PDA

View Full Version : Is anyone else impressed with Ron Paul like I am?


Pages : [1] 2

SNR
06-05-2007, 11:09 PM
The guy is saying all of the right things to get support. He needs money, but if he can continue to get his name thrown out in discussions for serious White House contenders, there's no better man for the job, I think.

In fact, I'm contemplating contributing to his campaign. Every other Republican on that debate doesn't impress me at all. It's Ron Paul or bust for me. And bust for me means voting Democrat.

Ultra Peanut
06-05-2007, 11:11 PM
IN A POST-9/11 SOCIETY RON PAUL IS A THREAT TO THE STATE

sportsman1
06-05-2007, 11:16 PM
I understand his constitutionalist ideals and like them to an extent but he is so weak on defense and just doesn't come off as a very good leader to me. He comes off as a blowhard who appears to fit better under a democratic label. The guy is flat out a liberitarian and has no realm in the GOP field. I respect people who like him for his constitutional values, but I can't repsect the many that like him for his anti war mindset.

Logical
06-05-2007, 11:24 PM
Far too radical for me to support. I like the FAA, CIA, CDC etc.

Direckshun
06-05-2007, 11:27 PM
He's the Dennis K of the GOP.

He'd be in every Presidential nomination race if I had my say. I'd never vote for him but he brings up the issues and he does it with authority.

recxjake
06-05-2007, 11:27 PM
Some things yes, some things nooooo

Pitt Gorilla
06-06-2007, 12:02 AM
The guy is flat out a liberitarian and has no realm in the GOP field.
I love this quote.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 12:02 AM
I support Ron Paul but, not for the reasons most people like him. The first thing most people notice about Paul is his consistent position on the war, civil liberties, and a weak central government. Like it or not, it is very different from the opinions from the rest of the candidates.

Ron Paul piqued my interest with his stance on monetary policy/reform.

"A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested."

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military - industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!"

"Good morning, Mr. Greenspan. I understand that you did not take my friendly advice last fall. I thought maybe you should look for other employment, but I see you have kept your job."

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ji_G0MqAqq8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ji_G0MqAqq8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

patteeu
06-06-2007, 12:04 AM
He's the Dennis K of the GOP.

He'd be in every Presidential nomination race if I had my say. I'd never vote for him but he brings up the issues and he does it with authority.

Speaking of Dennis K, did he recruit that Gravel guy from Alaska to make him look more mainstream? Holy smokes, Gravel is a hoot.

Ultra Peanut
06-06-2007, 12:10 AM
People from Alaska aren't recruited, they're made... insane by the weather, apparently.

Logical
06-06-2007, 12:30 AM
People from Alaska aren't recruited, they're made... insane by the weather, apparently.

It is funny how so many diverse people agree on Gravel appearing to be a very poor candidate.

Silock
06-06-2007, 12:49 AM
Ron Paul is the only actual conservative in this whole circus right now.

I don't think he's weak on defense at all. I think he's just non-traditional, as traditional nowadays mirrors giant government on both sides of the aisle. Ron Paul wants to try and get us back to the way the country was before the New Deal.

Also, he's not "anti-war." He just follows the Just War Theory, which is an incredibly sound ethical position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Silock
06-06-2007, 12:49 AM
It is funny how so many diverse people agree on Gravel appearing to be a very poor candidate.

I love him. The guy has balls and he's not intimidated by anyone. That's awesome :)

SNR
06-06-2007, 01:50 AM
I understand his constitutionalist ideals and like them to an extent but he is so weak on defense and just doesn't come off as a very good leader to me. He comes off as a blowhard who appears to fit better under a democratic label. The guy is flat out a liberitarian and has no realm in the GOP field. I respect people who like him for his constitutional values, but I can't repsect the many that like him for his anti war mindset.No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.

ChiefaRoo
06-06-2007, 02:08 AM
The guy is saying all of the right things to get support. He needs money, but if he can continue to get his name thrown out in discussions for serious White House contenders, there's no better man for the job, I think.

In fact, I'm contemplating contributing to his campaign. Every other Republican on that debate doesn't impress me at all. It's Ron Paul or bust for me. And bust for me means voting Democrat.

NO!, NEIN!, NEGATIVE! and finally, Hell no. Duncan Hunter would make a far better dark horse candidate but my money right now is on Fred Thompson. I like him and am looking forward to hearing his views. If he starts to weasel on immigration, or get a limp with a border fence then I'm going for Giuliani as I think he would be as good or better wartime Pres. than Thompson. McCain can eat me with his "American won't work to pick lettuce" quote and his offbeat anger issues worry me a bit. Romney? He seems too contrived for my tastes and the rest of the field just isn't going to win. Thompson or Giuliani for me, we'll see.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 02:15 AM
No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.

The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.

Silock
06-06-2007, 03:16 AM
The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.

It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.

There IS a way to ratchet back government. It's called "getting rid of policies and laws that are absolutely unnecessary." People only believe there's no way to trim down government because there's hardly anyone alive today that remembers a time when no one even cared about being a United States senator. All the action was in the state legislatures.

We might as well re-write the Constitution at this point. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has actually read and understands the Constitution. He's not advocating anything that the founding fathers didn't advocate.

Direckshun
06-06-2007, 08:02 AM
Speaking of Dennis K, did he recruit that Gravel guy from Alaska to make him look more mainstream? Holy smokes, Gravel is a hoot.
No shit. :shake:

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 08:16 AM
No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :thumb:

To those who think he's weak on defense....he does believe in having a strong defense but not flaunting it. No offense is the best defense. Be like the Swiss, armed to the teeth, but neutral in the disputes of others.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 08:20 AM
It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.
:clap: :clap:

Yep! Not only that but Ronald Reagan won in a landslide with that message years ago. The Reps were put in when Clinton shifted left after running as a moderate and a tax cutter. Right now the people are anti-Washington with low regard for both parties, congress and the president.

I don't think Ron Paul would be able to get everything he wanted but ya' can't say his message is a losing one. It seems to have shifted elections before.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 08:27 AM
The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.
Conventional polls have often not included his name though.
He also had little name recognition when taken.
He does have broader support on the net.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.
Ron Paul has little appeal to that portion of the electorate if most of those even vote.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.
Well the GOP isn't even doing that.
They're not doing it because they completely lack the WILL to do so which is a lack of vision and leadership. They are not even selling this anymore. Not explainiing or educating the people on why it's better. Bush governs to the left of LBJ and that's true on domestic policy.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.
Well, even if there may be truth in this...it's also apathy to just plain give up.
There's a lot of busy people out there working to restore some sanity to our govt. It doesn't happen by just giving up.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 08:38 AM
I support Ron Paul but, not for the reasons most people like him.
Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested."

:clap: :clap:

I think it was 7 years ago, the dollar was worth .04 ¢
Inflation= the hidden tax
See, this is what the NeoCon supply-siders don't let us in on....it requires huge deficits....because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. ......This is not capitalism!"

This is what I've been tryin' to say here. We don't have capitalism and it's not capitalism ( free enterprise and markets and trade that are voluntary). Therefore it is not capitalism that is causing our health care crisis, energy crisis, loss of jobs overseas and our poor education performance etc. It's too much govt. We're going the way of every other socialism just slower.

But ya' see as big govt Newt Gringrich says....he's gonna just make our bureaucrats entrepeneurial. LMAO! He thinks he can mix the two and just make socialism work....like Gorby.

Don't forget the GOP is the party that gave us the progressive income tax!

htismaqe
06-06-2007, 09:40 AM
It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.

There IS a way to ratchet back government. It's called "getting rid of policies and laws that are absolutely unnecessary." People only believe there's no way to trim down government because there's hardly anyone alive today that remembers a time when no one even cared about being a United States senator. All the action was in the state legislatures.

We might as well re-write the Constitution at this point. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has actually read and understands the Constitution. He's not advocating anything that the founding fathers didn't advocate.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

listopencil
06-06-2007, 10:18 AM
IN A POST-9/11 SOCIETY RON PAUL IS A THREAT TO THE STATE


Every free thinking American is a threat to The State at this point. The State is a disgusting, bloated animal living off of our blood, toil, tears and sweat. **** The State.

Ultra Peanut
06-06-2007, 10:24 AM
smashthestate

listopencil
06-06-2007, 10:25 AM
smashthestate


Vote Libertarian.

banyon
06-06-2007, 10:27 AM
It's probably not surprising that I have serious policy disagreements with him, esp. on domestic issues and economic policy.

But of all the Republican Candidates in the field, he is probably the one I have the most respect for. He is a man of principle and conviction and surrounded by empty shells (and shills).

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 10:38 AM
Ron Paul on TDS. This is from Monday night, I didnt even know he was on or I would've recorded this.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6haC0eIyRaA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6haC0eIyRaA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

FD
06-06-2007, 10:44 AM
Ron Paul piqued my interest with his stance on monetary policy/reform.

If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.


because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

I think you're thinking of Cheney. Bernanke certainly does think deficits matter. Cheney's quote was taken out of context too, in context he was actually pretty much correct, which is not to say that on the whole deficits dont matter.

BIG_DADDY
06-06-2007, 11:05 AM
Vote Libertarian.

Absolutely. I would vote for satan over Hillary.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 11:30 AM
If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/h6/discm3.htm

Discontinuance of M3

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

Measures of large-denomination time deposits will continue to be published by the Board in the Flow of Funds Accounts (Z.1 release) on a quarterly basis and in the H.8 release on a weekly basis (for commercial banks).

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.

***I think this last bit is BS. How can we expect our government to exercise some oversight if the Fed decides not to publish stats on the money supply?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy)

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes in decreasing the size of government. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve. Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!".

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." He is frequently considered an advocate of small business. Jack Farris, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business....He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."

Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP). of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money for those on Wall Street and poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Minimize federal interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He also endorses defederalization of the healthcare system.

In an interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Importance of the gold standard

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through re-introduction of the gold standard. A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "...restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions. In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.” Paul's personal financial disclosures reveal extensive private investments in gold and silver, through equities and warrants in companies including Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain Dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East," this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 11:34 AM
If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.
I like him on a lot of his monetary reform issues.

But, do you think he would get to really reform all those things?
President is only one part of our govt. I think he'd get maybe 20% or maybe a bit more or less that is considered outside the mainstream. At least it would move things in the right direction and open up some debates on those items you can't support. Change has to begin somewhere.

I think you still should support him for this reason. True change has to start somewhere. Besides he's right, we're on an unsustainable path making the same mistakes on monetary issues as past history has shown leads nowhere but down.


I think you're thinking of Cheney. Bernanke certainly does think deficits matter. Cheney's quote was taken out of context too, in context he was actually pretty much correct, which is not to say that on the whole deficits dont matter.
Well then NeoCons tend to pooh-poh deficits.

BIG_DADDY
06-06-2007, 11:39 AM
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/h6/discm3.htm

Discontinuance of M3

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

Measures of large-denomination time deposits will continue to be published by the Board in the Flow of Funds Accounts (Z.1 release) on a quarterly basis and in the H.8 release on a weekly basis (for commercial banks).

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.

***I think this last bit is BS. How can we expect our government to exercise some oversight if the Fed decides not to publish stats on the money supply?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy)

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes in decreasing the size of government. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve. Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!".

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." He is frequently considered an advocate of small business. Jack Farris, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business....He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."

Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP). of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money for those on Wall Street and poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Minimize federal interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He also endorses defederalization of the healthcare system.

In an interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Importance of the gold standard

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through re-introduction of the gold standard. A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "...restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions. In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.” Paul's personal financial disclosures reveal extensive private investments in gold and silver, through equities and warrants in companies including Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain Dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East," this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran

Wow, sounds too good to be true.

DanT
06-06-2007, 12:09 PM
I've enjoyed reading his columns on www.lewrockwell.com in the past few years:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

FD
06-06-2007, 01:17 PM
I like him on a lot of his monetary reform issues.

But, do you think he would get to really reform all those things?
President is only one part of our govt. I think he'd get maybe 20% or maybe a bit more or less that is considered outside the mainstream. At least it would move things in the right direction and open up some debates on those items you can't support. Change has to begin somewhere.

I think you still should support him for this reason. True change has to start somewhere. Besides he's right, we're on an unsustainable path making the same mistakes on monetary issues as past history has shown leads nowhere but down.

Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.



Well then NeoCons tend to pooh-poh deficits.

That they do. But are you calling Ben Bernanke a Neocon? I've never heard that.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 01:25 PM
Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.

I don't know if that makes him dumb.

That they do. But are you calling Ben Bernanke a Neocon? I've never heard that.
I haven't a clue if he is or not. I just thought I'd change my post to reflect more what the line of thought is amongs our current Reps. To be honest, I thought I saw an oped at LewRockwell.com attributing what I posted about deficits not mattering to Bernanke. I just can't recall exactly for sure.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 01:27 PM
CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate/#comments.) is censoring the user comments. CNN replaced the entire comments page

here is what the comments looked like last night:

The GOP presidential debate just ended — who shined and who faltered? Add a comment to weigh in.

Filed under Uncategorized Posted 6/5/2007 11:05:00 PM | Permalink 179 Comments comment | Add a comment

Ron Paul
Posted By Neil, Lexington Ky : June 5, 2007 9:13 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Joe, San Francisco, CA : June 5, 2007 9:14 pm

Only one candidate stood out strongly: Doctor Ron Paul! Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul! :)
Posted By Dave, Naples, NY : June 5, 2007 9:15 pm

Ron Paul won. Without a question. It's so ridiculous to see that these guys keep pumping the same neo-conservative line about them "hating our freedoms" when CIA reports have historically said otherwise.
Posted By Elias Ambler : June 5, 2007 9:16 pm

Ron Paul won the debate. He is the only candidate that seems to be honest and not out of touch. He is also anti-amnesty and believes that Americans have the right to privacy and believes in property rights (anti-eminent domain: none of the other candidates have even touched it). Before this debate I was unsure about who to support (Democrat or Republican) and with this debate I'm totally with Ron Paul.
Posted By Jerel Poor, St Louis Missouri : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Justin Kansas City, MO : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Brian, Lapeer, MI : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul. All the other candidates not only fail to grasp the failure in Iraq but are chomping at the bit to nuke Iran proactively. Wow, talk about being detached from reality.
Posted By Ty Todd : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul again.
Posted By Sammy, Dyersburg, TN : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

The one candidate who is consistently right on the issues is Duncan Hunter. But he's all steak and no sizzle.
Posted By Ron, Phoenix, Arizona : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Top three (in order): Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo. I like Gilmore, sort of like Romney, but I don't trust Giuliani, McCain, or Brownback, or Hunter.
Posted By Tim Jost, Denver, CO : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Ron Paul won hands down.
Posted By Mark, Detroit, Michigan : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Karen Vallejo, CA : June 5, 2007 9:20 pm

Ron Paul blew them out of the water.
Posted By Jeff Workman from Welch, West Virginia : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

It was boring, boring, boring! I could have sworn Bush was doing all the talking. The repetitive "my friends" from McCain showed just how superior he feels…just like Bush. If nominated, he does not have my vote!!!!
Posted By Lorraine Moser, Myrtle Beach, SC : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

Ron Paul is the only true conservative among them.
Posted By Chris, Larkspur, CA : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

Ron Paul shined again as the only candidate who avoided rhetoric and came through with a strong message that was well received.
Posted By Jonathan Sacramento, CA : June 5, 2007 9:22 pm

Ron Paul dominated the competition and made them look like fools once again.
Posted By Kirk, Myrtle Beach SC : June 5, 2007 9:22 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By A.L. Dawson : June 5, 2007 9:23 pm

Ron Paul won. He showed that he is the only conservative on that stage. He understands our Nation's great founding principles that continue to guide us today.

Giuliani was terrible. He ran around questions. Even God doesn't want to hear him speak. Though only about 4 of 10 candidates answered what is the worst thing that GWB has done as president.

BIG_DADDY
06-06-2007, 01:30 PM
Giuliani was terrible. He ran around questions. Even God doesn't want to hear him speak. Though only about 4 of 10 candidates answered what is the worst thing that GWB has done as president.

That's easy, only taking care of the ultra wealthy, banks, oil companies ect.

FD
06-06-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't know if that makes him dumb.



To me, and essentially every economist, it seems dumb to get rid of a stable, well-managed (rules or discretionary based) fiat currency in favor of a currency that would be much more volatile, not under our control, and that would suck all the credit out of our economy.

BIG_DADDY
06-06-2007, 01:35 PM
To me, and essentially every economist, it seems dumb to get rid of a stable, well-managed (rules or discretionary based) fiat currency in favor of a currency that would be much more volatile, not under our control, and that would suck all the credit out of our economy.


It's just words dude. The banking industry would never let this happen.

Anybody address health care?

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 01:40 PM
Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.

the main point is that the Government should print the money itself. the Fed's practice of fractional reserve banking is the root problem.

Ron Paul advocates a dual currency, one backed by gold, the other is not. It's more of a fail safe in case the fiat money collapses.

FD
06-06-2007, 01:58 PM
the main point is that the Government should print the money itself. the Fed's practice of fractional reserve banking is the root problem.

Ron Paul advocates a dual currency, one backed by gold, the other is not. It's more of a fail safe in case the fiat money collapses.

How does a dual currency work without a dual price system? I genuinely dont know because this is a new idea to me, I read several of Paul's articles on the gold standard but I dont see anything about a dual currency.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 02:00 PM
I'll look for the video, that's where I heard it from

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 03:01 PM
To me, and essentially every economist, it seems dumb to get rid of a stable, well-managed (rules or discretionary based) fiat currency in favor of a currency that would be much more volatile, not under our control, and that would suck all the credit out of our economy.

Every economist? Well, that's just not true. Not Mises, Hayek, Sennholtz or any other non-Keynesian but free-market non-mercantilist economist. "Every" economist simply means mainstream, status-quo Keynesians or mercantilists. I don't know if you're Keynesian or not but that is how most are educated today. Really its just status quo, and agreed upon reality. The new guys on the block always get ridiculed.

Now, not challenging you here, but why is a fiat currency more stable?
Why is it when things get shaky in countries and people plan to get out they usually resort to buying gold? I ask you this seriously.

I don't purport to know everything about gold versus fiat. Sennholtz says money can be anything people value the most...it's just that gold historically gold winds up being the most valued....especially when things get shaky.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 03:05 PM
Anybody address health care?
Guiliani did...and I have to say he actually sounded conservative and I liked his answer on that...that alone however.

He did not call for a govt system or bloated bureaucracy or to turn bureaucats into entrepreneurs like the alchemist Gingrich.

Private health accounts and tax credits even for individuals.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 04:11 PM
havent found that video yet...still looking

check out Ron Paul's Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/) it has 700 documents (speeches to Congress & articles from the the Congressional website) . 80 documents on the Economy/Monetary policy from Ron Paul.

Fishpicker
06-06-2007, 04:23 PM
Forward Dante:

I found this quote regarding 2 currencies.

"It is not really my position to close the Fed down. It would require too much adjustment to do that overnight. I advocate competing currencies--to legalize another currency that we can work in. That means repealing legal tender laws and repealing all taxes on gold and silver. If people want to use another money, then they can, and if not they can use paper."

the rest of the article is here (http://www.reason.com/news/show/38384.html)

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 04:23 PM
havent found that video yet...still looking

check out Ron Paul's Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/) it has 700 documents (speeches to Congress & articles from the the Congressional website) . 80 documents on the Economy/Monetary policy from Ron Paul.
BTW, folks (especially Fishpicker,Taco and Cleveland Bronco who have mentioned this issue) call your congresspeeps and senators on that immigration bill. They're all back from Memorial Wknd break...and Ted Kennedy is trying to slip in a North American Union provision to become law within the immigration bill without debate. This despite several states fighting parts of this successfully at the local levels. It's just not on the national radar either. We don't want Ameros, like Euros, eventually do we?


Call...don't just be part of the chattering classes.

Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 05:26 PM
BTW, folks (especially Fishpicker,Taco and Cleveland Bronco who have mentioned this issue) call your congresspeeps and senators on that immigration bill...North American Union provision to become law within the immigration bill without debate....

I'm not buying what your saying yet. Provide proof, please.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 06:29 PM
I'm not buying what your saying yet. Provide proof, please.
That's easy enough call and ask up on the hill...in fact call Kennedy's office.
That's good enough right? I can get it but I can't do it right now.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2007, 07:06 PM
Here ya' go. I got it from an email from a friend.

S1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007
Section 423 (S Amdt #1150) offered on May 21, 2007 by Senator Ted Kennedy. It promotes Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America/// “the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Certain members of congress and the WH wrote it.

But you'll have to find a link if that's what you want...I couldn't find.
I don't know if something that is pending would be posted to the net yet by the govt.


There's also Ruben Hinojosa's (D-TX) Hope Fund Act of 2007 (H.R. 1999) which allots $5 million to La Raza in 2008, and $10 million each year thereafter. So La Raza, an anti-American group which supports amnesty etc. will be funded by US taxpayers.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 07:56 PM
No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.

The Republican party hasn't been non-interventionist for decades with the brief exception of the period following the end of the cold war when interventions looked more like a lethal brand of social work than self-interested warfare.

patteeu
06-06-2007, 08:06 PM
See, this is what the NeoCon supply-siders don't let us in on....it requires huge deficits....because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

Neocon supply-siders! The new, improved bogeymen. LMAO


This is what I've been tryin' to say here. We don't have capitalism and it's not capitalism ( free enterprise and markets and trade that are voluntary). Therefore it is not capitalism that is causing our health care crisis, energy crisis, loss of jobs overseas and our poor education performance etc. It's too much govt. We're going the way of every other socialism just slower.

But ya' see as big govt Newt Gringrich says....he's gonna just make our bureaucrats entrepeneurial. LMAO! He thinks he can mix the two and just make socialism work....like Gorby.

It's weird because sometimes you say things that are insightful and sometimes you say things that make me think you don't have a clue what the terms you throw around mean. See neocon supply-siders above for an example. There is nothing about "neocon" or "supply-sider" that suggests that deficits don't matter even though there may be some neocons and some supply-siders and even some neocon supply-siders who believe that. It would be like saying this is what left-handed people don't let us in on.... it requires huge deficts.

Don't forget the GOP is the party that gave us the progressive income tax!

The party that gave us the progressive income tax, whatever it was called, is long gone and it bears very little relationship to the current positions of either of our major parties. The name of the party isn't nearly as important as what it stands for.

Silock
06-06-2007, 09:00 PM
Speaking of now knowing what you stand for, that perfectly describes today's Republican party.

FD
06-06-2007, 09:03 PM
Every economist? Well, that's just not true. Not Mises, Hayek, Sennholtz or any other non-Keynesian but free-market non-mercantilist economist. "Every" economist simply means mainstream, status-quo Keynesians or mercantilists. I don't know if you're Keynesian or not but that is how most are educated today. Really its just status quo, and agreed upon reality. The new guys on the block always get ridiculed.

Now, not challenging you here, but why is a fiat currency more stable?
Why is it when things get shaky in countries and people plan to get out they usually resort to buying gold? I ask you this seriously.

I don't purport to know everything about gold versus fiat. Sennholtz says money can be anything people value the most...it's just that gold historically gold winds up being the most valued....especially when things get shaky.

Well I said "essentially every" and you perhaps should have given examples of living economists who support it. Nothing against Hayek he's a hero of mine, but more as a moral philosopher than for his actual economics work which is pretty outdated.

Now, a fiat currency certainly isnt inherently more stable, but when economists properly understand monetary policy (as we do in the US) the dollar is treated almost as a gold standard itself. When things get "shaky" people put their money in dollars, its the world's reserve currency after all. The US dollar is best run as a stable, fiat currency not subject to the uncontrollable vicissitudes of the world gold market.

This being said, I'm sorry for always sh*ting up Ron Paul threads with this pointless debate, I really do like the guy and his positions except for this one, which I just find silly.

Hooray for a Constitutional government.

listopencil
06-06-2007, 10:16 PM
Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)


That's amazing. I was posting on an immigration thread earlier an was thinking that we needed to examine just that.

Logical
06-06-2007, 10:23 PM
...


Call...don't just be part of the chattering classes.

Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)

I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2007, 10:42 PM
Here ya' go. I got it from an email from a friend.

S1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007
Section 423 (S Amdt #1150) offered on May 21, 2007 by Senator Ted Kennedy. It promotes Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America/// “the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Thanks. That's not a North American union.

There's also Ruben Hinojosa's (D-TX) Hope Fund Act of 2007 (H.R. 1999) which allots $5 million to La Raza in 2008, and $10 million each year thereafter. So La Raza, an anti-American group which supports amnesty etc. will be funded by US taxpayers.

That's exactly the kind of crap I expect from a politician of either party from Texas. (EDIT: Ron Paul excluded.)

La Raza is anti-American, and that not a term I like to throw around willy nilly.

go bowe
06-07-2007, 03:25 PM
I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.yeah, that pesky 14th amendment keeps getting in they way...

Wrasse
06-07-2007, 04:26 PM
I knew very little about this guy until I read this thread...I've been watching and reading anything I can get a hold of on this guy that is presented on the Internet...he's my new hero.

Thanks for this thread!!

Must...go...find...more...

Silock
06-07-2007, 04:46 PM
I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.

Being that he's probably the only candidate who understands the Constitution, I think he knows.

Taco John
06-07-2007, 05:58 PM
I understand his constitutionalist ideals and like them to an extent but he is so weak on defense and just doesn't come off as a very good leader to me. He comes off as a blowhard who appears to fit better under a democratic label. The guy is flat out a liberitarian and has no realm in the GOP field. I respect people who like him for his constitutional values, but I can't repsect the many that like him for his anti war mindset.



Ron Paul is the strongest on defense out there.

Unless your idea of "strong on defense" is sending kids to die for no apparent reason.

Taco John
06-07-2007, 06:49 PM
Congratulations to Ron Paul for being the first candidate that I have ever supported with a monetary donation (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/).


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9dPyj_fTZBg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 08:27 PM
Thanks. That's not a North American union.
Okay. So what is it?

If you're a conservative...this source should be acceptable to you.
North American Union plan headed to Congress in fall (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830)

As WND reported last week, the controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration with remarkable similarities to the CSIS plan.[/quote]

There's lots of links within that including a pdf.
It's not going to scream "union"...it'll never pass.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 08:34 PM
Neocon supply-siders! The new, improved bogeymen. LMAO
You mean you fell for the bait? :p

[quote]It's weird because sometimes you say things that are insightful and sometimes you say things that make me think you don't have a clue what the terms you throw around mean. See neocon supply-siders above for an example. There is nothing about "neocon" or "supply-sider" that suggests that deficits don't matter even though there may be some neocons and some supply-siders and even some neocon supply-siders who believe that.

NeoCons are big advocates of ss pat....with no intention of cutting spending.
So the bold part is what I meant. And spending never really gets cut.



The party that gave us the progressive income tax, whatever it was called, is long gone and it bears very little relationship to the current positions of either of our major parties. The name of the party isn't nearly as important as what it stands for.


:thumb: Correct. It was far more conservative then, despite that amendment.
Now it's really progressive. Good catch pat. That's what I like about you! :D

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 08:53 PM
Well I said "essentially every" and you perhaps should have given examples of living economists who support it. Nothing against Hayek he's a hero of mine, but more as a moral philosopher than for his actual economics work which is pretty outdated.

Is Keynes still alive? I
Seems our system still follows him resolutely despite his flaws.
Mises has his own institute to carry on his studies and his work is just as valid, eventhough we ignor it. LewRockwell carries on his work today. Although I don't remember what Mises said about gold, exactly.

What's wrong with a dead man anyway....IF his ideas are still valid?
That seems like an arbitrary claim.

I actually like Sennholtz. ( who happens to be a Misean too.) Ever hear of him? I loved his "Money and Freedom."
BTW he's still kicking too. I've even met him. He says money should just be whatever people value.


Now, a fiat currency certainly isnt inherently more stable,

Good. I'd agree with that.
I think one can say that money is basically an idea backed by confidence.

There's things that can undermine that confidence.

...but when economists properly understand monetary policy (as we do in the US) the dollar is treated almost as a gold standard itself. When things get "shaky" people put their money in dollars, its the world's reserve currency after all. The US dollar is best run as a stable, fiat currency not subject to the uncontrollable vicissitudes of the world gold market.
No when things get really, really shaky people have historically put their money in gold. I know that much at least on this.

It's true that it's been dollars for awhile...but afaiu we're in a dollar slide. Ya' know so long as people want dollars ( because they value them more than anything else) that all works out fine. But there's no permanent guarantee of that. I mean some claim we did Iraq because SH was going to trade oil for euros. The Saudi's take dollars. If China who pays our debt decides dollars are worth it...well then we're okay. But if not...well. It won't be pretty. Things don't stay the same forever.



This being said, I'm sorry for always sh*ting up Ron Paul threads with this pointless debate, I really do like the guy and his positions except for this one, which I just find silly.
Ya' know I've no problem with it. So long as it relates to his views. I'd actually like to learn more about this gold thing.

Hooray for a Constitutional government.

PBJ

BucEyedPea
06-07-2007, 10:15 PM
Being that he's probably the only candidate who understands the Constitution, I think he knows.
I looked it up, because he raised a good point. Apparently Paul's bill is actually a Constitutional Amendment. From what else I just did a quick search on this idea has had some controversy in the past....as regards those who are aliens still maintaining allegiance to another nation....s/g along those lines.

Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Tough to pass an amendment but with things running at high fever right now...it would seem possible. The politicians would get in the way though.

And for Cleveland Bronco...this same Paul article also discusses SPP bill as a union.
There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico, and the prime minister of Canada, known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.” This somewhat secretive agreement – a treaty in all but name – aims to erase the borders between the United States, Canada, and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul389.html

Fishpicker
06-07-2007, 10:38 PM
this same Paul article also discusses SPP bill as a union.

the SPP (nafta super-highway) is the actuary arm of the NAU. All of it is an outgrowth of the original NAFTA agreement.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/prtR-h8oKqU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/prtR-h8oKqU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ron Paul on NAFTA, WTO, & SPP

sportsman1
06-07-2007, 11:43 PM
Unless your idea of "strong on defense" is sending kids to die for no apparent reason.

Yes that is exactly what I mean.. ROFL

Boyceofsummer
06-08-2007, 12:12 AM
he will most likely get my vote!

YOU DA MAN PAUL!

Logical
06-08-2007, 12:27 AM
I cannot really believe there are so many people who will ignore that this guy wants to eliminate the FAA, CDC and just about every other worthwhile government agency as he would enact his radical view of the world.

Silock
06-08-2007, 12:35 AM
I cannot really believe there are so many people who will ignore that this guy wants to eliminate the FAA, CDC and just about every other worthwhile government agency as he would enact his radical view of the world.

Because private or state-funded agencies couldn't possibly do the job as efficiently as the federal government, right?

See? I TOLD you we were way further off on policy than you thought :)

Logical
06-08-2007, 12:44 AM
Because private or state-funded agencies couldn't possibly do the job as efficiently as the federal government, right?

See? I TOLD you we were way further off on policy than you thought :)

Not sure what you mean, distributed functions such as are required to have an FAA or CDC won't be effectively handled by the states acting separately. Nor can private industry be trusted to put our safety before their profit incentlve. I am a realist.

RedDread
06-08-2007, 12:47 AM
Paul has been a powerful presence at the debates but he doesn't fit with either of the parties due to his isolationism and extreme liberal economic leanings.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2007, 12:49 AM
Paul has been a powerful presence at the debates but he doesn't fit with either of the parties due to his isolationism and extreme liberal economic leanings.

Liberal???

Oh well, we all know that extreme is a relative term.

Logical, I thought you claimed to be a libertarian when I first got here?
Why do you have a hard time with parts of govt privatized?

Our Founders were considered radical and extreme too.

RedDread
06-08-2007, 12:53 AM
economically liberal means something a bit different, basically it's near total deregulation of all markets and privatizing of many government institutions. Paul is almost a pure capitalist which is economically liberal. This is a tenant of the republican party but not to the extremes that Paul takes it.

Logical
06-08-2007, 12:58 AM
Liberal???

Oh well, we all know that extreme is a relative term.

Logical, I thought you claimed to be a libertarianwhen I first got here?

Our Founders were considered racidal too.He is far beyond the pale when it comes to being a libertarian. Too extreme for me.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2007, 01:02 AM
Far beyond the pale for libertarianism?

That IS libertarianism.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2007, 01:05 AM
economically liberal means something a bit different, basically it's near total deregulation of all markets and privatizing of many government institutions. Paul is almost a pure capitalist which is economically liberal. This is a tenant of the republican party but not to the extremes that Paul takes it.
Okay, I get what ya' mean now....you're using it in the "classical liberal" sense and not what it's come to mean today. Good for you. Yes, Paul is completely laissez-faire. I just think a radical jolt of this would start to move things back rightward toward the balanced center as he'd have a congress to contend with.
If nothing got signed...well heck! We'd at least be left alone. :) The more current issues that has most people upset would get dealt with at least. It won't happen with the others...all others.

Logical
06-08-2007, 01:10 AM
Far beyond the pale for libertarianism?

That IS libertarianism.There are shades of libertarianism.

For example I believe we should remove education from the national governments purview. States should control highway laws. No national welfare program. We could go up and down the list of federal agencies and I would probably want to eliminate at least half of them and put them under either state or private control but there are many like the Armed Services, CIA, NSA, CDC, FAA etc that I believe should in fact must remain Federal to protect and preserve the general welfare of the people.

Fishpicker
06-08-2007, 01:15 AM
Not sure what you mean, distributed functions such as are required to have an FAA or CDC won't be effectively handled by the states acting separately. Nor can private industry be trusted to put our safety before their profit incentlve. I am a realist.

the CDC doesnt do jack to protect the public. they dont have enough vaccines to prevent anything. They dont even have enough vaccines for the people who want to update immunizations.

here, let me give you an example of just how ineffective the CDC is...

Associated Press - May 31, 2007 1:44 PM ET

ATLANTA (AP) - The father-in-law of the tuberculosis patient under the first federal quarantine since 1963 works in a CDC laboratory aimed at preventing the disease and has co-authored papers on tuberculosis.

Bob Cooksey said he gave his son-in-law Andrew Speaker "fatherly advice" when he learned he had contracted the disease. Speaker has a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis that has proved resistant to drugs.

Cooksey said that had he know his daughter was at any risk, he would not have allowed her to travel. He said he did not act in any official capacity with the CDC on the case.

Cooksey, a microbiologist at the CDC's Mycobacteriology Laboratory Branch, said his daughter Sarah married Speaker a few weeks ago.

A spokesman for the Colorado hospital where Speaker will be treated said doctors plan to begin immediately with two antibiotics, one oral and one intravenous. He also will undergo a basic physical exam, a test to evaluate how infectious he is and a CT scan and lung X-ray.

Speaker is a 31-year-old personal injury attorney who practices law with his father in Atlanta. According to a biography posted on a Web site connected with Speaker's law firm, he attended the US Naval Academy, graduated from the University of Georgia with a degree in finance, then attended University of Georgia's law school.

His father, Ted Speaker, unsuccessfully ran for a Fulton County Superior Court judgeship in 2004, the same year his son was admitted into the Georgia Bar.

Logical
06-08-2007, 01:23 AM
Fishpicker,

C'mon man the news media survives off of negative news, you of course are only going to hear the negatives. Does not matter whether we are talking about the CDC, FAA, Iraq, or what Ron Paul stands for. I know all aboiut that story, in fact did you know that Andrew Speaker left the Naval Academy under questionable circumstances.

Fishpicker
06-08-2007, 01:52 AM
I am more skeptical of federal government than I am of the MSM. In addition to the negative news you mention there is plenty of news that isnt presented in the MSM. The CDC is one of the most dogged on agencies from a long list of extraneous agencies.

Silock
06-08-2007, 03:12 AM
I don't get it.

Some of you guys like to pick out that "Well, Ron Paul isn't *this way*, so I won't support him." However, the candidates that some of you WILL support also present you with issues that you aren't 100% on.

There is no perfect candidate, and I don't expect everyone to believe the exact same way. But I'm a realist, and the reality is that Paul is a constitutionalist, and far more conservative than any other candidate running. If you call yourself a conservative, Ron Paul is the candidate that makes the most sense, even if there are some things that you and he disagree on.

I know that most Americans aren't too liberal and aren't too conservative. We tend to be somewhere in the middle. Show me the middle of the road candidate. All I see are variations on the same theme from both parties. At least Ron Paul is intelligent and sticks to his guns. He doesn't sell out to special interest groups for the sake of political clout. That's not something we've seen from a POTUS in a very, very, very long time.

Politically, he's a very, very good candidate. He's conservative, but appeals to liberals on foreign policy, which they consider to be the most important matter facing us right now.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-08-2007, 05:43 AM
I am more skeptical of federal government than I am of the MSM. In addition to the negative news you mention there is plenty of news that isnt presented in the MSM. The CDC is one of the most dogged on agencies from a long list of extraneous agencies.

If the CDC is eliminated, who is going to perform the basic "shoe leather" epidemiology for new and emerging diseases in this country? Do you really trust Glaxo-Welcome to act in the best interests of the private citizen?

Silock
06-08-2007, 07:05 AM
I don't think he wants to eliminate the CDC. I've never read anything of his suggesting that we do that. We he DID suggest was to get rid of *SOME* of the stockpiles of vaccines by the CDC that are financed by the government as a way to reduce spending.

Of course, there are some critical vaccines that need to be controlled by the Feds, but his position is that there are large numbers of stockpiled meds by the CDC that would be better served by allowing the market to bear them.

Fishpicker
06-08-2007, 09:12 AM
If the CDC is eliminated, who is going to perform the basic "shoe leather" epidemiology for new and emerging diseases in this country? Do you really trust Glaxo-Welcome to act in the best interests of the private citizen?

No I dont trust GlaxoKlineSmith to look out for us. And if I wanted to read up on epidemiology I wouldn't start research with the CDC. I'd probably pick from any number of medical journals. The CDC is more concerned with Bioterrorism than they are with epidemics.

I dont practice medicine and I'm not in government so :shrug:

Logical
06-08-2007, 09:15 AM
I don't think he wants to eliminate the CDC. I've never read anything of his suggesting that we do that. We he DID suggest was to get rid of *SOME* of the stockpiles of vaccines by the CDC that are financed by the government as a way to reduce spending.

Of course, there are some critical vaccines that need to be controlled by the Feds, but his position is that there are large numbers of stockpiled meds by the CDC that would be better served by allowing the market to bear them.

I heard him say it on Bill Mahers show, Maher was shocked and made him repeat it to verify he had heard Paul right.

Fishpicker
06-08-2007, 09:37 AM
I heard him say it on Bill Mahers show, Maher was shocked and made him repeat it to verify he had heard Paul right.


real time 3/30/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo6KIusCBoU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo6KIusCBoU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

the CDC isnt mentioned in this clip...

real time 5/25/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vEkjPkXHSEw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vEkjPkXHSEw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

the CDC is not mentioned here either.

I think you are mistaken Logical

Silock
06-08-2007, 09:43 AM
I heard him say it on Bill Mahers show, Maher was shocked and made him repeat it to verify he had heard Paul right.

Got any way to verify that?

BucEyedPea
06-08-2007, 10:18 AM
If Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, then as a president he'd mainly be responsible for the current wars, and foreign policy which I think are major concerns.

He'd be over govt agencies too. If we follow the Constitution it would be the Congress that would initiate revenue bills. Sure, he could take the lead on it but Congress would have to go along.

So what are Paul's campaign issues, specifically for this election?
This is from his site http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

1) War and Foreign Policy

2) Border Security and Immigration Reform
He has the best plan out of everyone and would lead to implement as opposed to operating on an agenda American's won't support like the current administration.

3) Privacy and Personal Liberty

4) American Independence and Sovereignty
"International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation."

5) Debt & Taxes
"We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."--Ron Paul


6) Property Rights and Eminent Domain



Seems most of the first 4 ( save ICC) liberals could support and most Americans will. The rest, including Reps would argue over parts of 4,5 and 6. IOW how those things would be implemented; not just if left in.

So people fight about money, not just from a lack of it, but because different things are valued. Nothing new here. But a doozy of a donnybrook on these issues is just what's needed. Support Paul and open up the debate.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-08-2007, 01:21 PM
No I dont trust GlaxoKlineSmith to look out for us. And if I wanted to read up on epidemiology I wouldn't start research with the CDC. I'd probably pick from any number of medical journals. The CDC is more concerned with Bioterrorism than they are with epidemics.

I dont practice medicine and I'm not in government so :shrug:

Epidemiology isn't just conducted through reading medical journals or doing lab experiments. It requires a number of feet on the ground, doing research into behavior patterns and figuring out contacts, something that a medical journal is completely incapable of doing.

The CDC is primarily concerned with infectious diseases. Pigeonholing that into only bioterrorism is way off base.

Who do you think were the medical "first responders" to Legionairre's Disease, AIDS, the Tylenol poisoning, etc??

Fishpicker
06-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Epidemiology isn't just conducted through reading medical journals or doing lab experiments. It requires a number of feet on the ground, doing research into behavior patterns and figuring out contacts, something that a medical journal is completely incapable of doing.

I'm not suggesting a journal can replace an agency. I'm pointing out that there are alternate sources for that info aside from the CDC itself. I think a centralized federal agency is a bit unwieldy for public health concerns.

The CDC is primarily concerned with infectious diseases. Pigeonholing that into only bioterrorism is way off base.

I'm exagerating but the CDC is involved with DHS and all that mess. I wonder what portion of CDC's funding is defense related.

Who do you think were the medical "first responders" to Legionairre's Disease, AIDS, the Tylenol poisoning, etc??

well, the CDC was designated to be the first response.

anyways, this is all a moot point. (a tangent of a moot point) Ron Paul didnt say he was going to do away with the CDC.

go bowe
06-08-2007, 02:14 PM
if dr rp didn't have so many loony ideas, i would vote for him (if obama doesn't get the nod)...

i wish some other candidate would pick up his slogan "they don't hate us because of who we are, they hate us for what we do"...

he's 100 percent correct about that statement (with the exception of the religious hatred of christians, on the part of islamic fundamentalists)...

patteeu
06-08-2007, 09:16 PM
NeoCons are big advocates of ss pat....with no intention of cutting spending.
So the bold part is what I meant. And spending never really gets cut.

Some neocons are big advocates of ss, others aren't.

Being a supply sider has nothing to do with whether or not you have an intention of cutting spending.

But other than that, I agree. :p

Fishpicker
06-14-2007, 10:37 AM
Ron Paul arrives at the colbert report

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS62aGQ852M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS62aGQ852M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ErBROBgERs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ErBROBgERs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Fishpicker
06-14-2007, 11:39 PM
Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson 6/14/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0yIDxS6418"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0yIDxS6418" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taco John
06-15-2007, 12:47 AM
I fricken love Ron Paul.

Sadly, I don't think Americans would be open to electing an actual conservative.

Logical
06-15-2007, 12:48 AM
Fishpicker, are you auditioning for the role of "the recxjake of Ron Paul"?

Fishpicker
06-15-2007, 01:13 AM
I might as well. Even the devil has advocates.

Logical
06-15-2007, 02:54 AM
Oh hell why not 100

patteeu
06-15-2007, 07:54 PM
I agree with Neal Boortz when he says that he's a long time admirer of Ron Paul and he agrees with him on many, many things, but that he's not the right person to lead the country in the GWoT.

If you believe that the threat of terrorism is just a small group of criminals who shot their wad on 9/11 then I can see why you'd be a big Ron Paul fan in 2008. But if you believe our enemy in the GWoT is a large and growing, violent movement centered around an ideology that is incompatible with western civilization (in the same way that revolutionary communism was a threat to us) then I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Ron Paul isolationism is the way to go.

Taco John
06-15-2007, 08:51 PM
Two things:

Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. That's a misnomer. He believes in constitutional non-intervetionalism. Huge difference.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, then our foriegn policy is miracle grow. Leaders like Rudy Giuliani will bring terrorism home.

patteeu
06-16-2007, 06:34 AM
Two things:

Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. That's a misnomer. He believes in constitutional non-intervetionalism. Huge difference.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, then our foriegn policy is miracle grow. Leaders like Rudy Giuliani will bring terrorism home.

Could you explain this "huge difference" to me between what you're calling an "isolationist" and what you're calling "non-interventionalism"? Because what I'm calling "Ron Paul isolationism" is indistinguishable from the latter.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, it's not going to kill itself off. Left unchecked, it will take over the lawn and choke off all of the grass.

http://blogs.iberkshires.com/BreedEmAndWeep/wp-content/IMG_2716.jpg

ChiTown
06-16-2007, 07:37 AM
I fricken love Ron Paul.

Sadly, I don't think Americans would be open to electing an actual conservative.


God help me, but I couldn't agree more, TJ. I'm sick of the Republican Hawks that have completely ****ed up the TRUE ideals of the Republican Party. Ron Paul, while an unrealistic candidate, speaks more for me than any other candidate running today.

Taco John
06-16-2007, 11:51 AM
Could you explain this "huge difference" to me between what you're calling an "isolationist" and what you're calling "non-interventionalism"? Because what I'm calling "Ron Paul isolationism" is indistinguishable from the latter.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, it's not going to kill itself off. Left unchecked, it will take over the lawn and choke off all of the grass.

http://blogs.iberkshires.com/BreedEmAndWeep/wp-content/IMG_2716.jpg



It's amazing to me that you can't make the distinction between non-intervetionalism and isolationism. Non-intervetionalism is the true hallmark of conservativism, and I'm not talking just about foriegn policy.

I guess to fully answer your question, I'm going to need a definition from you.

Define isolationist.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2007, 01:14 PM
It's amazing to me that you can't make the distinction between non-intervetionalism and isolationism. Non-intervetionalism is the true hallmark of conservativism, and I'm not talking just about foriegn policy.

I guess to fully answer your question, I'm going to need a definition from you.

Define isolationist.
I've been through this argument before with pat, and many other modern super-hawk conservatives. I even checked the whole history of the word.

It was coined by our early budding internationalists way back in the early part of the 20th century ( I believe...or thereabouts.) for use as a perjorative. The word is definitely a misnowner because that word actually means, being cut off and having NO CONTACT...from the world which of course folks like Paul, myself, and other paleo-conservatives, including right libertarians don't believe in—AT ALL.

For instance Paul believes in TRUE free trade with the world, not the centrally-managed-trade, subsidy-laden, protectionist-filled, free-markets-for-profits but socialism-for-losses-trade-pacts such as nafta, gatt, wto etc. These also compromise our independence and sovereignty for a type of globalism that makes us inter-dependent politically and is destroying our middle-class. They are merely socialism aka corporate socialism under closer examination as they resdistribute America's wealth. These are the types of things both party's politicians are voting for in a bi-partisan sell-out with the Newt Gringrich-type NeoCons leading the way. True free-trade is a grass roots thing where the people make choices that will benefit them and the govt has a far lesser role. (like making sure they don't protect certain industries with protective tariffs...but even Bush has done that).

One cannot term any of this as isolationist—AT ALL.

The country that comes to mind that fits the word "isolationist" was mid 19th century Japan who was truly cut off from the world and was way behind events and trends of the world.

Nope Paul,many paleo-conservatives, paleo-right libertarians don't believe in the 19th century Japanese model AT ALL. In fact discourse is favored with all the people of the world. The philosophy is based on ideas being more powerful than bullets.....and America's message of liberty with limited govt is too powerful a message. Cultures that are in communication with one another through trade grease the wheels of peace. And when we have a problem with another country, since we are NOT utopians, we use our ambassador system...the way it always was before the UN.

Ronald Reagan said, and I don't have time to get the exact quote that "war is created by govts". I'd even add that it's created by the few...who are usually in govt. RR also said we would "never be an agressor nation." RR did not finalize the bringing down of the mightly Soviet Union with constant war. That was the Soviet's game. However, the NC's advising Bush have also re-lost Russia and may have even provoked a new Cold War with them. Their foreign policy actions have not improved conditions and these things NEVER have.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist...which is why he even said on the video in the earlier part of this thread he "prefers the term"...."non-interventionist." It means a lack of political intervention inside other countries and not taking sides in the conflicts of other countries.

The model that would apply would be the Swiss one. How often are they attacked? They mediate conflicts. They don't take sides, provoke or have their armies fight an ally's enemies directly or their military battles in lieu of their own army. I'm referring to this idea that former CIA-binLaden counter-terrorism unit agent Giraldi has written about on Hamas and Hezbollah being Israel's enemies and are not a threat to the American mainland. ( but may become ours soon enough).

Not only that but the Swiss are armed to the teeth. Those mountains are filled with military airplane hangers etc etc. They have a citizen militia and they leave an enormous amount of decision making and power to it's local cantons. Power is decentralized. They have a high standard of living compared to most of Europe too.

Now that I've said all that, even an isolationist believes in some interventions. When someone like pat refers to WWII as an interventionist war for America, as pat has, then you know they are NOT duplicating the concept exactly but entering in their own arbitraries into it.

Oh and btw Pat, Boortz is not a real libertarian. He's considered a Neo Con in libertarian circles. In fact many NC's who professed to be libertarians at the time of the invasion of Iraq and just before, were skewered in the libertarian press. After that they backed off. Boortz has the wrong viewpoint and needs to change it.

The Constitution provides for the "national defense" not "national interests" such as oil and balance of power arrangements for such resources or making a small ally secure by going after it's enemies. If we believe in markets, and Paul, Giraldi and the other two former CIA counter-terrorism agents who are with Paul do, then they have to sell their oil to us to survive. If they don't the market will step up somehow.

I'd say paleo-conservative Buchanan who is more of a protectionist, is closer to an isolationist...but even he isn't one purely either.

BucEyedPea
06-16-2007, 01:38 PM
I agree with Neal Boortz when he says that he's a long time admirer of Ron Paul and he agrees with him on many, many things, but that he's not the right person to lead the country in the GWoT.

If you believe that the threat of terrorism is just a small group of criminals who shot their wad on 9/11 then I can see why you'd be a big Ron Paul fan in 2008. But if you believe our enemy in the GWoT is a large and growing, violent movement centered around an ideology that is incompatible with western civilization (in the same way that revolutionary communism was a threat to us) then I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Ron Paul isolationism is the way to go.
The error here in your logic is that the communist ideology (international socialism really) was not caused by anything America did or abetted later by America in the main. America was not a super-power then and was certainly far less interventionist, even if Wilson was one of the early originators of interventionism and lied us into WWI...the war that was supposed to end all wars but which started them all. By that I include today's present ME conflict.

WWI spawned WWII ( which spawned the Cold War) and the MidEast conflict between Palestine and Israel which gave rise to rampant anti-semitism and terrorism. In fact I read a recent article about Nasser of Egypt, even though an enemy of the west, was at least a secular Arab nationalist. ( WWII lead to nationalist movements globally including Vietnam) Nasser lost the 1967 war to Israel...but this is what I mean about winning a war but not winning the peace....it gave rise to the fundamentalist Islamic movement and it's use of terrorism, at least per that article. Makes sense to me. I never knew much about him before. I plan to do more reading about this in the future. I just noticed that it seemed to make Paul's point even more relevant.

Taco John
06-16-2007, 05:10 PM
I had guessed that the term "isolationist" originated as a perjorative term. I was hoping for a good laugh by trying to get patty to define it, doubting that he'd attempt, and knowing that he'd continue to use the word regardless of it's lack of authenticity.

patteeu
06-18-2007, 02:47 PM
It's amazing to me that you can't make the distinction between non-intervetionalism and isolationism. Non-intervetionalism is the true hallmark of conservativism, and I'm not talking just about foriegn policy.

I guess to fully answer your question, I'm going to need a definition from you.

Define isolationist.

That's what I'm asking you to do. You see such a huge distinction, so I'm assuming you must have some pretty good definitions ready to roll out. I'm saying that Ron Paul's brand of "whatever you want to call it" is isolationist enough for me not to like it. And I *am* just talking about foreign policy. I'm not concerned about Paul's views on trade or immigration or air traffic control. I'm concerned about a guy who would withdraw from any kind of political/military influence over the middle east and let the chips fall where they may.

patteeu
06-18-2007, 03:03 PM
The error here in your logic is that the communist ideology (international socialism really) was not caused by anything America did or abetted later by America in the main. America was not a super-power then and was certainly far less interventionist, even if Wilson was one of the early originators of interventionism and lied us into WWI...the war that was supposed to end all wars but which started them all. By that I include today's present ME conflict.

WWI spawned WWII ( which spawned the Cold War) and the MidEast conflict between Palestine and Israel which gave rise to rampant anti-semitism and terrorism. In fact I read a recent article about Nasser of Egypt, even though an enemy of the west, was at least a secular Arab nationalist. ( WWII lead to nationalist movements globally including Vietnam) Nasser lost the 1967 war to Israel...but this is what I mean about winning a war but not winning the peace....it gave rise to the fundamentalist Islamic movement and it's use of terrorism, at least per that article. Makes sense to me. I never knew much about him before. I plan to do more reading about this in the future. I just noticed that it seemed to make Paul's point even more relevant.

The error in logic is yours. The origins of the threats are not particularly relevant to my point. The global communist revolution was incompatible with US-style individual freedom and capitalism in a way that is very similar to the current incompatibility between the global islamist revolution and free society. Both represent a clash of civilizations regardless of causation.

patteeu
06-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist...which is why he even said on the video in the earlier part of this thread he "prefers the term"...."non-interventionist." It means a lack of political intervention inside other countries and not taking sides in the conflicts of other countries.

Of course he prefers the term "non-interventionist." I prefer the term "foolishly naive."

Now that I've said all that, even an isolationist believes in some interventions. When someone like pat refers to WWII as an interventionist war for America, as pat has, then you know they are NOT duplicating the concept exactly but entering in their own arbitraries into it.

I'm a non-interventionist.

Oh and btw Pat, Boortz is not a real libertarian. He's considered a Neo Con in libertarian circles. In fact many NC's who professed to be libertarians at the time of the invasion of Iraq and just before, were skewered in the libertarian press. After that they backed off. Boortz has the wrong viewpoint and needs to change it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. If they don't agree with you down the line, they are either a neocon or a socialist or both. Got it. I don't care what label you want to pin on Boortz, he's right about Paul.


The Constitution provides for the "national defense" not "national interests" such as oil and balance of power arrangements for such resources or making a small ally secure by going after it's enemies. If we believe in markets, and Paul, Giraldi and the other two former CIA counter-terrorism agents who are with Paul do, then they have to sell their oil to us to survive. If they don't the market will step up somehow.

As I've pointed out to you on several occasions, embargoes are possible. Our nuclear weapons embargo proves that money and a willingness to purchase does not necessarily mean that a sale will be made. Belligerent nations in control of major oil resources can make life very difficult for a US that is absolutely dependent on a steady flow of oil. Saddam and Kim have proven that some tyrants are willing to see their populations starve if it suits their purpose.

Cochise
06-18-2007, 03:15 PM
So, is Paul polling above 1% these days...?

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 06:16 PM
So, is Paul polling above 1% these days...?
He has a big internet presence...like 60%

He's not mentioned in conventional polls that often anyways.
He doesn't have a lot of name recognition in them but does on the net.

I'll be honest with you. I think the best thing would be for the GOP to lose.
Because I think Paul's statements will help make it conservative again.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 06:17 PM
The error in logic is yours. The origins of the threats are not particularly relevant to my point. The global communist revolution was incompatible with US-style individual freedom and capitalism in a way that is very similar to the current incompatibility between the global islamist revolution and free society. Both represent a clash of civilizations regardless of causation.
The flaw is it need not have to.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2007, 06:56 PM
Of course he prefers the term "non-interventionist." I prefer the term "foolishly naive."

Well you were the one falsely labeling him an "isolationist" soley because a radio talking head said he was. Paul and paleo-cons always use that term. Boortz endorsed the Iraq war too at the start...he turned out wrong. And he wrong about Paul too. Paul is not an isolationist. It's a false label.

I think it's foolishly naive to believe known liars over and over again. Doing more of the same is deemed insanity.

I say it's rank lies and propaganda. And the lying with a vengeance is happening again with regard to Iran according to former CIA agents who say Cheney, an energy socialist, is trying hard to find cause for it.

I'm a non-interventionist.
You are not. Your statements on this board, particularly in the past two months, are CLEARLY in the mercantilist imperialistic camp. Such as the idea we can start a war for any reason we want and due to national "interests" can invade a nation for oil. That was the Soviet Union's game, Napoleon's game etc etc etc.

You are an interventionist when it suits your needs. This is no different than the left.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. If they don't agree with you down the line, they are either a neocon or a socialist or both. Got it. I don't care what label you want to pin on Boortz, he's right about Paul.

That's a mischaracterization to simplify this as "just because I don't agree with it." That's a lie. I don't agree with the NC pov is what it means and that pov dominates the GOP right now. Pollution. That doesn't mean everyone who shares it is a NC. RR are their natural allies due to Israel, but they are not NC's. I don't think mylon or Cochise are. Have said as much about Cochise. It's a type of conservative but they really aren't. Bill Bennet, Jack Kemp are also nc's. Now what did they say recently that I disagree with?

I also didn't pull this out of my head about Boortz. It was dicussed on one of my other boards over two years ago with a Falcon fan who was a big supporter of Boortz, and of Iraq earlier, but is no longer as well as in articles as to who these cats are, which included Boortz. FP is mainly what defines a NeoCon but not the only thing. It is the prevailing pov in today's GOP and most non-religious hawks. It is your entire reading list and your chosen quotes.

Another example as to how ideas are powerful and get adopted in a group is watching Fred Thompson now endorse compassionate conservativism and drpping a nuke on Iran. Same thing.


As I've pointed out to you on several occasions, embargoes are possible. Our nuclear weapons embargo proves that money and a willingness to purchase does not necessarily mean that a sale will be made. Belligerent nations in control of major oil resources can make life very difficult for a US that is absolutely dependent on a steady flow of oil.

The evidence does not back your fears. Embargoes do not work either, not for long, because it often hurts the embargoer sometimes even more. This is why the OPEC cartel collapsed. we survived it without any loss of human life for that oil and it came back down. Nuclear weapons is mostly a govt issue as opposed to a strict trade issue as it is for oil.

Here's a graph of how your fp solutions affect these prices and availability of oil with the so called belligerent nations:

http://www.mises.org/images4/oilprices.jpg

It doesn't produce the results you claim. It spikes prices. It's a foolish fallacy. Govt usually doesn't work. It's no different here. War is just another govt program.

Saddam and Kim have proven that some tyrants are willing to see their populations starve if it suits their purpose.

Yeah so? What does that have to do with us? We can't make over the world or rogue nations. It's not that easy. They have always been around. As soon as we get rid of one there's another.

Didn't you just say you were a non-interventionist? You're making a case here for intervention when you just said you were a non-interventionist. You sound like Woodrow Wilson here. That's neoconservativism. Why don't you just set up a world govt then if that's your concern to keep 'em all in line. You're simply advocating that the right do the dirty work of the left by being some sort of independent UN or an empire. That is neoconservative because it's left. It is not conservative.

The sanctions on Iraq starved his people. He was a socialist who improved education, healthcare etc in his country with oil revenues. He did some good things. Now we have thousands of SHs. But the sanctions starved his people to death. You can say he did it, but that's why they don't work because the wind up punishing the people instead. they never punish the leaders. We played a role in that.


Iraq was not a threat to the US. Nor is Iran or NK, despite what they do to their people. But we can make them one if we insist on making over the world which is a neoconservative platform. The NC's are using the right as "useful idiots" to do the dirty work of the left—makeover the world and safe for democracy. They lie and exaggerate to create false threats and security because they know the right will fall for security arguments more than the left and use the military.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 05:39 PM
Well you were the one falsely labeling him an "isolationist" soley because a radio talking head said he was. Paul and paleo-cons always use that term. Boortz endorsed the Iraq war too at the start...he turned out wrong. And he wrong about Paul too. Paul is not an isolationist. It's a false label.

It's not a false label, it's a label that you, and Taco, and Paul want to run from because you don't like the sound of it. But instead of arguing about labels, I'd rather talk about the policy that Paul advocates. That's what I have a beef with. I think it's foolishly naive to think that we can withdraw from the middle east in the way that you and Paul advocate. I don't think it's a worthy goal to try to turn a superpower into a second or third rate power on the theory that no one will bother us because we won't be as much of a threat to them as a result.

You are not. Your statements on this board, particularly in the past two months, are CLEARLY in the mercantilist imperialistic camp. Such as the idea we can start a war for any reason we want and due to national "interests" can invade a nation for oil. That was the Soviet Union's game, Napoleon's game etc etc etc.

You are an interventionist when it suits your needs. This is no different than the left.

Nope, I'm a noninterventionist. Of course, when I think it's essential for our security and to preserve our interests, I'll support intervention, but I'm not for intervening in every little small-scale ethnic cleansing.

Everyone is an interventionist when it suits their needs. Duh.

The evidence does not back your fears. Embargoes do not work either, not for long, because it often hurts the embargoer sometimes even more. This is why the OPEC cartel collapsed. we survived it without any loss of human life for that oil and it came back down. Nuclear weapons is mostly a govt issue as opposed to a strict trade issue as it is for oil.

Here's a graph of how your fp solutions affect these prices and availability of oil with the so called belligerent nations:

**image deleted**

It doesn't produce the results you claim. It spikes prices. It's a foolish fallacy. Govt usually doesn't work. It's no different here. War is just another govt program.

What result am I claiming? Your image shows that the US has been successful at keeping the oil flowing from the middle east for decades and that those who might have been inclined to cripple our economy with an oil embargo have thusfar not been able to accomplish it. That's all it shows. Whether those wars were necessary or not, whether they have helped the cause or not, the result has been flowing oil.

Embargoes can work. You haven't refuted my example of our nuclear weapons/technology embargo that has been extremely successful. An oil embargo would be much more difficult to pull off over the long haul, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be accomplished long enough to cause us great grief if the right people gained control of the oil. And even if the folks who controlled the oil wells wanted to sell, blockades or other interventions from our enemies could create a great deal of trouble for us. As long as our military is prepared to prevent this, we don't have to worry about it. Under a Paul/Taco/BEP foreign policy, we would be at the mercy of the rest of the world and whoever decided to fill the vacuum. No thanks.

Yeah so?

The reason your theory tells you that an oil embargo won't work is because it assumes that those who control the oil will act in their own financial self-interest. Saddam and Kim were examples of leaders who have acted against their country's self interest and against their own financial self interests (although the oil for food program minimized this particular impact on Saddam).

patteeu
06-19-2007, 05:43 PM
BTW, just to prove that your definition of isolationism versus noninterventionism is not universally shared, here is what the people at about.com (http://worldnews.about.com/od/glossaryi/g/isolationism.htm) have to say about it:

Isolationism: A term most frequently used in the context of American history and politics, isolationism refers to a non-interventionist foreign policy which avoids what Jefferson termed "entangling alliances" with other countries. It was first used by military interventionists to criticize those who were against the United States entering World War I, and again during World War II.

Proponents of isolationist policies have often held that the best way to promote US interests is to preserve US freedom of action by remaining disengaged from problems in other parts of the world. However, pursuing such a course has clearly become more difficult for states in the era of globalization: what begins as a local problem may very quickly become a problem for everyone.

Of course, it was probably some socialist neocon who wrote it just to make Ron Paul look bad or something. I'm sure you can find a definition more to your liking somewhere else on the internet.

Taco John
06-19-2007, 06:14 PM
Any way you spin it, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Non-intervention is not the same as Isolationist, even if there were such a thing as Isolationists.

Thomas Jefferson is the father of Non-interventionalism (“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.”), and even he saw fit to protect America's interests in America's first battle against Islamists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Non-interventionalism != Isolationist.

The thought that Ron Paul is weak on defense is nothing short of deceit. Ron Paul just isn't unecessarily too quick on the trigger, where he will shoot himself (and America) in the foot, like your kind has.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 07:40 PM
It's not a false label, it's a label that you, and Taco, and Paul want to run from because you don't like the sound of it.

Now see, this here is presumptive. I've seen and had this debate long before 9/11 or Paul running for the nomination. At least 10 years now. And I've had the SAME position on it as I do now as have others like Paul.

So you are in error if you think it's just the sound of it. You are projecting because you LIKE the perjorative sound of isolationist. It's hardly difficult to define. It's blatently obvious it means to be cut off from the world. What is not obvious is that promiscuous military interventions are what these isolationists disagree with.

But instead of arguing about labels, I'd rather talk about the policy that Paul advocates. That's what I have a beef with.

Yet you and Boortz use a label here yourself. Projection. There is nothing wrong with labels. Your name is a label. An accurate label would simply reflect and identify a position accurately. Isolationism does not do this. Paul and myself have argued specifics not just labels. You're the one running away from the argument with this. Boortz wants to smear him.

Furthermore, you and I have had numerous discussions getting into the specifics of this debate, over and over, endlessly in a circular repetitive action.
So what if I just use a short label to identify the same arguments or thought. I don't have to enumerate each and every time. But you simply cannot falsely accuse me of running away from this debate. You're just saying desperate things now not based on fact.

And Paul has stated his stands in the videos posted in this thread, on tv, in the debates, as well as on the House floor and in op-eds repeatedly with specifics. What specifics has Boortz engaged in besides relying on the "isolationist" label?

I think it's foolishly naive to think that we can withdraw from the middle east in the way that you and Paul advocate. I don't think it's a worthy goal to try to turn a superpower into a second or third rate power on the theory that no one will bother us because we won't be as much of a threat to them as a result.
I know that. I don't agree and Paul doesn't agree. He is for trading and having discourse with them. He's not for invading and putting troops on their lands for NO good reason. Especially not for obtaining oil as you advocate. You actually have openly advocated conquest for oil. That's extremely interventionist.


Nope, I'm a noninterventionist. Of course, when I think it's essential for our security and to preserve our interests, I'll support intervention, but I'm not for intervening in every little small-scale ethnic cleansing.

Nor is Paul. He just doesn't have as liberal and loose a construction of the label "interests." Broad, vague and undefined.


What result am I claiming? Your image shows that the US has been successful at keeping the oil flowing from the middle east for decades and that those who might have been inclined to cripple our economy with an oil embargo have thusfar not been able to accomplish it. That's all it shows. Whether those wars were necessary or not, whether they have helped the cause or not, the result has been flowing oil.
You say we wouldn't be able to get oil or affordable oil.
No my image shows that the price spikes stem from our intervention politically in the ME: it's conflicts and wars. Take a look at it. War makes supplies uncertain and markets shaky.

Embargoes can work.

Prove it.

You haven't refuted my example of our nuclear weapons/technology embargo that has been extremely successful.
Because I am obviously talkin' about trading in commericial goods and resources. You're doing a bait and switch to avoid confronting it.

An oil embargo would be much more difficult to pull off over the long haul, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be accomplished long enough to cause us great grief if the right people gained control of the oil.

If I am not proving anything then you're not either. Give an example of a long term embargo that crippled our economy. It's not anywhere near as likely as you speculate. It's paranoia, imo. You fear markets.

And even if the folks who controlled the oil wells wanted to sell, blockades or other interventions from our enemies could create a great deal of trouble for us.

You talk about me making a boogeyman with "NeoCons" and yet, what is this? They really are not our enemies. Saudi Arabia? Enemies can also be created too. I don't even think we buy much oil from Iran. Our top 4 suppliers only have one from the ME and I believe it's SA. Most of it is from Canada. SH sold us oil too. Your argument is specious and not based on fact.

As long as our military is prepared to prevent this, we don't have to worry about it. Under a Paul/Taco/BEP foreign policy, we would be at the mercy of the rest of the world and whoever decided to fill the vacuum. No thanks.

Sheer nonense imo. You're afraid of markets. Who would have guessed?


The reason your theory tells you that an oil embargo won't work is because it assumes that those who control the oil will act in their own financial self-interest.

Of course they act in their own interests and that means needing customers to survive. That's us. This is the whole idea.

Saddam and Kim were examples of leaders who have acted against their country's self interest and against their own financial self interests (although the oil for food program minimized this particular impact on Saddam).
NK sells us oil? I know SH sold us oil...it was our policy that prevented and stopped him from being able to—not him. Get the facts right.


As for about.com, I could care less what they say. It's an easy word to use one's own critical thinking skills with by comparing "isolated" to someone's policies and see that it's a misnowner. This label you use is doing what you claim we're doing....running away from the actual debate. Projection.

My history of the word is accurate. It was coined by internationalists to get America away from her traditional foreign policy. We're in like 130 places. I looked it up long ago long before Ron Paul or Iraq invasion. This is why presidential deceit for war from Wilson on has been used. Because the American people consistently vote for what you term "isolationism." I also happen to know what it means to in average everyday usage....I wasn't born yesterday. I just thought I was dealing with a more intellectual and nuanced agrument here or parsing it....not unlike you do with things.

Logical
06-19-2007, 08:24 PM
....

My history of the word is accurate. It was coined by internationalists to get America away from her traditional foreign policy. We're in like 130 places. I looked it up long ago long before Ron Paul or Iraq invasion. This is why presidential deceit for war from Wilson on has been used. Because the American people consistently vote for what you term "isolationism." I also happen to know what it means to in average everyday usage....I wasn't born yesterday. I just thought I was dealing with a more intellectual and nuanced agrument here or parsing it....not unlike you do with things.
I am doing this post to illustrate two things, you can break a post up and discuss smaller elements to possibly arouse the interest of other poster. As an example

I am also interested in the 130 places, though it is possible it seems somewhat unlikely we have troops in 130 places around the world, unless you are counting multiple bases in some countries such as Korea. So can you provide a link to that data. I also wonder how you limit the scope of isolationism. Is it an absolutist term where no troops would be deployed anywhere and we would not have embassies in foreign countries? Where do you draw the line?

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 08:32 PM
I had it that way earlier but I missed his longer post and didn't answer his points. But it's broken up so it looks longer overall. Don't like it don't read it.It's really to pat anyways. His have been long and broken up too.

Logical
06-19-2007, 08:39 PM
I had it that way earlier but I missed his longer post and didn't answer his points. But it's broken up so it looks longer overall. Don't like it don't read it.It's really to pat anyways. His have been long and broken up too.
I don't think you get my point. When people not just you post these incredibly long posts others cannot or are unlikely to become interested and the thread just becomes patteeu and BEP ping pong match. Kind of defeats the message board concept of getting people to talk to each other and spread ideas. Lately everyone is doing it not just you and patteeu. Sorry you took offense.

By the way you never answered the question part of the post.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 08:53 PM
Here's what you asked for Logical:

Bases of the Empire (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance9.html)


A global empire like the United States needs overseas bases to accommodate its troops, now in 135 countries. Although the latest "Base Structure Report" of the Department of Defense admits to having 96 military installations in U.S. overseas territories and 702 military installations in foreign countries, it has been documented that this number is far too low.

BSR is in the link as a .pdf with many other govt links that I can't seem to access because they're not on the server I have apparently.


Now someone will come in here and bring up Marines needed to guard embassies. So this covers that: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance20.html.

Logical
06-19-2007, 09:45 PM
Here's what you asked for Logical:

Bases of the Empire (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance9.html)




BSR is in the link as a .pdf with many other govt links that I can't seem to access because they're not on the server I have apparently.


Now someone will come in here and bring up Marines needed to guard embassies. So this covers that: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance20.html.

Interesting

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 09:50 PM
I don't think you get my point. When people not just you post these incredibly long posts others cannot or are unlikely to become interested and the thread just becomes patteeu and BEP ping pong...

I understand. I am a graphic designer. I know about breaking up copy....with bolded type, subheads, spaces, bullets etc. But sometimes it's easier to deal with someone's points by breaking them up individually. It just makes it look longer because there is more space. He reads it and I've read his. Some will read it or skim it, some won't. What can I say. It's not perfect BB world.

Logical
06-19-2007, 09:57 PM
I understand. I am a graphic designer. I know about breaking up copy....with bolded type, subheads, spaces, bullets etc. But sometimes it's easier to deal with someone's points by breaking them up individually. It just makes it look longer because there is more space. He reads it and I've read his. Some will read it or skim it, some won't. What can I say. It's not perfect BB world.
Not really something you alone can fix. It is just a trend lately for a number of posters, Kotter, HH, Dave Lane etc are some of the others it is not fair to just single out you and patteeu, sorry.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 10:59 PM
Any way you spin it, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Non-intervention is not the same as Isolationist, even if there were such a thing as Isolationists.

Thomas Jefferson is the father of Non-interventionalism (“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.”), and even he saw fit to protect America's interests in America's first battle against Islamists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Non-interventionalism != Isolationist.

The thought that Ron Paul is weak on defense is nothing short of deceit. Ron Paul just isn't unecessarily too quick on the trigger, where he will shoot himself (and America) in the foot, like your kind has.

I provided a definition in post 118 that very specifically equates "isolationism" with the description you just gave of Ron Paul's foreign policy position.

Furthermore, Wikipedia's definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) of "isolationism" also supports my use of the term to describe Paul's policy on the use of the military. It goes on to define an isolationist as someone who is protectionist when it comes to trade policy, but I've been very clear that I'm not talking about Paul's trade policy when I talk about his brand of isolationism.

I'm still waiting on you to explain the difference between "isolationism" and "non interventionism" when it comes to military policy. You seem to want to suggest that "isolationism" is about complete withdrawal from the rest of the world, which, of course, is not how it's typically been used in the past.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 11:03 PM
Prove it.

I have. Our embargo of nuclear weapons/technology has been extremely successful for a long time. Don't give me the bogus argument that it's not a commercial product because that's a fake distinction. The reason it's not a commercial product is because we've elected, along with the rest of the nuclear club, to embargo it.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 11:17 PM
Of course they act in their own interests and that means needing customers to survive. That's us. This is the whole idea.

Saddam didn't act in his own interest when he led the world to believe that he had WMD and then failed to allow the UN to clear him of the allegation.

History is filled with individuals who fail to act in their own self-interest, financial or otherwise. In some cases it's noble and heroic. In others, it's foolish and even self-destructive.

NK sells us oil? I know SH sold us oil...it was our policy that prevented and stopped him from being able to—not him. Get the facts right.

Please try to hear me this time. Saddam and Kim were offered as examples, not of people who sold us oil, but of people who acted against the interests of their own people (and at least in Saddam's case, against his own interest). In other words, they are examples of people for whom your fundamental assumption is flawed.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2007, 11:32 PM
I think wikipedia is probably one of the worst sources for this definition. I had linked two earlier that gave the history of the word and then deleted it. But I'm going to bed now and won't be around tomorrow.

Logical
06-19-2007, 11:38 PM
I wonder how you limit the scope of isolationism. Is it an absolutist term where no troops would be deployed anywhere and we would not have embassies in foreign countries? Where do you draw the line?

patteeu
06-20-2007, 12:02 AM
I wonder how you limit the scope of isolationism. Is it an absolutist term where no troops would be deployed anywhere and we would not have embassies in foreign countries? Where do you draw the line?

I think that's the crux of the label battle that's going on here. BEP, Taco, and Paul want "isolationism" to be an absolutist or near-absolutist term that almost no one would fit into so that they can claim a label that they believe carries less of a negative connotation.

I liken it to the label battle that is going on in the current immigration debate. Defenders of the comprehensive plan favored by the President, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain want to avoid the "amnesty" label by including a few relatively light penalties that illegals must face before becoming eligible for citizenship. Foes of a comprehensive approach want anything short of deportation to be considered "amnesty."

Paul's approach to military action, whether it's called "isolationist" or "noninterventionist", is what it is no matter what it's called. I disagree with it because I think on a scale that goes from total isolation (never intervene) to total intervention (intervene in every conceivable conflict), it moves us too far in the total isolation direction even if it doesn't take us all the way to the endpoint.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 12:12 AM
I think wikipedia is probably one of the worst sources for this definition.

Of course it is. It doesn't give us the definition you want to use. I bet antiwar.com would give us an unbiased and definitive one though. ;)

Logical
06-20-2007, 12:50 AM
I think that's the crux of the label battle that's going on here. BEP, Taco, and Paul want "isolationism" to be an absolutist or near-absolutist term that almost no one would fit into so that they can claim a label that they believe carries less of a negative connotation.

I liken it to the label battle that is going on in the current immigration debate. Defenders of the comprehensive plan favored by the President, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain want to avoid the "amnesty" label by including a few relatively light penalties that illegals must face before becoming eligible for citizenship. Foes of a comprehensive approach want anything short of deportation to be considered "amnesty."

Paul's approach to military action, whether it's called "isolationist" or "noninterventionist", is what it is no matter what it's called. I disagree with it because I think on a scale that goes from total isolation (never intervene) to total intervention (intervene in every conceivable conflict), it moves us too far in the total isolation direction even if it doesn't take us all the way to the endpoint.I think I agree with you and I think it is why Paul's supporters want to avoid the topic. I think it is clearly not going to be popular to totally abandon the idea we must combat terrorism. That is the opposite extreme of wanting out of the Iraq occupation

Taco John
06-20-2007, 01:46 AM
I think it is clearly not going to be popular to totally abandon the idea we must combat terrorism.


Clearly not. Who's advancing *that* position?

Taco John
06-20-2007, 01:50 AM
Furthermore, Wikipedia's definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism) of "isolationism" also supports my use of the term to describe Paul's policy on the use of the military.



I like how you can link to a wikipedia article, but can't link to Paul's policy on the use of the military.

The more I read your posts, the more I realize that you don't actually know what Ron Paul's policies are, you're just kind of guessing at them based on your off handed impressions. Political discussion by braille.

listopencil
06-20-2007, 02:16 AM
Of course it is. It doesn't give us the definition you want to use. I bet antiwar.com would give us an unbiased and definitive one though. ;)


I just looked up your link. Here is the text:


"Introduction

"Isolationism" has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries. All the first world countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy. Some will argue that removing oneself from such an economy could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. Protectionism prevents this process, it is argued, making people poorer than they would be otherwise.

On the other hand, non-interventionism generally benefits a country by reducing both military spending (as it is limited to defensive purposes) and the chances of provoking an attack (by not meddling in foreign intrigue.) Bear in mind, patteau, that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. You can't use this as an absolute authority."




Do you want to rethink your stance on the use of Wikipedia as a standard resource?

Fishpicker
06-20-2007, 03:07 AM
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time. -Sun Tzu

We do not know our Self. How could We? We have declared war on phantasms. Our intelligence agencies and mercenary forces have run amuck. P2OG will be a disaster just like all of its predecessors. The power structure that currently inhabits Washington DC has armed our former clients to the teeth. We can not possibly sustain this war without hemorrhaging $. - Fishpicker

Ending Suicide Terrorism
by Rep. Ron Paul

More than half of the American people now believe that the Iraqi war has made the U.S. less safe. This is a dramatic shift in sentiment from two years ago. Early support for the war reflected a hope for a safer America, and it was thought to be an appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. The argument was that the enemy attacked us because of our freedom, our prosperity, and our way of life. It was further argued that it was important to engage the potential terrorists over there rather than here. Many bought this argument and supported the war. That is now changing.

It is virtually impossible to stop determined suicide bombers. Understanding why they sacrifice themselves is crucial to ending what appears to be senseless and irrational. But there is an explanation.

I, like many, have assumed that the driving force behind the suicide attacks was Islamic fundamentalism. Promise of instant entry into paradise as a reward for killing infidels seemed to explain the suicides, a concept that is foreign to our way of thinking. The world's expert on suicide terrorism has convinced me to rethink this simplistic explanation, that terrorism is merely an expression of religious extremism and resentment of a foreign culture.

Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win, explains the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Pape has collected a database of every suicide terrorist attack between 1980 and 2004, all 462 of them. His conclusions are enlightening and crucial to our understanding the true motivation behind the attacks against Western nations by Islamic terrorists. After his exhaustive study, Pape comes to some very important conclusions.

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism . The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

The best news is that if stopping suicide terrorism is a goal we seek, a solution is available to us. Cease the occupation of foreign lands, and the suicide missions will cease. Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the U.S., the French, and Israel withdrew their forces from Lebanon, there were no more attacks. The reason the attacks stop, according to Pape, is that the Osama bin Ladens of the world no longer can inspire potential suicide terrorists despite their continued fanatical religious beliefs.

Pape is convinced after his extensive research that the longer and more extensive the occupation of Muslim territories, the greater the chance of more 9/11-type attacks on the U.S. He is convinced that the terrorists strategically are holding off hitting the U.S. at the present time in an effort to break up the coalition by hitting our European allies. He claims it is just a matter of time if our policies do not change.

It is time for us to consider a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building. It is in our national interest and in the interest of world peace to do so.

Silock
06-20-2007, 03:21 AM
I'm still waiting on you to explain the difference between "isolationism" and "non interventionism" when it comes to military policy. You seem to want to suggest that "isolationism" is about complete withdrawal from the rest of the world, which, of course, is not how it's typically been used in the past.

Call it whatever you like. That doesn't make it factual.

Paul wants open trade, and not to use our military unless we are attacked. No more pre-emptive war. I don't understand why that makes him "isolationist," but whatever.

He follows the Just War doctrine, which is a very sound ethical basis for going to war or not. If you believe in pre-emptive warfare, then Paul is not for you. However, that course of action is unnecessarily risky and gets a lot of our troops killed for very little tangible, if any, gain.

Fishpicker
06-20-2007, 03:48 AM
2k2

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g5tldEQg6is"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g5tldEQg6is" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

patteeu
06-20-2007, 07:11 AM
I like how you can link to a wikipedia article, but can't link to Paul's policy on the use of the military.

The more I read your posts, the more I realize that you don't actually know what Ron Paul's policies are, you're just kind of guessing at them based on your off handed impressions. Political discussion by braille.

I've provided definitions from two different sources showing that at the very least there are others who would be comfortable with my characterization of Ron Paul's foreign policy, and you still haven't bothered to distinguish between Paul's approach to foreign policy and isolationism which I asked you for in posts 104 and again in 110.

Say what you will about how much you think I know about Paul's policies, but you've had ample opportunity to address it if you really think my (or anyone else's) knowledge of the subject is deficient.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 07:24 AM
I just looked up your link. Here is the text:


"Introduction

"Isolationism" has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries. All the first world countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy. Some will argue that removing oneself from such an economy could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. Protectionism prevents this process, it is argued, making people poorer than they would be otherwise.

On the other hand, non-interventionism generally benefits a country by reducing both military spending (as it is limited to defensive purposes) and the chances of provoking an attack (by not meddling in foreign intrigue.) Bear in mind, patteau, that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. You can't use this as an absolute authority."




Do you want to rethink your stance on the use of Wikipedia as a standard resource?

First, I'll repeat that trade has nothing to do with this because I made it clear that when I was talking about "Ron Paul's isolationism" it did not have anything to do with trade. I'm arguing about the more narrow subject of how the military is to be used in foreign policy.

Second, I'm comfortable using wikipedia as a source because I don't need a definitive source. There is no universal definition of "isolationism" versus "noninterventionism" that would clearly put Paul in the latter category but not the former as he, Taco, and BEP want to do. The fact that two different sources, wiki and about.com, use definitions that support my contention is adequate for my purpose of rejecting their claim that I'm wrong to use "isolationist" when describing Paul's policy.

For my part, I don't argue that it's wrong to call him a noninterventionist. I just argue that it's not wrong to say his military policy is isolationist. Clearly his trade policy is not, though.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 07:37 AM
Call it whatever you like. That doesn't make it factual.

Doesn't make what factual?

Paul wants open trade, and not to use our military unless we are attacked. No more pre-emptive war. I don't understand why that makes him "isolationist," but whatever.

He also wants us to withdraw our troops from bases in foreign lands and disentangle ourselves from alliances with countries like Israel and organizations like NATO. That's what makes him isolationist.

BTW, I'm a fan of Ron Paul's and like a lot of the things he stands for. But as I said before, I don't think his brand of isolationism is what our country needs as we face the GWoT.

Silock
06-20-2007, 10:31 AM
Doesn't make what factual?

The isolationist label you're giving him.

He also wants us to withdraw our troops from bases in foreign lands and disentangle ourselves from alliances with countries like Israel and organizations like NATO. That's what makes him isolationist.

From 2004:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2256

And gosh, his prediction that we might end up pissing off Russia is pretty prophetic right now.

BTW, I'm a fan of Ron Paul's and like a lot of the things he stands for. But as I said before, I don't think his brand of isolationism is what our country needs as we face the GWoT.

I think this is where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with Paul's position that we wouldn't even HAVE a "GWoT" if we hadn't been mucking around over there to begin with. We need to seriously scale down our policing of the world.

Paul still wants open communication and diplomacy with countries, but far too often, we get USED by our alliances in the way of troops and money and it ends up costing us, when we really have no reason to be in those conflicts. To me, when you say isolationism, that means you think he's going to cut us off from the rest of the world diplomatically and through trade, when that's just not the case. It's simply a military thing. If anything, he wants to strengthen our relationship with other countries via the ONE thing they really can't live without -- money.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 10:47 AM
I agree with Paul's position that we wouldn't even HAVE a "GWoT" if we hadn't been mucking around over there to begin with.
Is that actually his position?
Paul apologists please help?

Because that's different than what I thought the hubbub was about after the debate.

It's one thing to say that 'they hate us fer 'ur freedoms*' doesn't get the full picture. It's another to say there's a completely different picture that explains everything.

'Mucking around' is A justification they use. It's not THE sole justification.
Thinking it is THE justification is more stupid than thinking it's not A justification.











* - shorthand conceded for brevity

Silock
06-20-2007, 12:42 PM
Of course it's not THE sole reason, but it's THE main reason. The 9/11 Commission came up with that one, as well as countless other terrorism experts.

There are plenty of other countries that have the same freedoms we do, yet they aren't attacked like we are. The difference is our military intervention. I don't think that's a coincidence. Your mileage may vary.

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 01:37 PM
Of course it's not THE sole reason, but it's THE main reason. The 9/11 Commission came up with that one, as well as countless other terrorism experts.

There are plenty of other countries that have the same freedoms we do, yet they aren't attacked like we are. The difference is our military intervention. I don't think that's a coincidence. Your mileage may vary.
Yeah, and they show Hollywood movies in Salina, KS, but Salina, KS, movie theaters don't get attacked like Hollywood does.

It's called being the beacon, the source.

Taco John
06-20-2007, 03:59 PM
I've provided definitions from two different sources showing that at the very least there are others who would be comfortable with my characterization of Ron Paul's foreign policy...


Who cares? You haven't demonstrated a lick of knowledge about what Ron's actual positions are. You've just kind of floundered around it with a bunch of hyperbole.

You commented that "I don't think his brand of isolationism is what our country needs as we face the GWoT." Fine. So I ask you what "his brand of isolationism" even is, and you've so far come up with nothing worth even discussing other than how a bunch of yahoos define Isolationism.

I know what "isolationism" means. What I don't know is what you mean by "his brand of isolationism." I'm not sure why you're placing the burden on me to define Ron Paul's brand of isolationism, when it's your coined phrase to begin with.

I would be happy to discuss this further, once I have some idea what the hell you're talking about. Why is it that you can give me everyone else's definitions, but you can't speak to any specific policy that Ron Paul openly states? He is, afterall, the guy you're talking about.

So what exactly is "his brand of isolationism?"

homey
06-20-2007, 04:14 PM
Is the Republican party lost when they have a problem with most traditional Republican candidate? And they say the Democrats have an identity problem...

patteeu
06-20-2007, 04:46 PM
The isolationist label you're giving him.



From 2004:
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2256

And gosh, his prediction that we might end up pissing off Russia is pretty prophetic right now.



I think this is where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I agree with Paul's position that we wouldn't even HAVE a "GWoT" if we hadn't been mucking around over there to begin with. We need to seriously scale down our policing of the world.

Paul still wants open communication and diplomacy with countries, but far too often, we get USED by our alliances in the way of troops and money and it ends up costing us, when we really have no reason to be in those conflicts. To me, when you say isolationism, that means you think he's going to cut us off from the rest of the world diplomatically and through trade, when that's just not the case. It's simply a military thing. If anything, he wants to strengthen our relationship with other countries via the ONE thing they really can't live without -- money.

I can see how you might think I'm wrong if you get to impose your personal definition of terms on me in a way that I've specifically disavowed. I'll stick with my "factual" characterization of Paul's foreign policy position as "isolationist." Perhaps you missed the several posts in this thread where I explicitly distinguished his trade policy from his policy on the use of the military. If not, I invite you to read the thread before telling me that I think he's going to "cut us off from the rest of the world diplomatically and through trade." :shrug:

patteeu
06-20-2007, 05:04 PM
Who cares? You haven't demonstrated a lick of knowledge about what Ron's actual positions are. You've just kind of floundered around it with a bunch of hyperbole.

You commented that "I don't think his brand of isolationism is what our country needs as we face the GWoT." Fine. So I ask you what "his brand of isolationism" even is, and you've so far come up with nothing worth even discussing other than how a bunch of yahoos define Isolationism.

I know what "isolationism" means. What I don't know is what you mean by "his brand of isolationism." I'm not sure why you're placing the burden on me to define Ron Paul's brand of isolationism, when it's your coined phrase to begin with.

I would be happy to discuss this further, once I have some idea what the hell you're talking about. Why is it that you can give me everyone else's definitions, but you can't speak to any specific policy that Ron Paul openly states? He is, afterall, the guy you're talking about.

So what exactly is "his brand of isolationism?"

Haha. I don't care whether you believe I know what Ron Paul is about or not. I was following Ron Paul before you even sniffed the Libertarian party. If you want to know what he stands for, google him. If you already know what he stands for then you know exactly what I mean by "his brand of isolationism."

What you seem incapable of doing is showing me why the label I've used with him is inappropriate. So even though it irks you -- in fact, since you've kind of been a dick about it, especially because it irks you -- I'm going to continue describing him as an isolationist when it comes to using or demonstrating a credible threat to use US military power to protect our global interests.

Taco John
06-20-2007, 05:51 PM
Well, like I said before: Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's in favor of a non-interventionalist foriegn policy, but he's not an isolationist (whatever an isolationist is - sounds like your "neocon").

You can call him what you want, but don't pretend that you're being honest about it.

Silock
06-20-2007, 06:51 PM
I'll stick with my "factual" characterization of Paul's foreign policy position as "isolationist."

Which isn't isolationist at all, seeing that he still wants to maintain diplomatic relationships with other countries. Tell me how that's isolationist, again?

Silock
06-20-2007, 06:52 PM
when it comes to using or demonstrating a credible threat to use US military power to protect our global interests.

Like pre-emptive war? What exactly do you mean here?

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 07:41 PM
Call it whatever you like. That doesn't make it factual.

Paul wants open trade, and not to use our military unless we are attacked. No more pre-emptive war. I don't understand why that makes him "isolationist," but whatever.

He follows the Just War doctrine, which is a very sound ethical basis for going to war or not. If you believe in pre-emptive warfare, then Paul is not for you. However, that course of action is unnecessarily risky and gets a lot of our troops killed for very little tangible, if any, gain.
Talk about a ridiculous round of talking past each other. patteau is not saying he's universally isolationist. He's saying he's militarily isolationist, while non-isolationist in other fields.
12/18/06 - I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Now, you say he doesn't want to use the military unless we're attacked. But what does that mean? There is evidence that he supports a Swiss paradigm, an armed populace and a robust militia. That suggests that even if attacked, we'd only react to our national border. This seems to be borne out by his words, which do not say "we don't interfere in internal affairs . . . unless we're attacked." Seems like he's advocating keeping the military within our borders and betting that all strife directed at us from outside can be averted by trade, travel, communication and diplomacy, at least until their panzers reach our shores. Could you provide a more detailed account of what Paul's stances are on the use of force.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 08:03 PM
Which isn't isolationist at all, seeing that he still wants to maintain diplomatic relationships with other countries. Tell me how that's isolationist, again?

What was wrong with the first several times?

patteeu
06-20-2007, 08:12 PM
Like pre-emptive war? What exactly do you mean here?

I'm not against pre-emptive war in certain situations, but that's not specifically what I was talking about. I'm talking about a lot of things, but as an example I'm talking about being willing to bomb Libya in response to it's participation in the hijacking of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. I'm talking about being willing to send a special forces team into Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden before he carries out the 9/11 attacks. I'm talking about supplying weapons to the Nicaraguan contras. I'm talking about sending military advisors and aid to friendly countries like the Philippines to help in their fight against al Qaeda allied rebel groups. I'm talking about having more options in our quiver when a country like Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons and actively undermines other sovereign states with proxy armies than talk and trade. Etc. Etc.

Logical
06-20-2007, 08:39 PM
Call it whatever you like. That doesn't make it factual.

Paul wants open trade, and not to use our military unless we are attacked. No more pre-emptive war. I don't understand why that makes him "isolationist," but whatever.

He follows the Just War doctrine, which is a very sound ethical basis for going to war or not. If you believe in pre-emptive warfare, then Paul is not for you. However, that course of action is unnecessarily risky and gets a lot of our troops killed for very little tangible, if any, gain.

I just wonder how you determine who has attacked when Paul want to get rid of the CIA and other intelligence agencies?

BucEyedPea
06-20-2007, 08:58 PM
I'm talking about having more options in our quiver when a country like Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons and actively undermines other sovereign states with proxy armies than talk and trade. Etc. Etc.
When did Iran "threaten" to develop nuclear weapons?
That's a pretty overt thing for them to say. Iran's never said they're doing that...they claim they're doing it for energy. We're the one's talking about a nuke, and/or all "options" are on the table as is Israel who has over 200 of them. Projection.

What other "sovereign" states are we referring to over there?
A sovereign state is one that can defend itself. The only one I know of that can defend itself over there is Israel. Outside of there Pakistan.

Fishpicker
06-20-2007, 09:01 PM
I just wonder how you determine who has attacked when Paul want to get rid of the CIA and other intelligence agencies?

well, you would leave that to the agencies that are responsible for collecting intelligence. The CIA is not primarily concerned with collecting intelligence (especially not domestically). The NSA is the agency that collects intelligence. (CIA does analysis and dissemination)

And what would it matter if the CIA did not exist in 2001? they didnt prevent jack, politicos ignore the intelligence they dont agree with. Then they request tailored intelligence to back their agenda.

the CIA is autonomous. they can raise their own funds (black ops are funded with black budgets) they aren't held accountable for anything. The president can choose a CIA director but, there is practically no oversight beyond that.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 12:34 AM
...militarily isolationist...


ROFL


I can't believe I'm actually reading the words "militarily isolationist" from someone using the term with a straight face.

Praytell, what the hell is a "military isolationist?" Better yet, what's the opposite of a "military isolationist?" There's an answer I'd love to get from you and Pat. A military intervetionalist? Good god, if you guys could only step out and see the hole you're digging.

Does believing that if you're going to go to war, that you should actually declare it make you a "military isolationist?"

patteeu
06-21-2007, 12:44 AM
ROFL


I can't believe I'm actually reading the words "militarily isolationist" from someone using the term with a straight face.

Praytell, what the hell is a "military isolationist?" Better yet, what's the opposite of a "military isolationist?"

Does believing that if you're going to go to war, that you should actually declare it make you a "military isolationist?"

I don't believe you're really having a hard time understanding what's going on in this thread.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 12:53 AM
I don't believe you're really having a hard time understanding what's going on in this thread.



You're right about that. I understand perfectly well what you guys are trying to pull off. Control the language and you control the debate. Defining anything is counterproductive, because it gets in the way of the "feelings" that the misconstrewn words invoke. Which is why I know you'll never answer the question regarding the opposite of a "military isolationist."

patteeu
06-21-2007, 12:54 AM
You're right about that. I understand perfectly well what you guys are trying to pull off. Control the language and you control the debate. Defining anything is counterproductive, because it gets in the way of the "feelings" that the misconstrewn words invoke. Which is why I know you'll never answer the question regarding the opposite of a "military isolationist."

Said the pot to the kettle.

FWIW, I don't believe Baby Lee is trying to pull anything off here. He's just explaining what some of you seem to be having a hard time understanding about my description of Paul as an isolationist. I don't think you needed the explanation though because you are earnestly engaged in exactly what you describe above. You are desperate to avoid having your guy described with what you consider a pejorative term. Like I said much earlier in the thread though, prettying it up with a nice sounding term doesn't change the unattractive nature of Paul's underlying position.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 12:56 AM
Talk about a ridiculous round of talking past each other. patteau is not saying he's universally isolationist. He's saying he's militarily isolationist, while non-isolationist in other fields....Could you provide a more detailed account of what Paul's stances are on the use of force.

I skipped a bunch for awhile in here...but I got that pat was saying he was "isolatonist"...period without indicating that this was military alone.

Paul did vote for going into Afghanistan and also voted for the use of Marques and Letters so we wouldn't have to use our military totally to find bin Laden as locals could assist and maybe be able to get to places we couldn't better.

He wouldn't create a "Global war", making it seem like it's everywhere or for a bunch of men in a cave, go after wrong targets such as countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 in order to handle all terror globally such as fighting Israel's terrorist enemies because the Israeli lobby lobbied for it or for a crusade to make over the world for democracy as a way to make us safer. He would put America first. And he wouldn't build 14 miliary bases in Iraq or build the world's largest embassy in there when the CIA former counter-terrorism bin laden unit experts say troops on their lands brought terror home to America.

I read wiki tonight and it had a good list of his accomplishments.
He is also former military himself.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 01:01 AM
Said the pot to the kettle.


Great come back. Does that mean I can't get the opposite of "military isolationist" out of you?

Taco John
06-21-2007, 01:02 AM
Military beligerent?

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:05 AM
I skipped a bunch for awhile in here...but I got that pat was saying he was "isolatonist"...period without indicating that this was military alone.

I think I've identified your problem then. You need to actually read my posts to understand what I'm saying. I think I made it pretty clear on several occasions what I was talking about.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 01:07 AM
Like I said much earlier in the thread though, prettying it up with a nice sounding term doesn't change the unattractive nature of Paul's underlying position.
You do know that what one finds attractive or unattrative are pure opinion right?

It's very attractive to me, and it will make us safer, freer and more prosperous.

As for unattractive, I visited Boortz's site tonight when I got in. That works for me.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:08 AM
Great come back. Does that mean I can't get the opposite of "military isolationist" out of you?

Are you still holding out on telling me about the "huge difference" you see between isolationism and non-interventionism?

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 01:11 AM
I think I've identified your problem then. You need to actually read my posts to understand what I'm saying. I think I made it pretty clear on several occasions what I was talking about.
No you haven't identified my problem which is the same way you have misidentified the solution to terror. I understood you fully, when I was active in here up to the point I responded last. I don't agree with you and I know you're using the word in the common usage as most people who don't like those who dissent from an unecessary use of force to shape the world. I'm saying the common usage is a misnowmer as it creates a an image of a hermit country.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:19 AM
You do know that what one finds attractive or unattrative are pure opinion right?


I certainly do. This whole argument started when I was minding my own business and describing the one thing about Ron Paul that makes him unattractive *to me* despite the many things I like about him. I wasn't the one who tried to force a specific label on anyone else, I used my own label. And along with my clarifications in this thread, I think my label is just as accurately descriptive as what you might prefer.

You and Taco are welcome to worship the ground that Paul hunkers down on if you want to. That's OK by me.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 01:20 AM
Are you still holding out on telling me about the "huge difference" you see between isolationism and non-interventionism?
I can see it:

isolationist=hermit country
non-interventionist =minding our own business on things that are not our business

Simple as a,b,c.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 01:21 AM
You and Taco are welcome to worship the ground that Paul hunkers down on if you want to. That's OK by me.
But it really isn't okay with you...and you know it.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 01:22 AM
Are you still holding out on telling me about the "huge difference" you see between isolationism and non-interventionism?


I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly you consider an isolationist. I'm guessing that it's someone who isn't willing to defend America. Is this accurate? Is this what you consider "Ron Pauls brand of isolationism?"


How about military policist? That's a fair opposite of military isolationist, isn't it?

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. That means he's only willing to use the military as outlined in the Constitution. The real difference between his position and yours, is that Ron Paul has faith in the Constitution, as where you apparently take the position that it's a quaint document that has no place in modern America since we've been attacked. I'm not so sure what's attractive about that position.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:33 AM
No you haven't identified my problem which is the same way you have misidentified the solution to terror. I understood you fully, when I was active in here up to the point I responded last. I don't agree with you and I know you're using the word in the common usage as most people who don't like those who dissent from an unecessary use of force to shape the world. I'm saying the common usage is a misnowmer as it creates a an image of a hermit country.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying then. It looked to me like you thought I meant isolationist "period", ie without any clarification that I wasn't talking about such things as trade and general diplomacy. If I was mistaken about that, I apologize.

As for isolationist being a misnomer, I don't think it's any more of a misnomer than non-interventionist. Neither term captures every nuance of Paul's position (or anyone else's for that matter). Paul, his supporters, and others who share their views prefer the latter because it separates them from a word that they think carries a negative connotation. For my money, Paul's position on the GWoT deserves a healthy dose of negative connotation.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:35 AM
I can see it:

isolationist=hermit country
non-interventionist =minding our own business on things that are not our business

Simple as a,b,c.

I appreciate the effort, but that doesn't solve our problem because using those definitions and my opinions about such things, Ron Paul is an isolationist and I am a non-interventionist, just like I said earlier in this thread.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 01:38 AM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly you consider an isolationist. I'm guessing that it's someone who isn't willing to defend America. Is this accurate? Is this what you consider "Ron Pauls brand of isolationism?"


How about military policist? That's a fair opposite of military isolationist, isn't it?

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. That means he's only willing to use the military as outlined in the Constitution. The real difference between his position and yours, is that Ron Paul has faith in the Constitution, as where you apparently take the position that it's a quaint document that has no place in modern America since we've been attacked. I'm not so sure what's attractive about that position.

You're the one who said there was a "huge difference." I would have thought that you'd be able to rattle it off without any effort, but if you want to keep me in the dark as to your thoughts on the subject, I'm cool with it. Don't expect me to go out of my way to answer your questions though.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't you support the Iraq war at one point and didn't you also say that Obama's got the best plan for salvaging what can be salvaged from Iraq before you jumped off the Obama bandwagon and landed right next to the spot where Ron Paul is sticking his head in the sand over the GWoT? Is that because the Constitution is a quaint document that has no place in the modern world or is that somehow consistent with it? Help me out here, Taco Madison.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 02:03 AM
Don't expect me to go out of my way to answer your questions though.

Oh I'm not. It would be hard for you to keep your story straight if you did actually make an attempt to.

Silock
06-21-2007, 02:10 AM
Neither term captures every nuance of Paul's position

Then perhaps it would be best to stop tossing either term around so haphazardly.

patteeu
06-21-2007, 07:09 AM
Then perhaps it would be best to stop tossing either term around so haphazardly.

:rolleyes:

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 09:17 AM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around what exactly you consider an isolationist. I'm guessing that it's someone who isn't willing to defend America. Is this accurate? Is this what you consider "Ron Pauls brand of isolationism?"
Jesus!! read the posts.
In Paul's own words he says that our military doesn't go into other lands, period. And that our international efforts are through trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy channels.
I haven't found where he's fleshed it out, but some have mused that he'd implement a Swiss model, armed citizenry and robust militia, to defend us on our own turf if the need arises.
So there's the suggestion of isolationism in the sense that he intones that our military might should never exceed our national borders.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 09:34 AM
JI haven't found where he's fleshed it out, but some have mused that he'd implement a Swiss model, armed citizenry and robust militia, to defend us on our own turf if the need arises.

I'm presuming you mean my posts here. I'm not saying that's Paul's stand exactly, I'm just saying that would be a model that fits with his views. I've never heard him say that. I was analyzing the word. I just think that model comes closest to the Founders FP, and a limited govt republic as opposed to using a word that has "isolation" in it, which conjures up a hermit country.


So there's the suggestion of isolationism in the sense that he intones that our military might should never exceed our national borders.
This is what those on our side of the argument are arguing, that this doesn't comport with this word. It's an emotionally charged word that conveys a false image. Advertisers tell clients that there is a lot of power in a name and can have emotional pull and shape opinion. The everyday man in the street is not going to look it up.

If a person like Napolean were to come along knocking down govts in quest of an empire with us in the line-up, and Paul were convinced it was a threat...I don't think he'd limit it to our borders. Although, in general he would ....as it should be.

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 09:37 AM
It's an emotionally charged word that conveys a false image.
How does that word get emotionally charged?
Is it when patteau tries to clarify what he means by it with sourced definitions?
or . . .
Is it when TJ lashes "Oh, so he's an isolationist. . . by that I guess you mean he's a big fat pussy!!!!111ONEONEUNO1UNO1."

Actually, I know how it get emotionally charged, it's because the previous wave of isolationism was when Americans thought Hitler's campaign was Europe's problem. But that's the risk you take. You think Paul will have the discernment to know the difference between the next Hitler/Napoleon, and the next blowhard bluffer, but you don't know.
I do know that if the intelligence information we collect now is shitty, I can't wait to see what we get when the CIA is disbanded, and our intelligence comes through trade and diplomacy channels.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 09:45 AM
How does that word get emotionally charged?
Is it when patteau tries to clarify what he means by it with sourced definitions?
or . . .
Is it when TJ lashes "Oh, so he's an isolationist. . . by that I guess you mean he's a big fat pussy!!!!111ONEONEUNO1UNO1."
Sourced definitions.? Wiki? LOL! Even listo analyzed that definition. I had two up that I deleted earlier that back up our stand too.

It's an inaccurate word. Intended as opprobrium particularly when you see the pundits and politicians who are using it.

Yes. Of course it's emotional. People buy things based on emotion, then justify it analytically afterwards. This is no different in selling an idea as in politics.
It was coined by the early internationalists to move our FP in another direction and to case aspersions on those who refused to go along with the use of the military for non defense related projects. Things like nation building, UN police actions, other police actions, NATO etc.

And I don't want to hear how some people buy things analyticaly; that they're different. Even the so called emotionless person has emotions.

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 09:53 AM
It's an inaccurate word. Intended as opprobrium particularly when you see the pundits and politicians who are using it.
It's a little understood term, that the Paulists gladly use as a springboard to espouse their own just-as-little understood alternative term and fill that term with yummy imagery.

"Dammit!! Paul is not a structural-functionalist!! Only pussys are structural-functionalists. Are you calling him a pussy? He's clearly a functional-structuralist, meaning he'll use function-structures ONLY when it's happy good, and NEVER when it's sad bad. Harrumph!!"

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 09:59 AM
It's a little understood term, that the Paulists gladly use as a springboard to espouse their own just-as-little understood alternative term and fill that term with yummy imagery.
Projection. This applies just as equally to the other side using "isolationism" who actually began using the label first to those who dissented from what they felt was a necessary use of force.

Paul is probably the most honest, sincere politician running and has the most integrity. He's hardly someone who has little understanding of the term. He's a historian, medical doctor and been in Congress for a good while. He's intelligent and he is on record in Congress of giving reasons for each intervention he opposes with specifics. It's the other side who labels him in order to discredit him.

Fishpicker
06-21-2007, 10:08 AM
I do know that if the intelligence information we collect now is shitty, I can't wait to see what we get when the CIA is disbanded, and our intelligence comes through trade and diplomacy channels.

*post #161

there are alternatives. Lets not forget that there are plenty other agencies to collect/analyze intelligence. You could even get comparable intelligence from the private sector (like J.I.G.) The CIA has to go because of the rogue elements. The People woking with intelligence inside the CIA could be absorbed into other agencies..

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 10:18 AM
Paul is probably the most honest, sincere politician running and has the most integrity. He's hardly someone who has little understanding of the term. He's a historian, medical doctor and been in Congress for a good while. He's intelligent and he is on record in Congress of giving reasons for each intervention he opposes with specifics. It's the other side who labels him in order to discredit him.
Well, I'm glad we're through with all that 'emotionally charged language.'

Phweeeewwww!!

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 10:21 AM
*post #161

there are alternatives. Lets not forget that there are plenty other agencies to collect/analyze intelligence. You could even get comparable intelligence from the private sector (like J.I.G.) The CIA has to go because of the rogue elements. The People woking with intelligence inside the CIA could be absorbed into other agencies..
The point is, he does not want those entanglements, at least not on foreign soil.
Be a beacon on the hill, and open up trade, diplomacy and communication, and the things that happen in other lands, at least so far was WE'RE concerned, will take care of themselves.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 10:29 AM
It's a little understood term, that the Paulists gladly use as a springboard to espouse their own just-as-little understood alternative term and fill that term with yummy imagery.

"Dammit!! Paul is not a structural-functionalist!! Only pussys are structural-functionalists. Are you calling him a pussy? He's clearly a functional-structuralist, meaning he'll use function-structures ONLY when it's happy good, and NEVER when it's sad bad. Harrumph!!"


ROFL

As opposed to "his brand of isolationism, though I'm not going to tell you what "his brand" means, I'm just going to let the accusation sit by itself."

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 10:37 AM
ROFL

As opposed to "his brand of isolationism, though I'm not going to tell you what "his brand" means, I'm just going to let the accusation sit by itself."
I forgot, you and patt play your games of one-upsmanship in the guise of discussing issues. I'll bow out, then. Enjoy.

Taco John
06-21-2007, 10:41 AM
I forgot, you and patt play your games of one-upsmanship in the guise of discussing issues. I'll bow out, then. Enjoy.



Hey, I still want to get the opposite of "military isolationist" out of one of you.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 11:50 AM
Well, I'm glad we're through with all that 'emotionally charged language.'

Phweeeewwww!!
I never exempted myself. But at least that's not rank demogaguery.
He is known for that and believe it or not he is respected by his congressional colleagues for it. He's known as "Dr. No" by them. In fact even Newt Gingrich, when he was in office twisting arms of other Pubs for compromise votes, always granted Paul an exemption saying he could vote as he wanted. Speaks volumes.

Silock
06-21-2007, 11:54 AM
:rolleyes:
:deevee:

Silock
06-21-2007, 11:56 AM
In Paul's own words he says that our military doesn't go into other lands, period.

That's not entirely true. It's not that our military stops at our borders; it's that our military shouldn't be used unless there's a credible national security issue for us. He voted to go into Afghanistan. That's not isolationism.

It's called "restraint."

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 11:57 AM
Hey, I still want to get the opposite of "military isolationist" out of one of you.
OK, how 'bout military non-isolationist? Or is that too emotionally charged.

Better yet, notapussy© !! :p

Silock
06-21-2007, 11:57 AM
You think Paul will have the discernment to know the difference between the next Hitler/Napoleon, and the next blowhard bluffer, but you don't know.

So, just to be safe, we should take everyone out. AMERICA! **** YEAH!

BucEyedPea
06-21-2007, 12:18 PM
That's not entirely true. It's not that our military stops at our borders; it's that our military shouldn't be used unless there's a credible national security issue for us. He voted to go into Afghanistan. That's not isolationism.

It's called "restraint."
He also originated legislation to introduce a formal Declaration of War if we were to go into Iraq too. Not that he was going to vote for it himself, but he feels that this assists in winning.


Now I don't know where he's ever said he'd get rid of the CIA, as Logical claims. I came on about midnight, saw that and googled for nearly two hours on it and found nothing. It just may be he'd do away with it and putsomething in it's place as a country needs intel or intel analysis.

I mean afterall, he has a host of former CIA agents from the bin Laden counter-terrorism unit supporting him. The door over which says "The truth shall set you free." As they feel the cold hard facts should be their domain and not have intel bent to fit politics or agendas which would better serve the country. I mean we can believe sleazy politicians or have a more scientific and diagnostic approach. He's a doctor, if the solution doesn't fix the ailment then it's not the correct cause of it. That takes honesty in analysis.

Paul is also a gradualist. He may want to repeal the 16th Amendment but he knows all big govt cannot be done away with overnight. So he also supports a consumption tax aka the Fair Tax...as that does do away with the IRS and still provide revenue. He knows this cannot be done all overnight.

Baby Lee
06-21-2007, 01:15 PM
So, just to be safe, we should take everyone out. AMERICA! **** YEAH!
Geez, it's the first day of summer. Where are you guys getting ALL THIS STRAW?!?!

Fishpicker
06-23-2007, 12:36 AM
The Colbert bump - Ron Paul

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tdPRygCGWTA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tdPRygCGWTA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Logical
06-23-2007, 01:00 AM
He also originated legislation to introduce a formal Declaration of War if we were to go into Iraq too. Not that he was going to vote for it himself, but he feels that this assists in winning.


Now I don't know where he's ever said he'd get rid of the CIA, as Logical claims. I came on about midnight, saw that and googled for nearly two hours on it and found nothing. It just may be he'd do away with it and putsomething in it's place as a country needs intel or intel analysis.
....

Maybe I misinterpreted what Paul said in this Bill Maher clip.

http://www.youtube.com/v/xo6KIusCBoU

Taco John
06-23-2007, 01:15 AM
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yF_P6nyv4CY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:04 AM
It's a little understood term, that the Paulists gladly use as a springboard to espouse their own just-as-little understood alternative term and fill that term with yummy imagery.

"Dammit!! Paul is not a structural-functionalist!! Only pussys are structural-functionalists. Are you calling him a pussy? He's clearly a functional-structuralist, meaning he'll use function-structures ONLY when it's happy good, and NEVER when it's sad bad. Harrumph!!"

Exactly. LOL

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:17 AM
That's not entirely true. It's not that our military stops at our borders; it's that our military shouldn't be used unless there's a credible national security issue for us. He voted to go into Afghanistan. That's not isolationism.

It's called "restraint."

Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, this whole argument revolves around what is to be considered a "credible national security issue." From my POV, Paul would too often decide that a situation was not a credible national security issue. From his, I would too often decide that it was. (Although I leave open the possibility that there might be occasions when the reverse were true).

He's more Xish than I am and I'm more Yish than he is (to get away from the terminology that has you guys reacting emotionally instead of thoughtfully). We both think we are limiting our country's military involvement to cases where there is a credible national security issue. He would think I'm wrong and I definitely think he's wrong. Which, of course, was the whole point of my first post on this subject.

Taco John
06-23-2007, 10:20 AM
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet, this whole argument revolves around what is to be considered a "credible national security issue." From my POV, Paul would too often decide that a situation was not a credible national security issue. From his, I would too often decide that it was. (Although I leave open the possibility that there might be occasions when the reverse were true).

He's more Xish than I am and I'm more Yish than he is (to get away from the terminology that has you guys reacting emotionally instead of thoughtfully). We both think we are limiting our country's military involvement to cases where there is a credible national security issue. He would think I'm wrong and I definitely think he's wrong. Which, of course, was the whole point of my first post on this subject.



So then, do you believe Iraq is currently a credible national security issue?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 12:22 PM
So then, do you believe Iraq is currently a credible national security issue?

Yes I do.

Silock
06-23-2007, 12:39 PM
Yes I do.

Did you believe it was a national security issue before we went and pissed off the natives there?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 01:43 PM
Did you believe it was a national security issue before we went and pissed off the natives there?

I believe that we are in a fight with adherents of a radical islamist ideology that trancends national boundaries and with their rogue state benefactors. I believe that that is a credible national security issue, especially in conjunction with the issue of nuclear proliferation.

I think the case for forcible regime change in Iraq as a part of this broader war was strong although the emphasis on the WMD angle has turned out to be unfortunate and ultimately counterproductive from a PR pov, IMO. I also think we have legitimate beefs with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and other muslim countries over this issue although I don't necessarily advocate invasion in each and every case.

Silock
06-24-2007, 12:10 AM
So, what credence do you lend to experts who say that the reason those islamic fundamentalist groups attack us is due to blowback?

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 12:13 AM
So, what credence do you lend to experts who say that the reason those islamic fundamentalist groups attack us is due to blowback?
He doesn't give them any credence. Nada...he's just for his man. He'd rather trust a politician over expert professionals, not partisans, who worked in many administrations both Dem/Pub for 27 years. The door over the entrance to the CIA apparently says " The truth will set you free."


And let's not forget, that the military experts, the generals were also not listened to either and they aren't now on Iran either.

Silock
06-24-2007, 12:28 AM
He doesn't give them any credence. Nada...he's just for his man. He'd rather trust a politician over expert professionals, not partisans, who worked in many administrations both Dem/Pub for 27 years. The door over the entrance to the CIA apparently says " The truth will set you free."


And let's not forget, that the military experts, the generals were also not listened to either and they aren't now on Iran either.

Well, really, I'm just wondering what credibility the "experts" on the other side of this issue have. Because I haven't heard any expert defend some of the things the administration has been doing. The only defense I hear is from politicians or SIGs.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 12:33 AM
I'd say your observation is correct. But what does " SIG" stand for.

Silock
06-24-2007, 01:28 AM
Special interest groups

SNR
06-24-2007, 02:39 AM
How does that word get emotionally charged?
Is it when patteau tries to clarify what he means by it with sourced definitions?
or . . .
Is it when TJ lashes "Oh, so he's an isolationist. . . by that I guess you mean he's a big fat pussy!!!!111ONEONEUNO1UNO1."

Actually, I know how it get emotionally charged, it's because the previous wave of isolationism was when Americans thought Hitler's campaign was Europe's problem. But that's the risk you take. You think Paul will have the discernment to know the difference between the next Hitler/Napoleon, and the next blowhard bluffer, but you don't know.
I do know that if the intelligence information we collect now is shitty, I can't wait to see what we get when the CIA is disbanded, and our intelligence comes through trade and diplomacy channels.Help me out. Did we declare war on Germany or did we not?

Oh wait, that's right, we did.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 08:27 AM
So, what credence do you lend to experts who say that the reason those islamic fundamentalist groups attack us is due to blowback?

I think there is a lot of truth to the idea that "blowback" is a factor in their motivation. However, as I've said before, the cure would be worse than the disease, IMO, if we were to try to eliminate this blowback.

Tire treads wear away as a result of being used. The more the tire is used, the greater the chances of a blowout. You could prevent this type of blowout by parking your car in the garage and never using it, but the cost of eliminating the possibility of these blowouts is worse than taking your chances. The best solution is to go ahead and use the tires, but don't use them unwisely (e.g. skidding to a stop at every red light and burning rubber when the light goes green) and continually monitor the risk so that you can change the tire when the wear reaches a certain point.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 08:30 AM
He doesn't give them any credence. Nada...he's just for his man. He'd rather trust a politician over expert professionals, not partisans, who worked in many administrations both Dem/Pub for 27 years. The door over the entrance to the CIA apparently says " The truth will set you free."


And let's not forget, that the military experts, the generals were also not listened to either and they aren't now on Iran either.

Go ahead and keep fooling yourself about the neocon bogeyman and believing that the generals, the military experts and intelligence officers are of one mind and united against them (but ultimately ignored). It's preciously naive.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 08:41 AM
Well, really, I'm just wondering what credibility the "experts" on the other side of this issue have. Because I haven't heard any expert defend some of the things the administration has been doing. The only defense I hear is from politicians or SIGs.

What "things the administration has been doing" are you talking about? Let's take the so-called surge strategy as an example. If you watched General Petraeus' nomination hearing you would have seen an expert supporting the Bush strategy. If you see cable news regularly, you have surely encountered a former military officer or two who agrees with the Bush administration from time to time.

If by "other side of this issue" you mean the other side of the blowback argument, I suggest you consider the fact that we've understood the concept of blowback for a long long time but yet we haven't elected to withdraw from the world either completely or to the extent that Paul advocates, to prevent it. That tells me that there is a broad consensus among our leaders, including military experts and foreign policy professionals, that we continue to use ALL aspects of our power to advance our interests around the world (even if there are disagreements among them about the extent to which we use that power).

Ron Paul's ideas of noninterventionism (happy?) are, and have been for decades, fringe ideas. They gain some converts today because of disillusionment over the war, but I assure you that there aren't many professional foreign policy people or military generals who want to withdraw from the world to the extent that Paul advocates. And as long as we assert our interests in the world, there will be some amount of blowback. Our job is to find the best balance between asserting our interests and creating blowback.

Silock
06-24-2007, 10:41 AM
I think there is a lot of truth to the idea that "blowback" is a factor in their motivation. However, as I've said before, the cure would be worse than the disease, IMO, if we were to try to eliminate this blowback.

Tire treads wear away as a result of being used. The more the tire is used, the greater the chances of a blowout. You could prevent this type of blowout by parking your car in the garage and never using it, but the cost of eliminating the possibility of these blowouts is worse than taking your chances. The best solution is to go ahead and use the tires, but don't use them unwisely (e.g. skidding to a stop at every red light and burning rubber when the light goes green) and continually monitor the risk so that you can change the tire when the wear reaches a certain point.

You lost me with the whole tire thing.

Silock
06-24-2007, 10:44 AM
Let's take the so-called surge strategy as an example.

Not what I'm talking about. Larger pictures.

If by "other side of this issue" you mean the other side of the blowback argument, I suggest you consider the fact that we've understood the concept of blowback for a long long time but yet we haven't elected to withdraw from the world either completely or to the extent that Paul advocates, to prevent it. That tells me that there is a broad consensus among our leaders, including military experts and foreign policy professionals, that we continue to use ALL aspects of our power to advance our interests around the world (even if there are disagreements among them about the extent to which we use that power).

I missed the part of that strategy that was making the problem better.

Ron Paul's ideas of noninterventionism (happy?) are, and have been for decades, fringe ideas. They gain some converts today because of disillusionment over the war, but I assure you that there aren't many professional foreign policy people or military generals who want to withdraw from the world to the extent that Paul advocates. And as long as we assert our interests in the world, there will be some amount of blowback. Our job is to find the best balance between asserting our interests and creating blowback.

Why is there such a need to "assert our interests?" What ARE our interests?

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Why is there such a need to "assert our interests?" What ARE our interests?
He has explained this to me as oil. That if we need oil we have a right to invade as it will cripple our economy and destroy us. Even though we buy most of it from Canada. In fact our top 4 suppliers only have one ME source which is SA. But he feels the world markets/prices could affect us despite this. So oil is a valid reason to invade. Pretty mercantilist for a self-proclaimed libertarian with a small "l." No?

Silock
06-24-2007, 10:52 AM
As we push for new energy alternatives, oil will be less of an issue in the future. We might as well just drill Alaska and use the oil while we can. In 50 years, we're not going to need it any more and it will be near worthless.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 12:17 PM
You lost me with the whole tire thing.

You've got to be kidding me.

The point is that blowback isn't the only problem you have to contend with just like blowouts aren't the only problem you need to worry about when it comes to your automobile. Sure you can prevent blowouts by parking your car in the garage, but at what cost?

Silock
06-24-2007, 12:23 PM
You've got to be kidding me.

The point is that blowback isn't the only problem you have to contend with just like blowouts aren't the only problem you need to worry about when it comes to your automobile. Sure you can prevent blowouts by parking your car in the garage, but at what cost?

You can also have a blowout from a faulty tire. Or hitting debris in the road. Or having an over-inflated or under-inflated tire. I don't understand "at what cost." There is no cost. You don't have to replace the tires. Or you can just drive like a sane individual and your tires will last you forever.

I still don't get the whole tire thing.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 12:51 PM
I missed the part of that strategy that was making the problem better.

What is the problem? Blowback isn't the problem, it's a side-effect of our solutions to problems. Lots of different problems. It's an unintended consequence. A policy that uses the minimization of blowback as it's primary guiding light will have other types of unintended consequences.

Why is there such a need to "assert our interests?" What ARE our interests?

We have lots of interests. As BEP notes, the free flow of oil at reasonable prices is one of the big ones and our dependence isn't going away any time soon. But that's not our only interest. We have an interest in keeping shipping lanes open. We have an interest in protecting Americans as they travel abroad. We have an interest in extraditing criminals who have fled the country. We have security interests from threats that originate overseas. We have interests in promoting a level playing field in trade. We have an interest in preventing the proliferation of WMD. We have an interest in preventing threats that are mere nuisances now from growing into existential threats in the future. We have interests in being seen as a nation that lives up to it's commitments instead of leaving allies in the lurch when the going gets tough. We have an interest in promoting our liberty-based democratic way of life over the various totalitarianist ideologies that are incompatible with it. We have an interest in minimizing the likelihood that contagious illnesses will grow into into pandemics. Etc. Etc.

Silock
06-24-2007, 01:29 PM
A policy that uses the minimization of blowback as it's primary guiding light will have other types of unintended consequences.

That's a fact that's not in evidence, if you're speaking about negative unintended consequences.

We have lots of interests. As BEP notes, the free flow of oil at reasonable prices is one of the big ones and our dependence isn't going away any time soon.

Doesn't require a military to do that, unless we're planning on invading Canada.

We have an interest in preventing the proliferation of WMD. We have an interest in preventing threats that are mere nuisances now from growing into existential threats in the future.

But that's not something we need to be unilateral in pursuing.

We have interests in being seen as a nation that lives up to it's commitments instead of leaving allies in the lurch when the going gets tough.

If we keep this up, we're not going to HAVE any allies, except allies that are only so out of fear.

We have an interest in promoting our liberty-based democratic way of life over the various totalitarianist ideologies that are incompatible with it.

Doesn't require a military to do that. Interestingly enough, almost none of what you mentioned requires a military to pull off. We don't have to strong-arm the rest of the world to protect our interests.

patteeu
06-25-2007, 07:21 AM
That's a fact that's not in evidence, if you're speaking about negative unintended consequences.

It's funny that you say that, given the unproven approach you seem to be advocating.

Doesn't require a military to do that, unless we're planning on invading Canada.

That's a fact that's not in evidence. That's a pretty easy argument to make for all of this speculative stuff.

If the flow of middle east oil or OPEC oil stops, canadian oil is going to be bid up substantially by the global market. The US doesn't get first dibs or anything.

Doesn't require a military to do that.

I couldn't disagree more, which is why I oppose the neo-isolationism of Ron Paul. (Although I don't think even Paul would go that far).

Silock
06-25-2007, 08:15 AM
It's funny that you say that, given the unproven approach you seem to be advocating.

You say that it won't work like it's some kind of fact, but the truth is that you don't know it to be so.

If the flow of middle east oil or OPEC oil stops, canadian oil is going to be bid up substantially by the global market. The US doesn't get first dibs or anything.

Good thing we have all that oil in Alaska. And like I said before, our reliance on oil is going to be less and less as the years go by anyway.

I couldn't disagree more, which is why I oppose the neo-isolationism of Ron Paul. (Although I don't think even Paul would go that far).

Yes, believe what we believe and govern like we want you to govern, or we'll bomb the hell out of you. How very American. What business of ours is it if some dickhead wants to run his country a different way? As long as he's not interfering with the average American's way of life, it has no bearing on us whatsoever, and doesn't require us swooping in to put our mark on the situation.

BucEyedPea
06-25-2007, 08:23 AM
YYes, believe what we believe and govern like we want you to govern, or we'll bomb the hell out of you. How very American. What business of ours is it if some dickhead wants to run his country a different way?

And that's it right here, if we didn't act like that the oil would still be sold to us.
This is the essence of Paul's stand.

Pat, has provided very little evidence to his argument. It's very old world. It was once called mercantilism. Yet, alleges that Paul's approach is unproven. It's Pat's approach that has the evidence of leading to embargos. Our relationship with the Japs was strained for 40 years prior to Pearl Harbor. Then we embargoed them. The oil embargo of the 70's was due to our strained relations with the Arabs and support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Seems to me Paul is right.

Silock
06-25-2007, 08:38 AM
And that's it right here, if we didn't act like that the oil would still be sold to us.
This is the essence of Paul's stand.

Pat, has provided very little evidence to his argument. It's very old world. It was once called mercantilism. Yet, alleges that Paul's approach is unproven. It's Pat's approach that has the evidence of leading to embargos. Our relationship with the Japs was strained for 40 years prior to Pearl Harbor. Then we embargoed them. The oil embargo of the 70's was due to our strained relations with the Arabs and support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Seems to me Paul is right.

Exactly. We'll still be able to get oil from somewhere as long as we pay for it.

Why?

Money is the ultimate motivator.

"I HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR! I WILL NOT SELL YOU OIL!"

"We're paying $60.00 a barrel."

"Okay, will you be paying with cash or charge?"

BucEyedPea
06-25-2007, 09:25 AM
Exactly. We'll still be able to get oil from somewhere as long as we pay for it.

Why?

Money is the ultimate motivator.

"I HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR! I WILL NOT SELL YOU OIL!"

"We're paying $60.00 a barrel."

"Okay, will you be paying with cash or charge?"
Not only that but it was the sanctions put on Iraq at our urging that took Iraqi oil off the market. War keeps it off the market during it too. Go figure, huh?

patteeu
06-25-2007, 12:18 PM
You say that it won't work like it's some kind of fact, but the truth is that you don't know it to be so.

I have no problem admitting that this is a belief on my part based on my understanding of human nature. I'd assume you'd admit the same for your belief.

Good thing we have all that oil in Alaska. And like I said before, our reliance on oil is going to be less and less as the years go by anyway.

Don't count on that reliance dropping below the critical point any time soon though.

Yes, believe what we believe and govern like we want you to govern, or we'll bomb the hell out of you. How very American. What business of ours is it if some dickhead wants to run his country a different way? As long as he's not interfering with the average American's way of life, it has no bearing on us whatsoever, and doesn't require us swooping in to put our mark on the situation.

I don't follow. I assume this is some kind of a strawman?

patteeu
06-25-2007, 12:19 PM
And that's it right here, if we didn't act like that the oil would still be sold to us.
This is the essence of Paul's stand.

Pat, has provided very little evidence to his argument. It's very old world. It was once called mercantilism. Yet, alleges that Paul's approach is unproven. It's Pat's approach that has the evidence of leading to embargos. Our relationship with the Japs was strained for 40 years prior to Pearl Harbor. Then we embargoed them. The oil embargo of the 70's was due to our strained relations with the Arabs and support of Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Seems to me Paul is right.

Likewise for yours.

patteeu
06-25-2007, 12:21 PM
Exactly. We'll still be able to get oil from somewhere as long as we pay for it.

Why?

Money is the ultimate motivator.

"I HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR! I WILL NOT SELL YOU OIL!"

"We're paying $60.00 a barrel."

"Okay, will you be paying with cash or charge?"

What would it cost Osama bin Laden to buy a nuclear weapon from the US arsenal? Money isn't always the ultimate motivator.

Silock
06-25-2007, 01:00 PM
I have no problem admitting that this is a belief on my part based on my understanding of human nature. I'd assume you'd admit the same for your belief.

But the difference is that doing it the way you suggest hasn't done a single thing to lessen the amount of blowback. It's just increased it and shifted it around.

I don't follow. I assume this is some kind of a strawman?

You believe it's our military's place to ensure that other countries govern the way we want, yes?

Silock
06-25-2007, 01:02 PM
What would it cost Osama bin Laden to buy a nuclear weapon from the US arsenal? Money isn't always the ultimate motivator.

Are you kidding? Money is the ultimate motivator in your example right there. I'm certain that given enough money, someone could be persuaded to get him one. $5? Probably not. $5 million? Probably not. A figure north of that? Probably.

go bowe
06-25-2007, 04:45 PM
You can also have a blowout from a faulty tire. Or hitting debris in the road. Or having an over-inflated or under-inflated tire. I don't understand "at what cost." There is no cost. You don't have to replace the tires. Or you can just drive like a sane individual and your tires will last you forever.

I still don't get the whole tire thing.tires will last you forever?

where do you get those?

i guess if you kept the car in your garage, the tires might last a very long time, but not forever...

oh wait, somebody already used the tire in the garage examples?

never mind...

patteeu
06-25-2007, 08:37 PM
But the difference is that doing it the way you suggest hasn't done a single thing to lessen the amount of blowback. It's just increased it and shifted it around.

I disagree. I guess it depends on what your baseline for blowback is. If my ideal foreign policy is X, I think there is a foreign policy Y that could generate even more blowback and a foreign policy Z that could generate less. IMO, X is the optimum point where the blowback created is worth the benefit of the policy that creates it.

You believe it's our military's place to ensure that other countries govern the way we want, yes?

Only in the rare circumstance where I believe it's important for our national security.

How about you? Do you think it's not our military's place to ensure that other countries govern the way we want even when it's an important matter of national security?

patteeu
06-25-2007, 08:40 PM
Are you kidding? Money is the ultimate motivator in your example right there. I'm certain that given enough money, someone could be persuaded to get him one. $5? Probably not. $5 million? Probably not. A figure north of that? Probably.

No realistic amount of money could do it. I'm not even sure an unrealistic amount could get the job done.

It would be far cheaper to hire the scientists and find a way to buy the equipment to build your own. Even though this has happened a few times, even this approach is very difficult in the face of the US-led embargo on nuclear weapons.

Silock
06-25-2007, 10:47 PM
I disagree. I guess it depends on what your baseline for blowback is. If my ideal foreign policy is X, I think there is a foreign policy Y that could generate even more blowback and a foreign policy Z that could generate less. IMO, X is the optimum point where the blowback created is worth the benefit of the policy that creates it.

So you think that post-Reagan foreign policy has lessened the amount of blowback??

Only in the rare circumstance where I believe it's important for our national security.

How about you? Do you think it's not our military's place to ensure that other countries govern the way we want even when it's an important matter of national security?

If it's a real threat to national security, sure. Not even Ron Paul disagrees with that kind of military intervention.

Silock
06-25-2007, 10:48 PM
No realistic amount of money could do it. I'm not even sure an unrealistic amount could get the job done.

For such a rabid military interventionist, you sure do have a higher opinion of humanity than most people.

Logical
06-25-2007, 11:18 PM
For such a rabid military interventionist, you sure do have a higher opinion of humanity than most people.

I agree with you and the point you are trying to make. I think patteeu might be naive as to what could occur.

Taco John
06-26-2007, 01:01 AM
What would it cost Osama bin Laden to buy a nuclear weapon from the US arsenal? Money isn't always the ultimate motivator.



Hey, I've got an idea... Why don't we capture and/or kill Osama Bin Ladin?

pikesome
06-26-2007, 09:41 AM
I thought I'd throw this article in the Ron Paul debate.

Link (http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=6709968&ClientType=Printable)

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - New Hampshire's convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown have gained a new supporter: presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

In an interview with RogueGovernment.com, the Texas congressman compares the Browns to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Junior. He says the Browns are suffering like those leaders.

The Browns are holed up in their Plainfield (New Hampshire) home and have threatened violence against federal officials if marshals come to arrest them. They were convicted of an elaborate scheme to hide millions of dollars in income. Their protest has become a rallying cry for anti-tax activists and militia members.

Silock
06-26-2007, 10:00 AM
Needs more info.

pikesome
06-26-2007, 10:10 AM
Needs more info.

Click the link for the article, there are links to more info at the bottom of the page.

Baby Lee
06-26-2007, 10:25 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4710607797448605118

patteeu
06-26-2007, 11:32 AM
So you think that post-Reagan foreign policy has lessened the amount of blowback??

I don't know.

If it's a real threat to national security, sure. Not even Ron Paul disagrees with that kind of military intervention.

Well then we all agree on the general requirement for justifying an intervention. It's just a matter of deciding what constitutes a national security issue.

patteeu
06-26-2007, 11:39 AM
For such a rabid military interventionist, you sure do have a higher opinion of humanity than most people.

I agree with you and the point you are trying to make. I think patteeu might be naive as to what could occur.

I think both of you are naive about the controls we have on our nuclear weapons and how difficult it would be to divert one to an illegal buyer. You couldn't just pay off one guy and get the job done.

If it could be done with a realistic amount of money, maybe you guys can explain to me why it hasn't been done yet.

Now given his dealings with the Chinese, if Bill Clinton were in charge, I might have to reconsider my answer... ;)