Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Christopher Hoops

     Sean Hannity’s obsession with Newt is actually a little weird.

  • Christopher Hoops

    Conservatives, particularly the bible-thumpers, hate the liberal media, while accusing them of anything sinister their evangelically matriculated minds can come up with. Mr Woods is using their terms to smear their noses in the mess they have made on our nation’s carpet.

    Furthermore, they actually believe that the media wants to destroy this country because it benefits their media-government complex to have unending sensationalism and drama, corruption and Islamiphobizionism-ism. A man who will fight that complex –their bread and butter– cannot win without them losing.

    Ten years ago, I would have stood in line to shake Santorum’s hand. Today, I would walk around that line and buy a beer across the street, with my ‘RON PAUL 2012’ stamped U.S.D., so as to watch the sheep herd into the coffee shop Santorum is visiting; at which he will explain to them how gays are like napkins and marriage is like a paper towel. Or something to that effect.

    To an ex-neocon (10 years sober) the logic is SOUND.

  • Proud “Paulbot”

    Translation of Neocon lingo: “A basic failure in logic.” Translation: “Am I convincing anyone that I know what I am talking about?”

  • Leesimpson54

    The dark ones are gradually becoming resigned to their defeat, and lose more power as each day passes. They see the worldwide morement for peace as more and more people realize the value of coming together, and that by sheer numbers they are achieving their aims. The dark ones have always fedred the day people would wake up to their true selves, and the power that they hold. Fear is no longer the powerful weapon that it was, and the ligh is carrying people throut periods of uncertainty and giving them the strenght to overcome it.

  • Jeremy

    Wow, I had fun reading that. When these “conservatives” actually confront real issues instead of spouting platitudes you realize that they are 100% dyed-in-the-wool Wilsonian progressives. I remain optimistic that these types can and ultimately will be forced out the movement and we will experience a Conservative Renaissance. God bless you Dr. Woods.

  • sirbourbon

    Where do they get the idea that once the earmarks are voted on by both houses of congress that Paul who votes opposed to the final bill is somehow to blame?

    Just because the outlays are spread into his district Ron Paul is contributing to the national debt! Wow, what moronic logic. No wonder we are in a fix trying toelect good people to congress with idiots that run tthese so-called Red websites!

    I suppose these dweebs expect him to be at the distict’s border with a baseball bat ready to beat back the pork?

    He did his best by voting NO to the appropriations bill. What more do these clowns want?

    Once the monies go out to the districts it is his responsibility as a congressman, since congress appropriated it despite its unconstitutionality, to see them distributed.  He fought the fight in congress where it counts and he fights the fight in his books and on the campaign trail.

    These clown “patriots” are the ones that are crazy. They can’t  even give him credit for voting NO on debt ceilling increases!

    They do this just to try to irrate us. They really have no rebuttals; they have no answer that makes sense. They are juveniles with rubber axes to grind against rock solid principles.

    I joined News Busters to irrate them right back. I post as Lrgon.

  • Gibson

    I brought it to a thread at, one guy is screaming that Paul is a Confederate, not a Libertarian. Makes me think of the Zombie special with Tom.

  • Anonymous

    I agree with you.  Those were the exact statements I would have pointed out.  You have to be very careful about how you approach others who do not know what we know.  It is a very time consuming process, but it is possible.

    @ThomasEWoods:disqus  I use your books all the time to teach others about liberty.  I really appreciate what you are doing.  It is much more effective to give my friends one of your books or one written by Ron Paul compared to something like Human Action. 

  • Anonymous

    “So instead we should vote for a hypocrite who loots the federal budget for money for local projects in his district just because he votes against it later? Either spending money on things that are not constitutionally authorized and that we don’t have the money for is wrong or it isn’t.”

    News Flash. The money is already taken. Congress is just deciding what to do with it. Taking Ron Paul’s earmarks off the bill would not reduce spending a single cent, that money would simply be handed over to the bureaucracy to be spent as it sees fit. If I had to choose between 100% earmarks and 0% earmarks, I’d probably go with 100%. At least congressmen are artificially accountable through elections, unlike a bureaucrat.

  • Clay Hamm

    I wanted to respond to all of his nonsense but the site does not allow me to reply. Nice.

  • Anonymous

    I love how they shut the threat down to additional comments. Heaven forbid their thoughts are directly challenged.

    Censorship is often a requirement of academic frailty.

  • David

     And I think Ron Paul has a good enough track record on spending issues to believe that he is sincere when he says he would like to see all of that money returned to the states, and not spend by the federal government at all. If Ron Paul is a hypocrite over this issue, what does that make the other three candidates, who all talk the same fiscal-conservative game, but have much worse records?

  • Centinel1781

    The American political establishment has done a super job
    keeping our country prosperous and our liberties protected, so I am sure that
    the Paul — career politician who has been in Washington longer than any other
    candidate – is probably the best candidate.


    Our country is bankrupt due to unfunded liabilities
    therefore it’s a good idea to vote for a career politician who has contributed
    nothing politically to reduce or eliminate this survival level threat in the
    last 30 years.


    Vague promises to cut spending are good enough for me from a
    Washington career politician who has been unable to mobilize political capital
    to make a dent in this problem in 30+ years while in Congress except to place
    blame – you guessed it – career politicians in Washington.


    I prefer a candidate who recognizes the economic problems
    this nation faces, yet hasn’t been able to force one iota of political change
    for the better while cashing taxpayer funded checks for the last 30 years.


    I am deeply concerned about spending.  Therefore, I would like to vote for a career
    Washington politician who was a unable to muster a shred of political capital
    to stop the funding of Medicare Part D from his own party, thereby adding $7
    trillion to Medicare’s unfunded liabilities.


    I am opposed to bailouts.  
    Therefore, I will vote for the ONLY politician (except Obama) who was
    actually in Congress when these bailouts were passed.


    The federal government is much too involved in education,
    where it has no constitutional role. 
    Therefore, I will vote for the ONLY candidate who was in Congress when
    both the Dept. of Education and No Child Left Behind was passed.


    I will vote for the one career politician who knew that the
    2008 financial crisis was imminent, yet was politically inept and powerless to
    do anything about it.


    I am impressed by a candidate who inspires a fringe cabal of
    a anarcho-capitalists who want to gut the Constitution and dismantle American
    political and civil society.


    I am concerned about taxes. 
    Therefore, I will vote for the candidate who has been in Congress while
    the plunder of tax- payer wealth by the federal government has increased six
    fold and government spending has increased ten fold.


    I believe it is conservative to support a candidate who had
    the political ‘foresight’ to vote to invade Afghanistan and then change his
    mind after hundreds of American lives were lost and a trillion dollars had been


    Even though I lost half of my retirement when the economy
    crashed from the Federal Reserve sugar high of artificially low rates, I would
    like to vote for the career politician whose 30 year quixotic effort to
    dismantle the Fed has resulted in an even more dangerous and destructive


    Even though the Castro regime has engaged in 50 years of
    enslavement, torture, and murder of the Cuban people, I favor dialogue with
    Castro instead of the victims of this policy.


    If someone has a drug problem, I favor a policy of
    legalizing and privatizing the benefits while the costs are still socialized.


    I will vote for a candidate who thinks that an Iraq without
    sanctions and with Saddam Hussein still in power reconstituting his nuclear
    weaponry program will bring the most healing and stability to the Middle East
    and best protect the interests of Western civilization.


    The Brookings Institution is my ‘go to’ for political


    I am deeply concerned about radical Islam, so it is a good
    idea to promote an isolationist policy that allows for the establishment of
    safe havens for non-state faith-based terrorists and the proliferation of nuclear
    weaponry in the Middle East.


     I will vote for the
    only career politician who was in Washington when the Patriot Act was passed,
    yet was politically powerless to protect our freedoms.


    I will selectively parrot the words of Thomas Jefferson out
    of context while ignoring that he was the first President to invade Libya at
    far greater costs than the latest campaign, restricted ALL free trade abroad,
    and annex the largest land mass ever acquired by a President without
    Congressional approval.


    I do not trust the media, yet I will support a candidate
    whose views on the war in Iraq parrot the same conspiracy theories, political
    hyperbole, and misinformation spewed by the extreme leftwing media.


    I know the media will smear or marginalize anyone who would
    really fix this country, so when the leftwing media ignores Ron Paul because
    they recognize that he is a fringe candidate without a politically viable plan
    to fix this country, I will vote for him.


     I want to be spoken
    to like this “My fellow Americans, you suck, we suck, America sucks, – it is
    America’s fault that Moslems kill Moslems, Africans kill Africans, Asians kill


    I think our best chance to gain power  and change Washington is to vote for a
    candidate whose organization was only able to bankroll $3 million to run
    against an Obama campaign that will have over 
    $1 billion


    I have not been exploited enough by the cozy relationship
    between large financial firms and the U.S. government, so I will be voting for
    the only candidate who has been in Congress the last 30 years and utterly
    useless to make a dent in this plunder.


    In sum, I know that a Ron Paul presidency will keep America
    will be safe from statist threats at home and abroad because he has done such a
    great job protecting my rights and my wallet from Washington abuses the last 30
    years in Congress.

  • Stevemcgee99

    I can’t believe how misinformed the first rebuttal was.  

  • Anonymous

    Another neo-con tries to respond and is smacked down:

  • jaffi411

    Not to mention that the man has written a few books about his philosophical leanings and political goals, which should steer you pretty close to what he would want to do as President.  

  • jaffi411

    Tom, it looks like our friend Centinel has attempted to try his hand at tackling your “26 Things…” article.

  • jaffi411

    Darnit, I didn’t see that you also posted the Mises link (beat me by 20 minutes).

    Tom is already familiar with Centinel, his response is not at all surprising.  The State is essentially god to him.  

  • neocontrotsky

    Wow.  That response the moderator of that site without any traffic gave was hilarious.  Are we all sure that it wasn’t a Ron Paul supporter doing a parody of a neo-con O Reilly viewer?  That had to be one of the most pathetic rebuttal attempts I have ever seen on the internet, which is saying a lot. 

  • chris

    I disagree.  Clearly an “anyone but Obama except Ron Paul” supporter.

  • chris

    I’ve never understood the “unelectable” mantra.  12 terms in congress would seem to indicate electability.

    That, and the fact that ONLY Paul and Romney are on all the primary ballots.  Gingrich and Santorum are at -500 or so delegates, and are statistically unelectable in the open primary.  They’ll need a brokered convention, where they are forced to convince the +80% pro-Paul delegate body to switch sides…

  • chris

    He obviously never set foot in Iraq.  Ask a combet vet, grab a pen and paper, and get ready for an education.

  • chris

    If he puts the spending in it makes him guilty in their minds.  The fact that he votes against it, and if every other congressman did the same spending would plummet, never occurs to them.

  • chris

    I like how he lumps all young Paul supporters into the stoner stereotype.  Way to open the big tent…

  • chris

    You can’t be a libertarian if you’re a confederate?  Crap, better turn in my flag…

  • chris

    Or he’s being intellectually dishonest.

  • chris

    The fact that we set the fires never occurs… And if anyone suggests it they are “blame America first”-ers.