Somebody from Haiti needs to punch Ron Paul in the throat!

Posted By Kevin Tracy at 5:36 am on January 31, 2010

Ron Paul supporters can cry and throw tantrums all they want - nobody will ever take them seriously.

The House of Representatives recently passed a resolution “expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti” by a vote of 411 to 1. That 1, of course, is the biggest fathead in the Republican Party, Representative Ron Paul. Big surprise.

I’m not entirely sure if Ron Paul is representing himself and his conspiracy theory nutjobs around the country or the Texans in his district who voted Republican, but either way the man is a really horrible joke. We used to laugh at Ron Paul, but now we just feel sorry for the Republicans who have to deal with him as their Representative in the House.

At least we were able to laugh with Jim Traficant and his voters. Perhaps the only slightly humorous thing about Ron Paul is that he has his head so far up his rear end that he actually believes the majority of Americans take him seriously. We might laugh again if a Haitian actually punches him in the throat (who am I kidding? We WILL laugh), but until that happens, the charm of the village idiot has worn off and we’re no longer amused by the radical stooge.

Comments (43)

43 Comments »

Comment by WKen on January 31, 2010

Yeah … that’s absurd. Reading the headline, I assumed that you were going to have something with him saying that we shouldn’t be sending aid.

This is worse … he couldn’t even support a more-or-less meaningless resolution? The jackass isn’t funny anymore.

Comment by daltonsbriefs on January 31, 2010

His days of actually mattering, when his supporters tried to usurp the will of the voters at primaries in 2008 and overthrow the conventions, are over. It’s almost sad to watch an ego implode like this.

Comment by mohave on January 31, 2010

your superficial knowledge of the bill is evident. the bill makes a commitment to a long term rebuilding of haiti. paul gave his condolences on the floor, of course the facts dont matter. continue to support the the status quo sheeple. there is not a dimes worth of difference between between the repubs and dems as demonstrated in the monetary and foreign policy obama follows uninterrupted. continue to support the bums that together have brought us from a position of domination in production r&d exports to the biggest debtor nation who makes little,in just 60 years impressive a herculean task. worthy of your pea brain support. read the constitution

Comment by Chris on January 31, 2010

Calling people fatheads improves the discourse?

Should the US Colonize and Militarize Haiti?
by Ron Paul
Before the House of Representatives, January 21, 2010, Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti.
I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others.
Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” I do not believe that a resolution expressing our deep regret and sorrow over this tragedy should be used to commit the United States to a “long-term” occupation of Haiti during which time the US government will provide for the reconstruction of that country.
I am concerned over the possibility of an open-ended US military occupation of Haiti and this legislation does nothing to alleviate my concerns. On the contrary, when this resolution refers to the need for a long-term US plan for Haiti, I see a return to the failed attempts by the Clinton and Bush Administrations to establish Haiti as an American protectorate. Already we are seeing many argue that this kind of humanitarian mission is a perfect fit for the US military. I do not agree.
Certainly I would support and encourage the efforts of the American people to help the people of Haiti at this tragic time. I believe that the American people are very generous on their own and fear that a US government commitment to reconstruct Haiti may actually discourage private contributions. Mr. Speaker, already we see private US citizens and corporations raising millions of dollars for relief and reconstruction of Haiti. I do not believe the US government should get in the way of these laudable efforts. I do express my condolences but I unfortunately must urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution committing the United States government to rebuild Haiti.

Comment by Laurie on January 31, 2010

BIG FAT DISCLAIMER: I am not a Ron Paulian.

But while I understand your sentiments, Kevin, I adore Ron Paul for one reason: He sticks to his principles. If this resolution does, indeed, commit the US government to rebuilding Haiti, then I respect his contrarian vote. It is completely in keeping with his advocacy of non-intervention and not spending what we don’t have.

We have many examples of GOP and Dems voting or at least railing against agaist a bill that included many provisions which they supported because they didn’t agree with the overriding principle. Funny, how you didn’t bust GOP Congressional members who did EXACTLY that with health care. Many things they have advocated are in the bill, but they are against the overriding principle, and you appplauded them.

While it seems silly that Paul would “nay” a seemingly harmless resolution, he at least thinks about what he believes, bottom line, before a vote. Did he over think this one? Perhaps. But at least he’s true to his principles with every vote he casts.

Comment by Laurie on January 31, 2010

Hey, Kevin-

The real reason I logged on today:

You were one of the first bloggers I thought about this Friday after the exchange at the House conference, as you have called for just such exchanges a la Britain’s process. Lover to see a post on your thoughts.

Comment by memefilter on January 31, 2010

Advocating violence against a sitting congressman? Two words for ya: Hal Turner.

Comment by A_G1RL on January 31, 2010

Wow. You gave incorrect information (this was not a meaningless bill but actually did involve other commitments), name-called, grouped anyone that might like any of his stances as nutjobs, and advocated physical violence.

Many many downvotes for you. As per the words below the picture you used on this article, YOU Kevin will not be taken seriously. You have shown yourself to be irrational and a liar. Hopefully others will also see your ‘qualities’ and cease to be one of your ‘most excellent contributors’.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on January 31, 2010

Chris,
One of the benefits of the US Government under the Constitution of the United States is that it enables the people of the United States to work together a lot more effectively and have a much larger impact that we could have as individuals. Granted, that’s not always worked to our benefit, but when it comes to charity work, it’s undeniable. How many individual, private US Citizens have a floating hospital ship with over a thousand beds? None. How many citizens have a fleet of cargo planes that can drop supplies in Haiti overnight? A few business owners, but none of them would ever be willing to lose billions of dollars of business in order to help the people of Haiti.

Laurie,
Ron Paul does stick to his principles, I’ll give him credit for that. But here’s the thing. Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Il, and Osama bin Laden have also stuck to their principles. Sticking to your principles alone doesn’t make you a person people should adore.

Perhaps I should have mentioned this in the post. A “Resolution” is not law and it’s non-binding. If I’m not mistaken, the House and Senate passed resolutions condemning China for the invasion of Tibet, their handling of Tienanmen Square, and praising the Dalai Lama. Yeah, China gets pissy about it for a couple weeks, but because there’s no bite to the resolution, they come around and things get back to normal. A resolution can be passed without a signature from a President, as a Bill would require.

In 2007, when Nancy Pelosi decided to once again go over the head of the State Department and recognize the Ottoman mass murder of the Armenians as “Genocide” (something Conservatives conveniently ignore when they call Democrats Christian-hating Islamist sympathizers), she knew the President would veto anything to that effect that she put on his desk. So instead, she made it a resolution, stating that the House of Representatives recognized the atrocity as Genocide. It was made official, but it wasn’t law.

If this was a Bill, I might be a little more lenient, but this is absurd, asinine, paranoid, ridiculous, and idiotic political behavior at its worst.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on January 31, 2010

Mohave,
Read a 3rd grade grammar book. Holy crap.

If you want to talk about superficial knowledge, just read your own first sentence. This was NOT a Bill, it was a non-binding RESOLUTION. In other words, Ron Paul could have voted for it (God forbid) and then when an actual Haitian Relief Bill came to the floor, he could have voted against the details in that.

Comment by Sid Burgess on January 31, 2010

Kevin, that makes no sense. He should vote for a resolution that favors aid, even though it isn’t non-binding?

Do I need to start listing the many UN resolutions that the US has gladly supported and funded?

Do you support political double talk on a regular basis?

Don’t be naive.

Comment by Chris on January 31, 2010

After Katrina, Carnival Cruise Lines was more than happy to enter into a six month agreement with the government for $234 million. That ship had beds for 7,000 people. That cost was twice the amount to actually put those same evacuees on a six month cruise. Government does not do charity well.

There has been over two billion in private donations given to Haiti.

Spending other people’s money is never compassion.

Comment by Sid Burgess on January 31, 2010

Laurie, I appreciate your thoughts a lot. Kevin, why did you suddenly compare RP to those evil men?

Are you suggesting that not voting for ANY resolution is evil? What the hell are they up there to do?

Disclaimer: I WAS a RP fan early in his campaign for this very reason. He understands the role of Congress. We don’t elect these guys to get up there and congratulate basketball teams and send tears around the world. He stood up and offered his personal condolences but said that was all that should be done. Why do we EXPECT more in the form of legislation, even if it is non-binding.

Seems highly superficial to me.

I am no longer a supporter of his for other reasons. I am not as hard core libertarian at the local levels as he can be. However, he does offer us a chance to see what resolve some of our early founders had, at least the anti-federalists, in regards to the proper role of government.

Alas, I stopped arguing about RP a long time ago and don’t particularly enjoy discussing him with people who are so passionately against him. So if you reply with some flaming response, make it a zinger. I am likely to not respond.

Peace.

Comment by Laurie on January 31, 2010

Kevin,

“Adore” was a bit strong for me to use. Ron Paul is a lone wolf, out there swinging by himself, and therefore doesn’t quite rise to the power of a Hitler, Pol Pot etc.

I certainly understand the difference between a non-binding resolution and a bill. But I think he’s not out of bounds to imagine how much farther a liberal Congress might take this. Can’t you hear it? Step One: Resolution, which includes general support for the US government giving rebuilding aid money to haiti. Non-binding and very feel good- Everybody loves it! Step Two: Barbara Lee sort of likes the attention she’s getting and works with others to get some Real Help. “C’mon, folks. We said we’d help. Let’s put it into action”. Step Three: Congress commits money we don’t have ’cause we’re the US!

I don’t think it’s out of the realm of thinking to see the Democrats turn this feel-good resolution into feel-good action. If all they were looking to do was give a bit of support (like National Take Your Kids to Work Day, or something) then why did they mention government aid for rebuilding? Again- I think Paul is a nut, but he does know how to read between the lines.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on January 31, 2010

He could have voted for the resolution and then argued that the best way to help them would have been to cut the red tape for private citizens to help. Ron Paul voted against this resolution because he thinks the CIA (under the disguise of the US Military) is occupying Haiti. The man is worse than Nancy Pelosi when it comes to despising our troops.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on January 31, 2010

Sid, I didn’t say it was “evil,” I said it was idiotic.

Comment by Sid Burgess on January 31, 2010

Kevin, let’s chat sometime. I think somewhere you have been led astray about Paul. Again, I am not Paulite, but I know enough about the man and his positions to know he doesn’t despise the military in any way.

I find it interesting you voted for Obama on the grounds of Obama’s foreign policy stance. Why the detraction with Paul on the foreign policy issue?

Sorry to hear you were not able to continue your military career. For me, it has been a rewarding 8 years. My time in Iraq especially helped me form my foreign policy positions.

Did you know he received more donations from military people during the primary than any other candidate? At least that is what was reported by CNN. Haven’t looked up the numbers.

Glad to see you are using your MGIB. So many throw that away.

Based on your speeches and your previous statements, it is pretty clear we will probably never see eye to eye on some things. That’s OK with me. It is more important that we work together to roll back government where we can, task we are apparently both dedicated to.

Peace.

Comment by RayT on February 1, 2010

Ron Paul once said that the Civil War was unnecessary and some African Americans objected…. right up until they heard his reasoning… Ron Paul determined that had the North just bought the Slaves outright, it would have saved more money and caused far less bloodshed than the war… What an ingenious way of looking at a dark passage in US history…

I often find that people who judge Ron Paul harshly do so because they have not fully understood his reasoning.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 1, 2010

That just goes to prove that Ron Paul was an idiot, Ray.

The more slaves you buy, the higher the price will go. And at some point, people would stop selling slaves unless they were reimbursed so heavily that they could retire on the money the federal government gave them because their businesses would instantly lose money if labor to work the fields suddenly went north. Not to mention that the sudden influx of unskilled labor in the north would drive wages down and likely create even more social strife than there already was in the free states. In the end, the civil rights movement would have taken even longer to mature (and Ron Paul would be against that because he would see it as a violation of states’ rights) and slavery would still be legal.

Ron Paul lives in a fantasy world of make-believe where everything in the history of the world can be solved by his nonsense and idiocy. Ironically, if we could live in fantasy worlds where radical ideologies worked perfectly all the time, I think we’d be better off living in a Communist Utopia than in the society formed by Ron Paul’s sick and twisted imagination. Either way, the Ron Paulotopia suffers from the same delusions that killed Communism. Neither could function in the real world.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 1, 2010

Meme,
Only if it’s a person from Haiti who does it. Though to be honest, I’d laugh no matter who did it.

A_G1RL,
It’s a resolution, not a bill.

Comment by WKen on February 1, 2010

Actually, Laurie, that doesn’t jive with Ron Paul’s excuse for his earmarks.

He helps insert all kinds of pork into bills, then votes against them and thereby both brings home the bacon for his district and claims to have clean hands on the issue.

Before a Paulite accuses me of lying, here’s him saying that:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508604,00.html

Certainly if he can sleep well at night inserting pork into bills because he knows that he’ll vote against them (even though he knows that they’ll pass), then voting for a non-binding resolution — which doesn’t mean anything even if it passes — shouldn’t bother him.

Or maybe the deranged little man doesn’t run on logic.

Comment by Chris on February 1, 2010

Re: “It’s just a resolution”. Yeah and calling for regime change in Iraq in 1998 was “just a resolution”.

Re: earmarks.
A Congressman serves two functions. One as a member of a deliberative body. That is where each member should be beholden to the chains of the Constitution. The second is to navigate the red tape. A constituent has a request of Congress, the Congressman shouldn’t be acting as a gate keeper.

If Ron Paul is acting as a gate keeper in his requests, then he’s absolutely wrong using his line of argument. If instead, he is simply navigating the bureaucracy for his constituents, then he’s providing the service that his office is supposed to be. At least to be consistent with his argument.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 1, 2010

1. The 1998 Resolution was just a resolution, Chris. President Clinton didn’t overthrow the Iraqi regime and regime change wouldn’t come until 5 years, 1 terrorist attack on American soil, and 1 major shift in US foreign policy towards the Middle East later.

2. He’s still a deranged hypocrite.

Comment by Chris on February 1, 2010

Now who’s deranged? Sir William Patey, who was then head of the Middle East Section at the Foreign Office for the UK has testified that regime change was policy before 9/11. 9/11 simply gave them a more direct means of accomplishing it. As Rahm Emanuel says “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 1, 2010

Sir William Patey is a member of the radically anti-war Liberal Party in the UK and the investigations they’ve had have been heavily politicized. (The only reason the British went to war with us was because Tony Blair had support from the Conservative Party on the issue)

Besides, Sir William Patey is not a member of the United States Congress, State Department, or any other American organization that would give his testimony an ounce of credibility. You’re probably better off citing Joe Wilson than this guy.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 1, 2010

By the way, I love how you took a page from Cindy Sheehan’s playbook. When faced with a difficult question, just draw the debate back to the Iraq War. Well, I’m glad we went to war with Iraq, I think it was the right thing to do, and the war had nothing to do with the 1998 resolution.

Comment by Chris on February 1, 2010

Not posed with a difficult question at all. Simply demonstrating that resolutions are more than simply passing whims.

Comment by WKen on February 1, 2010

The 1998 resolution had nothing to do with the war that began in 2003. That was why there was a later authorization to use force. That was needed because the 5-year-old non-binding resolution didn’t mean anything.

As to your “gatekeeper” excuse … you repeated Rep. Paul’s line. I’ve already read it.

However, if he’s really against pork-barrel spending, then he should absolutely be stopping it, even if it’s from his own constituents. This excuse is a crock, and it’s really that simple.

Comment by Chris on February 2, 2010

If the 1998 resolution had nothing to do with the war that began in 2003, then why was it cited in the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002?

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

I swear, the two of you. Disappointing.

Comment by Laurie on February 2, 2010

Kevin,

Sure, Paul could have voted for a resolution with content that he was against, and then argue against it later. Republicans, however, coined a phrase for that: Flip flopping. Again,perhaps he overthought this, perhaps not. But, should the Democrats run with sentiment and ask for billiosn in relief, Paul will be the only Conservative standing who DOESN’T have to answer the “flip flopper” charge and the only one around not beholden to a Democrat saying “C’Mon, man, you were with us in spirit. Let’s make it official”

Chris,

As far as Paul’s earmarks…A wise man said recently that spending outside of one’s district always seems outrageous, but within one’s district it seems pretty reasonable. That was Obama at the House conference the other day. Applies here, and it applies to every single sitting politician we have, exexpt perhaps John McCain. Bringing home local bacon is the job of a politician, until the process is changed. Paul simply represents his district well, just like all the other elected officials. Am I missing your point?

Comment by Laurie on February 2, 2010

Chris:

I withdraw my question. Sorry to have misread your comments. I get your point.
Comment by Alex on February 3, 2010

This is the treatment Ron Paul gets from Mockingbird establishment frauds for being against the permanent military occupation of Haiti.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 3, 2010

Alex,
I approved your comment simply so I can call you an idiot…

You’re an idiot.

There’s not going to be a permanent military occupation of Haiti. Besides, you Paulers believe the CIA is busy assassinating Obama’s political opponents in the United States. If that’s the case, they have better things to do than put the US Military (because there was a coup, you know) permanently on vacation (after the relief efforts are over, if your deranged idiotic theory were true, I think Haiti would be the 21st century Hawaii deployment).

You’re an idiot and the entire Ron Paul Nation (all 120 of you) is filled with idiots and some of the most ignorant people on the planet.

Comment by Raymond on February 3, 2010

Ron Paul was right not to vote for this!

Your spiteful rhetoric and promotion of violence towards a man who values Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, above all other plants in congress clearly shows your political standing. I do not wish harm to you, unlike you do in your sentiments, but I sincerely hope you come to understand the true message of libertarians like Dr Paul.

God bless.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 3, 2010

I’m not going to publish your e-mail address, Raymond. But seriously? You’re posting with a @adam.com.au e-mail address?

Come on Paulers, at least pretend like you’re Americans.

Yes, I’m secretly plotting to kill life, destroy liberty, and spread misery by calling Ron Paul an idiot. Karl Rove would have hired me years ago if I was THAT good.

http://adam.com.au/ if anyone cares.

Comment by Edward on February 3, 2010

“I find it interesting you voted for Obama”
———————–
Any credibility Kevin had vanished as soon as I heard that…here you go Kevin…the wise words of George Carlin…R.I.P
“If you vote and you elect dishonest incompetent people and they get into office and screw everything up well you’re responsible for what they have done, you caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain as loud as I want about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with”
-George Carlin

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 3, 2010

One thing I really dislike about the blog format is that it allows for people to say ignorant things like that. My personal writing style assumes that my readers have at least half a brain and read all of my posts. It’s actually pretty easy to tell the people who meet that description and the people who just google Ron Paul’s name or find this in Ron Paul forums or other venues and suddenly think they know enough about me to go on the attack.

I wrote about this in detail several days ago.
http://www.ktracy.com/2010/reflecting-on-my-vote-for-obama/

I don’t expect people to agree, but I did use my best judgment and the long term health of the Republican Party and conservative movement was a strong factor in my decision.

Comment by briand on February 4, 2010

Since you mentioned Traficant I must say that I hope he does decide to run for congress again. I love his radio show and what he has been up to.

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/83497077.html

Comment by bob barker on February 7, 2010

Key kevin, How about I punch you in the throat

Fucking idiot.

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 7, 2010

I wasn’t going to approve your comment, but if you ever grow a pair and try, I want to have some evidence that rearranging your face was an act of self defense. Thanks, theman@gmail.com from 98.180.201.184 in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Comment by greg on February 9, 2010

Interesting article Mr.Tracy, I must admit that like you and millions of other people on this earth that find Mr. Paul not only silly but down right ignorant in most of his views,I must ask this question… besides the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in haiti..which no amout of money will ever buy back….how much does it really cost to replace a lean to and a couple pots and pans?I mean really..these people had nothing before this tragedy struck…do we really need to rebuild this island? lets just send em some tupperwear and a gift card for $50 to menards…better yet..lets send em a king!..yea a king so he can run this island and with his great ideas make life better for these poor people….yep,,thats what we should do…tupperwear, $50 gift card, and ..KING PAUL!!..thats called killing 2 birds with 1 stone..keep up the great website ,your doing a great job!

Comment by Kevin Tracy on February 9, 2010

Well, practically speaking, there’s damaged infrastructure and a significant amount of cleanup that needs to be done. As bad as this tragedy is, if the rebuilding is done responsibly, it can be a blessing in disguise. Take the Chicago Fire for example. The entire city was destroyed, but it’s been rebuilt into the greatest and most beautiful city in the world. It’s taken a long time to get there, but we got there.

Now Haiti isn’t about to become the new Chicago, but improved access to clean water, electricity, and gas would be a significant improvement for the millions of people devastated by the earthquake. Unfortunately, that’s simply not going to happen without international assistance.

Comment by greg on February 9, 2010

Their infrastructure was damaged from the get go,,,ya see the politicians of haiti built the building,roads and bridges with the cheapest supplies other countries money can buy,,Clinton dumped $800,000,000 in haiti during his 8 yrs. All but $5 went into the pockets of these politicians.We raised almost 1 trillion dollors so far for haiti….and if ya been watching the news…well..very lil is actually going to help.Its like tarp…no one knows where its really going to.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Somebody from Haiti needs to punch Ron Paul in the throat!

43 Comments »

Leave a comment