Ron Paul: Bachmann 'Hates Muslims,' Santorum Only Talks About Gays and Muslims
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on NBC's Tonight Show Friday took some cheap shots at his opponents.
After saying Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) "hates Muslims," Paul said former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum only talks about "gay people and Muslims" (video follows with commentary):
The Texas Congressman also said Mitt Romney should just be a governor and Newt Gingrich should just try to become Speaker of the House again.
Readers are advised that Paul received a standing ovation when he walked onto the stage to meet host Jay Leno.
*****Update: Bachmann has responded.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ron Paul for Secretary of Nofense.
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:52am.
Ron Paul for Secretary of Nofense.
Message to Rand.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:53am.
Go get your daddy and quietly slip his "jacket" back on him before he destroys YOUR political career along with his own!
Exactly!
Submitted by frank14 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:13am.
Rand makes sense, Ron reminds you on the mean next door neighbor who would keep your football if it went over the fence into his yard.
because....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:57am.
I'm not a real Republican. I just play one on TV.
by comparison
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:03am.
Paul would ultimately make obama seem reasonable.
That's a stretch, MA.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:34am.
Ron Paul may be the daffy uncle or whacky next door neighbor, but if he destroyed the USA it would be out of total incompetence and, shall we say, confusion.
The RBFSOB is purposely and pointedly on a path to destroy this country and "fundamentally transform" it into a commie "paradise."
Ron Paul is a loon
Submitted by gadropout on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:24am.
He is their kind of Republican. He is an embarrassment to the GOP.
The whiny idiot Paul
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 2:09pm.
I heard a clip from the debate where this bigot was whining about Israel having 300 nukes.
Um, I'm willing to bet that is just about as made up as his consistent whine that America has 700 military bases around the world. He backs neither and has indicated he has no interest in backing either under any circumstances. But he leads a cult of personality so anything he says matters not.
And even IF Israel had 300 nukes, I'd trust them with them, because they are a democratic nation. Paul doesn't because above all he's a racist anti-Semite bigot.
By the way, I am wondering if there is anything that goes on in the world that ISN'T America's fault in the mind of Paul?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well said UNS!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 2:49pm.
Sorry, when Paul says that Iran has a right to nukes, to "gain respect" in the world, when their stated policy is to wipe Israel off the map......Paul is NUTS!!! He is an isolationist that ultimately would involve us in WW 3 because, as he says, "who are we to interfere with another nation". Using his warped logic, we should have "sat out of WW 2", and just let Hitler take Europe, and Japan take over Asia, because, according to his logic, it was "none of our concern". He is imploding, and when his "Newsletters" see the light of day, he is finished.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
The Marxism of the Right.
Submitted by stage9 on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 5:57pm.
Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Wow. Rational?
Submitted by Hillbilly Genius on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 7:53pm.
I'm so glad all of you on the GOP side could show your true colors here where you're protected and have so many in agreement. It'd be a shame to hear another side of an argument. So I see that in the GOP bubble, it's perfectly ok to throw American lives away and call it patriotic but trying to avoid such wasteful loss of life is nutty? Loony? Miserly? Has the right gone so far into the liberal mind that it's gotten lost and comes out thinking that it's the 1940's and all we need is a good war leader and we can take over the world once again? Sounds like you all want another FDR more than I thought. Romney will give the party over to the left like Scott Brown did, Niki Haley too, Christine O'Donnell gave to him and on and on. I was behind the TEA Party before it was called the TEA Party. Now I'm ashamed to say that because it's turned back into the same GOP party it was before Ron Paul and other Founding Father Faithful spoke out against the War Hungry GOP. You guys on here ridicule, call names, make up things and twist words just to make yourselves feel better when you pull the lever on another Big Government Hack. If your vote is simply for another GOP spender like George W. then go ahead and throw it away as they play the fiddle while Rome burns. You either want a change from the same system that has gotten us into this mess or you want to keep Obama in to finish it off. Write me off as another Paul Bot or PaulTard or anything that makes you feel better about going along without rocking the boat but know this. I'm a 35 year old father of two beautiful little girls who worries every week about bills and the on coming Winter weather, if this week's my last paycheck or is the van going to breakdown leaving us without a vehicle. I don't smoke pot, I don't make crazy posts about conspiracies and I don't spend all day wondering who's going to be president next year. The Commander in Chief position is not high on my list of priorities. I worry more about what my local government and state government demand for my residence in their state. I was born and raised in Illinois and after 35 years I'll be moving to Missouri where, among other things, taxes are lower, my wife's in-laws have welcomed us with open arms and I can be more self sufficient with a few acres of property. It's not easy and neither is stepping out of the two party belief system. Ron Paul has never done anything but tout how strong Americans are without flexing our muscle to the world. If you're afraid of Iran then you're a coward and don't deserve the freedom it takes to hold restraint. If you're not afraid of Iran then why all the fear mongering about whether they get a nuke or not. We've given them to our enemies like Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the terrorist harbormasters without so much as a whimper from the right. Suddenly, Iran getting one is call for a new war like the one that cost us the election in 2008 is our only answer. I think I've typed enough for a few dozen responses from you folks but I've told you the truth about who I am and I stand behind my beliefs. Ron Paul is not perfect in my eyes but if you're going based on a measure of pros and cons then I'd say he's head and shoulders above the rest of the field. He can't save the world alone but he can help the USA more than any president has in the past 100 years. We fight and argue over the most simple of things yet when we get down to the understanding of our beliefs, we all want the same thing. A strong America, no worry of soldiers having to make the ultimate sacrifice each day, more liberty to do as we please and not as the government demands we do plus money in our pockets at the end of each week. Spending money on anything does nothing for us right now so why argue about who is or wants to spend what? Let's talk.
Ok---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 8:35pm.
Provided you use paragraphs when you reply. :o)
MD
Take over the world again? Really
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:23pm.
Also, why dont you explain what you think Iraq would be up to these days without intervention? Would they have a nuke, would they had eradicated the Kurds by now, would they be advancing on their neighbors, would they be influencing the price of fuel significantly?
Also you are not impressing anyone with you insults and innuendo. Unfortunately for the rest of us, you Pualbots seem to think he is the only one who can make any progress against the leftist. So after 30 yrs in office, please list Paul's outstanding accomplishments, because I cant seem to find any. In-fact after only 2 yrs, I could argue his Son has had a bigger impact in office then Pop.
Your writing appears as a huge blob of messy bubble gum
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:40pm.
Ever heard of paragraphs?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
We do?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 3:11pm.
"We fight and argue over the most simple of things yet when we get down to the understanding of our beliefs, we all want the same thing."
I don't know about you, but I don't want a return to the Gold Standard, like Ron wants. Gold is a rare resource, why peg our entire money supply to such a rare resource? It doesn't make any sense in an expansible population. All it can ever accomplish is the guarantee of mass poverty. Something this country hasn't experienced since we dropped that Gold Standard decades ago. Prior to dropping the gold standard, the poor population of America never dropped below 25 percent, and it was usually much, much higher. Now it's at 10 percent and usually less. That's a fantastic improvement in just 40 some years, one that Ron would undo if he could.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to become isolationists, as Ron does. Every time we revert to isolationism, as we have several times in the past, we are attacked without mercy. It's much better to be involved in the world, especially militarily, so that we can limit the amount of damage international disputes always inspire. Hasn't the conflicts of the past 200 years taught you, or Ron, anything?
I don't want a man who believes himself to be the intellectual superior to everyone else, as Ron does. There's too much of that in government as it is.
No, we don't all want the same thing. I, personally, don't want Ron Paul anywhere NEAR the Presidency. He's far more dangerous to America than Obama!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Fair enough questions.
Submitted by Hillbilly Genius on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 6:09pm.
The gold standard would have kept more money out of the hands of the Fed and not allowed them to print money out of thin air without having something to base it on. As it is, the price of gold is heading towards $2,000/oz. before spring of next year. That's inflation in a nut shell when you see how much gold has gone up. Used to be 1 oz. of gold was a week's worth of physical work. The amount of labor a person puts out in a week is still just as hard as it was 50 years ago but now it's gone up to what a month's worth of work would cost.
I don't see how Nixon taking us off the gold standard decreased poverty. 47% of all Americans do not pay taxes and I would venture to say that they are not living high on the hog for it. Increase the number by 4% and you have the Illegals thrown in as well that actually take jobs. Basically, I am willing to bet that 30% or more are in a poverty level but thanks to bureaucratic shuffling of standards and measures, they are not counted so as to appear like our leaders are doing a better job. The Gold Standard will help to level these things. It will hurt at first but the standard will eventually bring our levels back down to what they should have been.
Ron's a big believer in the systems correcting themselves so long as the system is not in favor of those who manipulate it through political cronyism. Can you really say that any of the candidates have not shown this sort of favoritism in the past? Ron Paul is the only one I know of.
For the umpteenth time, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. It simply means we do not mess in foreign affairs that do not immediately pose a threat to our nation or it's citizen's well being. Meddling in Israel's affairs has only increased our debt while being told by Netenyahu that our help is neither warranted or wanted.
Thomas Jefferson said it best and I hope everyone heeds this message: "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." and: "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." as well as: "I sincerely join... in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Jefferson wrote those words at times when our volatility was at it's precipice. We're at our precipice again.
As far as the last statement: "I don't want a man who believes himself to be the intellectual superior to everyone else, as Ron does. There's too much of that in government as it is." So his intelligence scares you? I've never heard him say he's smarter than everyone else but maybe it's been implied by the way the other candidates have always picked up his points and taken them as their own. Maybe it's the way when two candidates were asked who's changed their minds the most in the debates, they said Ron Paul. Maybe it's just that he appears so much smarter in comparison to the recent offerings because he actually reads history and economics books to learn things about how government should be run. He's a smart guy and follows the words of the Constitution because that's what he swore to do 12 times as an elected official and once as an Air Force Flight Surgeon. I know he's smart because what he says makes sense to smart people and even some not so smart people. When you take away the judgement of a person's appearance or the delivery of their lines, you get substance and a real gauge of their character. His is flawless when compared to Newt, Mitt, Michelle and the Rick's.
Paul-bottery
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 5:23pm.
You gold bugs amuse me. The way you talk, when we had the gold standard (which FDR ended, by the way; Nixon ended the Bretton Woods agreement), no one ever died because gold solves everything.
I have never once understood the gold fetish anyway. I like gold jewelry as much as the next guy, but it makes no sense to set aside gold for a currency so you can have "something to base currency on." Gold is too useful and too desirable in too many applications for it to be wasted, tied up for money.
For the trillionth time, Ron Paul is a PROUD isolationist. He wants an America that is as weak and as whiny as possible. I hate top tell you this, but as much as you want to hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, it is 2011, not 1791. (Interesting you immediately single out Israel. Perhaps you are as big an anti-Semite as Ron Paul is? The only country he will ever badmouth with as much passion as the United States is Israel, after all.) If we just stopped interacting with other countries altogether and became a giant continental ostrich as you so badly want, we'd STILL have vast amounts of debt. The federal government, performing its basic duty of interacting with other nation-states is not the sole cause of $15 trillion debt.
And you indicate to me your utter failure at history. Yeah, you can tell me all you want that since Thomas Jefferson wanted to be an isolationist (or so your quote is supposed to lead us to believe), we should be, too! But did you know that your hero engaged the Barbary States in war? Did you know that John Adams nearly went to war against France in the late 1790s - and that in fact a virtual state of war existed between France and the United States at that time? Yeah, tell me again how much the Founders want us to be Ostrich Country.
Besides, you have zero perspective. Isolationism made SOME sense when the United States was a strip of land consisting of the Eastern Seaboard and four million people clinging to said land, at a time when internal development was the ultimate priority. But that time has come and gone. The United States is a nation built on TRADE, which means interaction with other nations and people. It now has 300 million people, coasts on the Atlantic, Pacific AND Arctic Oceans, and thanks to its industriousness and inventiveness, the rest of the world is much closer today than back in the 1790s. This has produced consequences that neither you nor Paul are remotely prepared to face, much less deal with - which is shocking, as this isn't really new.
I read history and economics books too - does this mean I can be President? Besides, as I have demonstrated, if Paul DOES actually read history - I doubt that somehow - his actual study of history's lessons is beyond abhorrent. (He failed to learn perspective, as you have, and he reads in history what he wants to read, as do you.) And let's look at this fallacious statement:
He's a smart guy and follows the words of the Constitution because that's what he swore to do 12 times as an elected official and once as an Air Force Flight Surgeon. So, please explain where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to subsidize the shrimp industry or provide city buses to Galveston - all initiatives Mr. Constitution has supported. And don't you think it's funny that he went into an unconstitutional branch of the military? (Hey, I'm just taking Mr. Constitution at his word here - show me where in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to fund an Air Force.) And he plainly is interested in following only CERTAIN provisions of the Constitution anyway - hell, right now he is campaigning mightily to violate the very oath of office he wants to take on 20 January 2013!
And he's a "smart guy". So? We are told this ad nauseum about the current White House occupant.
Finally, no, his character is blown away by the other candidates: they aren't anti-Semites like Paul.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, some things I do in fact disagree with
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 5:42pm.
No, I do not want a whiny, defenseless, toothless America like Ron Paul does.
Besides, his followers love to tout him as the supreme expert and THE final authority on the Constitution. I'd like to ask Mr. Constitution where in the Constitution it states that the federal government exists to provide subsidies to the shrimp industry or where Congress is to pay for city buses.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Sorry.
Submitted by Hillbilly Genius on Sat, 12/17/2011 - 10:03pm.
I tend to ramble and proper grammar is sometimes ignored. One of many faults but I stand behind the content. Thanks for being civil.
What part of TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY don't you get?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 12/18/2011 - 3:21pm.
The TEA Party not some sort of passing fad.
You Didn't Build That.