent.

To imply a man a crackpot (not your words, though calling him a neoconfederate sympathizers is equivalent, unless you'd argue that they aren't crackpots) because he is an astute student of history and doesn't stifle his intellect to avoid being sound-bited is below your obvious abilities. Though a logical principle may not be the norm for political discourse, that shouldn't relegate logic to being thought a scornful thing.