Ron Paul responds to charges of being an isolationist

[Taco John]

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

By Dr. RON PAUL

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Rep.+Ron+Paul%3A+I+advocate+the+same+foreign+policy+the+Founding+Fathers+would&articleId=cc287b0f-941c-4b07-88e9-9e992810f700

[Taco John]

This guy is going to make an awesome president!

[BucEyedPea]

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty.

Great Line!:thumb: :clap:

I see that's in NH's Manchester Union Leader....great publication!

[patteeu]

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade.

To paraphrase Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was. He's a neo-isolationist who wants to withdraw our military from the world, abandon our allies, and emphasize defense in the GWoT. Trade, travel, and talk have nothing to do with it.

[BucEyedPea]

To paraphrase Dennis Green, he is who we thought he was. He's a neo-isolationist who wants to withdraw our military from the world, abandon our allies, and de-emphasize offense in the GWoT. Trade, travel, and talk have nothing to do with it.
Trade, talk have everything to do with it but I did fix your post. You're actually just making a case for imperialism.... of a Podhertzian kind I might add. Today it's done with bases and putting favorable leaders in power that can do our bidding instead of an outright colony.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh and er ah....what allies? Neo-Imperial Great Britian and the new NeoCon in France?

[HonestChieffan]

Note to Ron.

The world has changed since Jefferson passed away.

[BucEyedPea]

Note to HonestChieffan....human nature, particularly regarding power and imperialism, has not changed since Jefferson passed away. These bad ideas have been around for a long, long time.

Good ideas DO NOT have an expiration date.

[patteeu]

Note to HonestChieffan....human nature, particularly regarding power and imperialism, has not changed since Jefferson passed away. These bad ideas have been around for a long, long time.

Good ideas DO NOT have an expiration date.

This is utter nonsense. Many good ideas do have an expiration date.

Polygamy is a good idea if you have a small, isolated society with few men and many women and you want the society to avoid extinction. It's not such a good idea when the population of men and women starts to come into more balance and when it grows larger.

Armoring knights was a good idea when the primary threat was a sword, but when someone invented gunpowder, armoring knights wasn't such a good idea anymore.

History is filled with good ideas gone bad. Paul supporters should think more and parrot less.

[patteeu]

Thomas Jefferson led us on a foreign war against islamists too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates).

Before that, when he was ambassador to France, Jefferson met with an official from Tripoli and asked why his government had been hostile to American ships even though there had been no provocation. The official's response according to a report to the Continental Congress was:

That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Neo-isolationism didn't help us then. Appeasement in the form of tribute didn't help us then. Military action helped, but it took two different military expeditions over the course of 15 years. If it had been up to today's anti-war democrats and today's right wing neo-isolationists, we would have never made it to the "shores of Tripoli."

[Taco John]

Thomas Jefferson used letters of marque and reprisal as a constitutional tool to fight the Barbary pirates.

[patteeu]

Thomas Jefferson used letters of marque and reprisal as a constitutional tool to fight the Barbary pirates.

Link me and while you're at it, explain to me what "letters of marque and reprisal" are.

My understanding is that letters of marque and reprisal are the tools used to authorize actions on behalf of the state that would otherwise be outlawed when carried out by private citizens. Kind of like the pirate/buccaneer wars of Old Europe in the waters of the American colonies or, more recently, Blackwater USA.

Jefferson, on the other hand, sent the US Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates. There was no formal declaration of war although the actions were taken with the approval of Congress and they followed an act of war on the part of the islamists. Jefferson also tried, mostly unsuccessfully, while Secretary of State, to organize an international coalition to deal with the problem. Then like now, most of Europe was content with appeasing the islamists through tribute. We tried that route too, but apparently couldn't afford the price tag.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of distinctions between Jefferson's refutation of neo-isolationist theory and the current GWoT, but there seem to be a surprising number of similarities.

[BucEyedPea]

Kind of like the pirate/buccaneer wars ...
Hey! Quit talkin' about my team!

Jefferson, on the other hand, sent the US Navy to deal with the Barbary Pirates. There was no formal declaration of war although the actions were taken with the approval of Congress and they followed an act of war on the part of the islamists. Jefferson also tried, mostly unsuccessfully, while Secretary of State, to organize an international coalition to deal with the problem. Then like now, most of Europe was content with appeasing the islamists through tribute. We tried that route too, but apparently couldn't afford the price tag.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of distinctions between Jefferson's refutation of neo-isolationist theory and the current GWoT, but there seem to be a surprising number of similarities.

That's because it wasn't an offensively-started war with a nation, silly.

Oh and BTW, I saw a wanted poster with reward offered for a bunch of AQ in Pakistan. How come we're using that there ( which is similar)...and on the real threat? But not in Iraq? Oh I forgot there weren't any there, at first, we just wanted regime change because SH was allegecly violating UN Resolutions. LOL!

So many inconsistencies.

[BucEyedPea]

Those good ideas you cited pat aren't dealing with the crux of human nature in regard to power...which is what remains the same the more things change.

Just our toys are different. And the more the world comes together with communication, trade and technology....the less war would be an option. Moving toward an imperial approach negates those gains.

But I'd agree something like the British and Roman Empires may have been okay at one time to a degree, but they are now outmoded for the modern world too. This approach is neanderthalish. LMAO

The result leads to more isolation; the other doesn't. Witness today.

[patteeu]

Hey! Quit talkin' about my team!

:p


That's because it wasn't an offensively-started war with a nation, silly.

Oh and BTW, I saw a wanted poster with reward offered for a bunch of AQ in Pakistan. How come we're using that there ( which is similar)...and on the real threat? But not in Iraq? Oh I forgot there weren't any there, at first, we just wanted regime change because SH was allegecly violating UN Resolutions. LOL!

So many inconsistencies.

al Qaeda attacked us just as the Barbary pirates did so long ago. In both cases our response was preceded by multiple acts of war.

What makes you think we aren't using wanted posters and rewards in Iraq?

I heard a talking head (former special forces type) speaking to a difference he saw in the way these rewards were being implemented in Afghanistan versus the way they were being implemented in Iraq. I don't remember everything he said, but he suggested that neither was likely to generate a lot of direct information from people trying to earn the reward. One reason for this is that they have very large extended families who they have to consider. The talking head said that even if the US provides an escape for the newly rich informant and his immediate family, al Qaeda would hunt down anyone left behind and kill them off.

But he did say he was optimistic about their usefulness in Afghanistan, saying that the Afghan towns were these guys are hiding out are often much smaller than those in Iraq and when a wanted poster goes up, the target is likely to send someone to tear it down and when he does, the US forces have the opportunity to take some kind of action that he left to the audience's imagination. He said that approach doesn't work as well in the bigger cities of Iraq because the targets find it easier to lay low and don't get as agitated by having their picture posted on a wanted poster somewhere. I'm not vouching for the things he said, I'm just repeating them as best I can.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm not talking about Al Qaeda. I was referrin' to Iraq.
I'm all for killing AQ, or capturing them and bringing them to justice. Every single one of them.

I just don't think the Barbary pirates, as regards the US, is the best analogy for what we're doing UNLESS it's regarding AQ. Besides military response to sudden attacks on the high seas do not require a declaration of war. That's authorized.

The disagreement between Adams and Jefferson was over paying tribute to those pirates. Adams paid it. Jefferson refused so he fought it out. Great Britain paid the tribute for us when we were colonies so we were protected but that protection was gone when we became independent. The entire Med was controlled and run by the Muslim Arabs from Gibralter to Alexandria. But the Barbary Pirates were considered more a force of nature than a foreign nation.

I guess you could say what France did applies more. As they invaded and colonized Algiers to end their control over the Med and forcing tribute. But that was a correct target then. Iraq and Iran are not since they didn't attack us on 9/11. The evidence does show a pattern of attacks when we get more involved in their countries, especially when we bring troops in and have them remain...then they die down when we leave. Like when RR pulled us from Beirut. We're on their turf first.

Regarding posters in Iraq...I meant as a replacement for an invasion, as it is in Pakistan.

[patteeu]

I'm not talking about Al Qaeda. I was referrin' to Iraq.
I'm all for killing AQ, or capturing them and bringing them to justice. Every single one of them.

We're in Iraq because of al Qaeda and like-minded islamists. Whether you agree with the strategy that led us to invade Iraq or not, we're there now and so is al Qaeda. You and I will never see eye to eye on this if you insist on seeing Iraq as something completely separate from the GWoT.

I just don't think the Barbary pirates, as regards the US, is the best analogy for what we're doing UNLESS it's regarding AQ. Besides military response to sudden attacks on the high seas do not require a declaration of war. That's authorized.

I'm just pointing out that one of our forefathers, one who Dr. Paul brought into this discussion himself, was willing to wage a foreign war against islamists who had far less capability of attacking US territory than al Qaeda or Saddam. And he did so without any explicit declaration of war to boot.

Military responses to attacks on our nations largest city and our nation's capital don't require declarations of war either, but GWBush got authorization from Congress nonetheless. And he went back and made double sure with authorization for force before attacking Iraq because of the lack of direct relationship between that country and the central actors of 9/11.

The disagreement between Adams and Jefferson was over paying tribute to those pirates. Adams paid it. Jefferson refused so he fought it out. Great Britain paid the tribute for us when we were colonies so we were protected but that protection was gone when we became independent. The entire Med was controlled and run by the Muslim Arabs from Gibralter to Alexandria. But the Barbary Pirates were considered more a force of nature than a foreign nation.

I guess you could say what France did applies more. As they invaded and colonized Algiers to end their control over the Med and forcing tribute. But that was a correct target then. Iraq and Iran are not since they didn't attack us on 9/11. The evidence does show a pattern of attacks when we get more involved in their countries, especially when we bring troops in and have them remain...then they die down when we leave. Like when RR pulled us from Beirut. We're on their turf first.

I think you can see what you want to in the evidence. I don't think any of your (welcome) additional information changes the point I'm making about Thomas Jefferson relative to neo-isolationism.

Regarding posters in Iraq...I meant as a replacement for an invasion, as it is in Pakistan.

Don't be so quick to assume that the posters are a replacement for invasion. For one thing, the Pakistani government has executed some admittedly ineffective military actions against Taliban and al Qaeda forces in their tribal areas and for another, there is a chance that the emerging alliance between Musharraf and exiled former PM Bhutto could lead to a harder line against our enemies in Pakistan. Bhutto has even spoken positively about inviting the US to participate in operations in the tribal areas.

[BucEyedPea]

Pat not this argument again regarding Iraq. No one believes that and rightfully so. Unless you drink NC Kool-Aid. As for Jefferson not declaring war, I explained that. Y

[Radar Chief]

Pat not this argument again regarding Iraq. No one believes that and rightfully so. Unless you drink NC Kool-Aid.

You should learn to speak for yourself, the evidence is pretty strong no matter how much you prefer to deny it.

[Ari Chi3fs]

This guy is going to make an awesome president!


If he gets too much leverage... expect a Bobby Kennedy '68 type intervention from those who oppose.

I would love to see Ron Paul as president, I am also realistic that our hopes are ill-advised. They get what/who they want.... whoever 'They' are.

[BucEyedPea]

Paul has communicated that he does fear for his life on occassion. Man! He sure will upset a lot of special interests.

[Taco John]

If he gets too much leverage... expect a Bobby Kennedy '68 type intervention from those who oppose.

I would love to see Ron Paul as president, I am also realistic that our hopes are ill-advised. They get what/who they want.... whoever 'They' are.



Are you telling me that Bobby Kennedy didn't just get shot by some random crazy who managed to penetrate the defenses of the Secret Service?

[ClevelandBronco]

Are you telling me that Bobby Kennedy didn't just get shot by some random crazy who managed to penetrate the defenses of the Secret Service?

Were the Secret Service involved in Bobby's protection? I seriously don't know. I know that he used Rosie Grier among others as bodyguards.

I was watching a segment on Ron Paul last night on YouTube and the thought came to me for the first time that he should be worried for his life. He was shaking hands and talking with a queue of people in an informal setting, completely unprotected.

[BucEyedPea]

Even if Rudy is sincere on this, it still comes down to what he perceives as a strict constructionist. I don't anyone can make any gaurantee, even if sincere. That's all.

[patteeu]

Even if Rudy is sincere on this, it still comes down to what he perceives as a strict constructionist. I don't anyone can make any gaurantee, even if sincere. That's all.

I think it's fair to say that it would be hard to guarantee that you're going to nominate a clone of Clarence Thomas (as an example), but I think it would be pretty easy to guarantee that you'd nominate someone more constitutionally conservative than Stevens or Ginsberg. I also think it would be pretty easy for Hillary to find a nominee who is equally as liberal as those two and unless the democrats lose the Senate, Republicans wouldn't be able to stop her. And even if Republicans were to gain a slim majority in the Senate, I doubt that they'd have the guts to reject her nominees as they've never shown such fortitude in the past.

If Rudy is the Republican nominee, he's the only game in town for someone who wants a constitutionally conservative judiciary. Otherwise, the cause will be set back as much as a decade or more.

[BucEyedPea]

I just wanted to tell you pat and CB that Shammity had Dobson on and he said Rudy did not appoint conservatives to the courts in NY. I don't believe him.

But none of this is why I absolutely WILL NOT vote for him if he's the nominee.

[ClevelandBronco]

I just wanted to tell you pat and CB that Shammity had Dobson on and he said Rudy did not appoint conservatives to the courts in NY. I don't believe him.

But none of this is why I absolutely WILL NOT vote for him if he's the nominee.

Real question here, because I have no idea of the answer: Did he break a previous agreement he had with his voters to appoint strict constructionists to courts in NY?

[Silock]

Haven't been in the DC forum in a while.

Oh look -- no one has changed their stance on anything.

No one has given so much as an intellectual inch either way.

What's the point of discussing this? It always ends the same way. Pat hates on Paul because pat's a neocon, and Paul supporters hate on pat because of said neocon stance.

[patteeu]

I just wanted to tell you pat and CB that Shammity had Dobson on and he said Rudy did not appoint conservatives to the courts in NY. I don't believe him.

But none of this is why I absolutely WILL NOT vote for him if he's the nominee.

Rudy had a fairly non-conservative constituency when he was mayor of NYC. I don't have a problem with his reasons for appointing conservative justices so long as he does. If it's a pure pander to the right wing of his base, I'm OK with that.

Certainly there's a risk. Even moreso in his second term than in his first. But IMO, there's a far greater chance of getting a conservative SCOTUS with any of the Republican candidates, including Rudy, than there is with any of the democrats.

[patteeu]

Haven't been in the DC forum in a while.

Oh look -- no one has changed their stance on anything.

No one has given so much as an intellectual inch either way.

What's the point of discussing this? It always ends the same way. Pat hates on Paul because pat's a neocon, and Paul supporters hate on pat because of said neocon stance.

Thanks for the update. Stop by again in a few months when you have another fresh take.

[banyon]

Haven't been in the DC forum in a while.

Oh look -- no one has changed their stance on anything.

No one has given so much as an intellectual inch either way.

What's the point of discussing this? It always ends the same way. Pat hates on Paul because pat's a neocon, and Paul supporters hate on pat because of said neocon stance.

Hey, I made a poll about your view. You should vote! :)

[Taco John]

Haven't been in the DC forum in a while.

Oh look -- no one has changed their stance on anything.

No one has given so much as an intellectual inch either way.

What's the point of discussing this? It always ends the same way. Pat hates on Paul because pat's a neocon, and Paul supporters hate on pat because of said neocon stance.



If you don't like it then leave. I know for a fact that there have been people who have changed their opinions. They might not be very vocal about it, but I've had more than one person let me know that they've been swayed in one manner or another to consider Dr. Paul.

That's why I keep at it.

[Silock]

If you don't like it then leave. I know for a fact that there have been people who have changed their opinions. They might not be very vocal about it, but I've had more than one person let me know that they've been swayed in one manner or another to consider Dr. Paul.

That's why I keep at it.

I did leave.

I guess I just don't get the point of bickering over the same points over and over again with no one even attempting to change their mind. Some people are so close-minded to certain ideas that it seems like a waste of time and energy to even discuss it.

[Silock]

Thanks for the update. Stop by again in a few months when you have another fresh take.

If there are any big changes in my life and I feel like I need to get back to a place where I know people will never change, I'll be sure to look up all your posts.

[patteeu]

If there are any big changes in my life and I feel like I need to get back to a place where I know people will never change, I'll be sure to look up all your posts.

I think that's a great idea. I'll put comforting you in your times of need on my Curriculum Vitae. :thumb:

[Taco John]

I did leave.

I guess I just don't get the point of bickering over the same points over and over again with no one even attempting to change their mind. Some people are so close-minded to certain ideas that it seems like a waste of time and energy to even discuss it.


I have an underlying philosophy in life that governs how I look at the world. It pretty much explains everything:

People inherently act in their own best self interest.


Everybody who is here for the conversation is here for their own reasons, all of which advance their own best self interest. You're here for your own self interest. Nobody here is wasting time or energy as far as they are personally concerned, or else they wouldn't be here.

So now... why are you here?

[patteeu]

I have an underlying philosophy in life that governs how I look at the world. It pretty much explains everything:

People inherently act in their own best self interest.


Everybody who is here for the conversation is here for their own reasons, all of which advance their own best self interest. You're here for your own self interest. Nobody here is wasting time or energy as far as they are personally concerned, or else they wouldn't be here.

So now... why are you here?

Excellent answer. I guess some people get their self interests served by coming in here and reassuring themselves that they're better than those of us who enjoy it here. Of course, it probably wouldn't be as satisfying to them if they didn't let us in on how much superior it makes them feel.

[Silock]

I think that's a great idea. I'll put comforting you in your times of need on my Curriculum Vitae. :thumb:

ROFL

Look, I realize this all came out wrong. I don't mind if you don't change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion. You're certainly entitled to not change your mind about things. That's fine. I just don't see the point of reiterating the same point to the same people that also won't ever change their mind.

[patteeu]

ROFL

Look, I realize this all came out wrong. I don't mind if you don't change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion. You're certainly entitled to not change your mind about things. That's fine. I just don't see the point of reiterating the same point to the same people that also won't ever change their mind.

Fair enough. I take back what I said in my last post to the extent that I had you in mind. I feel the love between us now. :)

Besides, I always have a glimmer of hope that my next re-iteration of the same argument will be the one that makes BucEyedPea realize that she's been misusing "neocon" all this time. :p

[Silock]

I have an underlying philosophy in life that governs how I look at the world. It pretty much explains everything:

People inherently act in their own best self interest.


Everybody who is here for the conversation is here for their own reasons, all of which advance their own best self interest. You're here for your own self interest. Nobody here is wasting time or energy as far as they are personally concerned, or else they wouldn't be here.

So now... why are you here?

People here are so passionate about what they believe that they resort to ad hominems out of frustration that people don't see things their way. That's not entertaining (well, mostly . . . sometimes it's funny). It's not the way to make a persuasive argument. However, not once did I say that any of you should stop doing it. I just commented on how I see it.

As far as why I even bother looking -- it's nice to see some of the articles posted here that I haven't seen before. On the rare occasion that it's something new and fresh to talk about, some very enlightening discussions take place here.

But many times, within about 10 posts, a thread will deteriorate into a criticism of Thompson's ability to run a country based on a television career, a diatribe against Paul's fiscal and foreign policy, or how Rudy only talks about 9/11 and how much recxjake makes you want to puke by talking about him so much.

If you find pleasure in that, far be it from me to tell you to stop. There are much stranger things that people do for pleasure, and frankly, I'm glad you've all chosen this as your outlet. You are free to do and discuss as you wish. If this makes you happy, then don't stop. Personally, I prefer a discussion with an open exchange of ideas where people are genuinely interested in understanding why you believe what you believe. That's rare to find, though. It's nice when it happens, though.

[Taco John]

I don't know about anybody else here, but I make VERY persuasive arguments...

They're VERY persuasive.

:)

[Silock]

I don't know about anybody else here, but I make VERY persuasive arguments...

They're VERY persuasive.

:)

Just because you talked me out of my pants doesn't mean anything.

I was young, and I needed the money!

[ClevelandBronco]

ROFL

Look, I realize this all came out wrong. I don't mind if you don't change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion. You're certainly entitled to not change your mind about things. That's fine. I just don't see the point of reiterating the same point to the same people that also won't ever change their mind.

Don't be so sure. Certainly I'm not going to change my whole world view based upon what I read here and the supporting links that people provide, but I have opened my mind about one issue or another as conversation deepens in these threads. That applies to my opinion of Dr. Paul particularly.

While I still have questions that mainly concern how we should and should not employ military options, I have moved from the opinion that Rep. Paul was nothing but a novelty and a distraction for the GOP to the opinion that he may well be the last best sane chance for us to reverse our march toward socialism in the U.S. I have to thank Taco and BEP for spreading that news.

In fact, if I were to vote tonight for the candidate I want most, I'd vote for Dr. Paul. There's no way he would have gotten my vote two months ago. I had already marginalized the guy.

I was wrong.

[ClevelandBronco]

...Besides, I always have a glimmer of hope that my next re-iteration of the same argument will be the one that makes BucEyedPea realize that she's been misusing "neocon" all this time. :p

No kidding, BEP. You have to embrace a more accurate definition.

[Taco John]

If you guys want to start demanding accurate definitions, we should start with the words "liberal" and "conservative."

I personally don't think Pea mis-uses neo-con too often. As far as I understand it, she uses it in the manner that it should be applied: A very militantly liberal Wilsonian.

[Extra Point]

As the chief said to Dustin Hoffman's character in "Liitle Big Man," "Let's smoke on it."

[|Zach|]

Just because you talked me out of my pants doesn't mean anything.

I was young, and I needed the money!
Ok, I laughed.

ROFL

[patteeu]

If you guys want to start demanding accurate definitions, we should start with the words "liberal" and "conservative."

I personally don't think Pea mis-uses neo-con too often. As far as I understand it, she uses it in the manner that it should be applied: A very militantly liberal Wilsonian.

She equates "neocon" with "compassionate conservative" and "supply sider". While some neocons may well fall into those two groups (and "compassionate conservative" isn't really even an ideologically identifiable group), it isn't really because they are neocons.

[BucEyedPea]

She equates "neocon" with "compassionate conservative" and "supply sider". While some neocons may well fall into those two groups (and "compassionate conservative" isn't really even an ideologically identifiable group), it isn't really because they are neocons.
The bolded part is what you're wrong about. I posted Paul's take on them in detail which is the same as mine. So it is NOT just me. There is a domestic policy side to them. This is fact. You just don't want to see it because many of them are your idols...ie Gingrich and Podhoretz. In fact all your sig lines honor a top NC. If one shares a NC fp views, then such a person is at least 50% NC. Since fp dominates today, I call that person a NC as well. I think that's fair and fair game. I also think it fair to make the claim on the basis of being a pragmatic conservative which is a conservative in name only as well. (ie Gingrich)

Where I would agree is that this doesn't exclude other types of RINO's in the party.


Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities.—Ron Paul

[Amnorix]

This is utter nonsense. Many good ideas do have an expiration date.

Polygamy is a good idea if you have a small, isolated society with few men and many women and you want the society to avoid extinction. It's not such a good idea when the population of men and women starts to come into more balance and when it grows larger.

Armoring knights was a good idea when the primary threat was a sword, but when someone invented gunpowder, armoring knights wasn't such a good idea anymore.

Correct.

[BucEyedPea]

No kidding, BEP. You have to embrace a more accurate definition.
Will this do?
We've Been Neo-Conned by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html)

Originally posted in this thread and excerpted (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4247429#post4247429)

Oh I think my definition is accurate enough. I'd say due to the false reports by the original fathers of NC and their brat-pak, that they've successfully recruited many regular conservatives to their cause. I call these conservatives, "connized" ones which, as far as I'm concerned makes them act like NCs. They might as well wear the label in such cases because they deserve it. BTW I don't think you're a NC, or Cochise. There are a few others. But there are more than I originally thought in the GOP....especially when more Dems come into the party like Zel Miller.

[BucEyedPea]

Real question here, because I have no idea of the answer: Did he break a previous agreement he had with his voters to appoint strict constructionists to courts in NY?
I don't know. I just feel talk is cheap to a politician. So actions are simply a more reliable indicater For example, Hillary says she'll end the war in Iraq....but she won't. She's likely to bomb Iran just as much as any Neo-Connized Pub too.

[KC Jones]

Correct.

Yes and no. The second example is an especially poor one. The idea of protective armor certainly has not expired, only the technical implementation needed to be updated. Today we have personal armor for our troops and armored vehicles. Similarly the idea of polygamy isn't invalidated by gender balance in the population. One could easily argue that allowing individuals with vast resources to have more than one spouse and in turn provide for a larger number of offspring is valid even in a gender balanced community. Those in turn with no prospects and an inability to offer support for more than themselves are more than likely to create more problems/burdens in general by having a lot of offspring.

[BucEyedPea]

Yes and no.

I agree. The original statement is a vague, sweeping generality allowing one to claim truth as well as falsehood from it. It simply depends on the idea.

For instance, there are people in this country that claim our Constitution is out-of-date and we should have a Con-Con or that nationalism is bad ( Bush Sr and Jr are in this camp by their actual words) and that a World Govt is the answer. I wonder if pat thinks there's an expiration date on this?

Thank you for your example on the armor point.

[patteeu]

The bolded part is what you're wrong about. I posted Paul's take on them in detail which is the same as mine. So it is NOT just me. There is a domestic policy side to them. This is fact. You just don't want to see it because many of them are your idols...ie Gingrich and Podhoretz. In fact all your sig lines honor a top NC. If one shares a NC fp views, then such a person is at least 50% NC. Since fp dominates today, I call that person a NC as well. I think that's fair and fair game. I also think it fair to make the claim on the basis of being a pragmatic conservative which is a conservative in name only as well. (ie Gingrich)

Where I would agree is that this doesn't exclude other types of RINO's in the party.

I forgot to add "modern day Rockefeller Republicans" to that list of things you erroneously equate with "neocons".

My problem with your view on this subject is that you act as if neocons brought the taint of liberalism to the Republican party and the so-called conservative wing of that party, but it's simply not true. There were liberals in the party, watering the conservative message down and limiting the ability of conservatives to implement conservative policies long before the neocons appeared on the scene. And many neocons are as solidly conservative on domestic policy as Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater even if they don't measure up to the BucEyedPea purity test that only people like Ron Paul can pass.

I'll leave you to take the last word if you want, but I've belabored this point long enough here. I'm sure I won't be able to resist bringing it back up in the future though.

[patteeu]

Yes and no. The second example is an especially poor one. The idea of protective armor certainly has not expired, only the technical implementation needed to be updated. Today we have personal armor for our troops and armored vehicles. Similarly the idea of polygamy isn't invalidated by gender balance in the population. One could easily argue that allowing individuals with vast resources to have more than one spouse and in turn provide for a larger number of offspring is valid even in a gender balanced community. Those in turn with no prospects and an inability to offer support for more than themselves are more than likely to create more problems/burdens in general by having a lot of offspring.

This doesn't counter my examples at all. All you're doing is agreeing that changing conditions lead to changes in what ideas are good and what ideas aren't so good.

Sure we still use armor, but we don't see many people on the battlefield wearing heavy plate mail. Instead we see a different kind of armor that has been devised to counter the changing threat. A new idea to counter another new idea. An even newer idea is that we try to engage from beyond visual range with standoff weapons so we don't need any armor at all. People controlling RPVs in Afghanistan from the safety of a room far from the battlefield don't wear any armor at all.

And the suggestion that there might be other arguments for polygamy doesn't change the fact that it has come in and out of fashion throughout history. Whatever the reason for thinking it was a good idea at one point in time for a given society, changed circumstances at another point lead people to think it's not such a good idea.

[patteeu]

I agree. The original statement is a vague, sweeping generality allowing one to claim truth as well as falsehood from it. It simply depends on the idea.

For instance, there are people in this country that claim our Constitution is out-of-date and we should have a Con-Con or that nationalism is bad ( Bush Sr and Jr are in this camp by their actual words) and that a World Govt is the answer. I wonder if pat thinks there's an expiration date on this?

Thank you for your example on the armor point.

Link or quote?

[Duck Dog]

He wants to escape British rule?

[Taco John]

She equates "neocon" with "compassionate conservative" and "supply sider". While some neocons may well fall into those two groups (and "compassionate conservative" isn't really even an ideologically identifiable group), it isn't really because they are neocons.



I see what you're saying... for my part, I think "compassionate conservativism" was just marketing.

[Taco John]

He wants to escape British rule?



Actually, yes. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en)

[BucEyedPea]

Link or quote?
That's illogical and it wouldn't be original. ROFL

[BucEyedPea]

I forgot to add "modern day Rockefeller Republicans" to that list of things you erroneously equate with "neocons".
Some of those are, but some aren't. Some of these guys, like Baker and Scowcroft, are internationalists as well, but are in what is described as the "realist" camp. Not all Rockerfeller Pubs are NC's but many NC's could be classifed as RRs.

My problem with your view on this subject is that you act as if neocons brought the taint of liberalism to the Republican party and the so-called conservative wing of that party, but it's simply not true.
I'm not trying to. I can see why you'd say that but really it's your own extraopolation.

And many neocons are as solidly conservative on domestic policy as Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater...

LMAO
I would say that's true of "connized" conservatives and Pubs more...but not a real true NeoCon....not Gingrich. He wants to make our bureaucrats entrepreneurial. Fat chance of that ever happenin'. If they were they wouldn't be bureaucrats.

...even if they don't measure up to the BucEyedPea purity test that only people like Ron Paul can pass.
Just because you mischaracterize what I'm doing doesn't mean it's correct.
I haven't used a purity test at all. As I've posted many times before, I look at a range of views, AND the rationales for them. Plus sig quotes. (LOL!) I DO NOT use a 100% gauge to feel one is a NC. I just use over 50% then it's a matter of degree. So I say those are in that "camp". I think that coves it. That's just my own code though in case you want to know for the the future.* I do weight FP a bit more though.

I'll leave you to take the last word if you want, but I've belabored this point long enough here. I'm sure I won't be able to resist bringing it back up in the future though.
Just wanted to explain my methodology more clearly more than anything. I know you and I won't ever agree here. I also know that "Bizarro World"( where up is down and down is up) libertarians are in this camp somewhat but t'is the way I see it. I know you won't resist...but it's okay.

Perhaps, I should put up a NeoCon Rankings each week! :)

* maybe penchief will give me brownie logic or originality points for that one :p

[patteeu]

I see what you're saying... for my part, I think "compassionate conservativism" was just marketing.

I almost said the same thing, but stopped short of doing so because there actually are some things like Bush's faith based initiatives that aren't limited government conservatism dressed up with a new marketing slogan. But in large part, I agree.

[patteeu]

That's illogical and it wouldn't be original. ROFL

Does this mean the Bushes didn't really say that we need a constitutional convention or that nationalism is bad? Something tells me that the facts behind your assertion might tell a different story.

[patteeu]

Some of those are, but some aren't. Some of these guys, like Baker and Scowcroft, are internationalists as well, but are in what is described as the "realist" camp. Not all Rockerfeller Pubs are NC's but many NC's could be classifed as RRs.

What you say here seems fairly accurate, but all too often you say something like "Neocons are liberals" and then when challenged you say something like "they're the heirs of Rockefeller Republicans" or "they're supply siders" or "they believe in "compassionate conservatism". All of these things might be true of some neocons, just like they might be true of some social conservatives, but the way you say it suggests that it's a trait that makes someone a neoconservative, which isn't true. It's like saying "neoconservatives are born in Boston" just because some of them are.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot I said I'd let you have the last word. I'd delete this post, but I wanted to point out that I think what you're saying in this case makes sense.

[BucEyedPea]

I don't see it pat, I really don't. Maybe it's just the limitations of text communication. As for the quote, I heard both Bushes say that on TV. One after the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet republics wanted independence; the other most recently sometime in the last 6 months by Bush Jr. Perhaps if you google it you'd find something. I swear I heard it. I also don't want to fall into the illogical trap. LMAO

[Iowanian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

I've been trying to be open on this election and I do like alot of what Ron Paul is saying.

I do think he is a definite isolationist and believe that is a bad, bad idea for several reasons.

I like his views on abortion, the 2nd amendment, taxes, govt spending among others......Foreign policy concerns me alot, and I'd like to know his opinion on the death penalty.

[Mr Luzcious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

I've been trying to be open on this election and I do like alot of what Ron Paul is saying.

I do think he is a definite isolationist and believe that is a bad, bad idea for several reasons.

I like his views on abortion, the 2nd amendment, taxes, govt spending among others......Foreign policy concerns me alot, and I'd like to know his opinion on the death penalty.

He's against it, IIRC. Thats really the only thing I disagree with him on.

[BucEyedPea]

What you say here seems fairly accurate, but all too often you say something like "Neocons are liberals" and then when challenged you say something like "they're the heirs of Rockefeller Republicans" or "they're supply siders" or "they believe in "compassionate conservatism". All of these things might be true of some neocons, just like they might be true of some social conservatives, but the way you say it suggests that it's a trait that makes someone a neoconservative, which isn't true. It's like saying "neoconservatives are born in Boston" just because some of them are.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot I said I'd let you have the last word. I'd delete this post, but I wanted to point out that I think what you're saying in this case makes sense.
Well, I'm bored and on a break right now. So I'm reading this post closer since I skimmed it yesterday in haste.

Here's the flaw I see with your reasoning, pat: You're applying what I consider two-valued logic...B&W....one or the other. NeoCons are all those things you have in quotation marks. It's not one thing or the other. It's a scale. Just because others may hold some of those traits doesn't make that combination any less true of a NeoConservative. They simply are NOT limited govt conservatives nor originalist strict constructionists and that applies to fp as well.

For instance Rockefeller Republicans are liberal republicans. ( Not using liberal here in the classical liberal sense which would be our Founding Fathers but in a big govt sense). Maybe it would be better to say they are not conservative aka limited govt conservative Republicans. They share this trait with NCs....they are just not as militant. They believe in using real coalitions, not going it alone with some partial coalition. So their realists in achieving similar goals.

The problem with many Americans today, including Republicans and some conservative republicans, is the interventionist attitude has taken hold over the years and they cannot extricate themselves from that thinking. It's a mindset that plagues many today. If the length of Iraq and the injuries, maiming and death were not mounting, I am certain it would be stronger. Such as PGWI which was completely unecessary when the truth came out about that one. It's the few who start wars and it is govts that start them. It's rarely the people, unless it's a civil war.

[patteeu]

I don't see it pat, I really don't. Maybe it's just the limitations of text communication. As for the quote, I heard both Bushes say that on TV. One after the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet republics wanted independence; the other most recently sometime in the last 6 months by Bush Jr. Perhaps if you google it you'd find something. I swear I heard it. I also don't want to fall into the illogical trap. LMAO

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that GWB (or his father for that matter) have ever made a blanket condemnation of nationalism. Maybe they said something that could be misconstrued as such if viewed through a biased filter though.

I don't know what the illogical trap is.

[patteeu]

Wel, I'm bored and on a break right now. So I'm reading this post closer since I skimmed it more yesterday in haste.

Here's the flaw I see with your reasoning, pat: You're applying what I consider two-valued logic...B&W....one or the other. NeoCons are all those things you have in quotation marks. It's not one thing or the other. It's a scale. Just because others may hold some of those traits doesn't make that combination any less true of a NeoConservative. They simply are NOT limited govt conservatives nor originalist strict constructionists.

For instance Rockefeller Republicans are liberal republicans. ( Not using liberal here in the classical liberal sense which would be our Founding Fathers but in a big govt sense). Maybe it would be better to say they are not conservative aka limited govt conservative Republicans. They share this trait with NCs....they are just not as militant. They believe in using real coalitions, not going it alone with some partial coalition. So their realists in achieving similar goals.

Your criticism is completely invalid except so far as you begin to allow for the possibility that Rockefeller Republicans are not necessarily the same group as Neoconservatives. It's not that I'm using two valued logic, it's that you aren't using logic correctly.

Maybe I can illustrate the flaw in *your* reasoning by saying that paleocons are racists. How would you respond to that assertion?

[BucEyedPea]

Where did I say the Bushes made a "blanket" condemnation of nationalism? I didn't say that.

Why do you alter communication to worsen it?

I don't care if you don't want to believe me. They're internationalists so it fits. I know what I heard.

The illogical trap was regarding Penchief's claim of using links as a substitute for logic. It was a joke.

[BucEyedPea]

Your criticism is completely invalid except so far as you begin to allow for the possibility that Rockefeller Republicans are not necessarily the same group as Neoconservatives. It's not that I'm using two valued logic, it's that you aren't using logic correctly.
If I'm doing that then many paleo-cons and libertarians including Paul are doing that. I don't agree with you. I read the whole list of what they believe in more or less and I see it as the "shoe fits." Facts are facts, what we infer from them is using logic. I also did not say they were the same group as Rockefeller Republicans iirc. I said they were RR. That's not saying the same thing. That's you altering what I post or extrapolating your own conclusions out of it but I don't believe said I said that exactly.

Maybe I can illustrate the flaw in *your* reasoning by saying that paleocons are racists. How would you respond to that assertion?
There are many that do have that opinion. Most likely some are. The thing that would be wrong about such a statement is that it's merely a generality.

[patteeu]

Where did I say the Bushes made a "blanket" condemnation of nationalism? I didn't say that.

Why do you alter communication to worsen it?

I don't care if you don't want to believe me. They're internationalists so it fits. I know what I heard.

The illogical trap was regarding Penchief's claim of using links as a substitute for logic. It was a joke.

If not a blanket condemnation, then what sort of condemnation was it? If GHWBush and GWBush were condemning the sort of virulent nationalism that might be associated with racism or xenophobic attacks on immigrants or counterproductive trade measures then who could blame them. Since you can't or won't provide the statement along with it's context for me to evaluate what these men might have meant myself, can you at least clarify what kind of nationalism you are talking about because I simply don't believe either of them has any problem with the kind of nationalism that generates a healthy sense of patriotism in most American citizens.

What you call "alter[ing] communication" is what I call repeating what I'm hearing from you in as precise language as I can muster so we can both be on the same page. I don't know how you can expect anyone to know what you mean when you say "nationalism" but you really mean some unspecified subset of "nationalism".

I'll grant that neither of them are neo-isolationists though so if by "nationalism" you mean "neo-isolationism" then I guess I have to concede that you are correct.

[patteeu]

If I'm doing that then many paleo-cons and libertarians including Paul are doing that. I don't agree with you. I read the whole list of what they believe in more or less and I see it as the "shoe fits." Facts are facts, what we infer from them is using logic. I also did not say they were the same group as Rockefeller Republicans iirc. I said they were RR. That's not saying the same thing. That's you altering what I post or extrapolating your own conclusions out of it but I don't believe said I said that exactly.


There are many that do have that opinion. Most likely some are. The thing that would be wrong about such a statement is that it's merely a generality.

Let me get this straight. You agree that it's fair to say that paleo-cons are racists. You also admit that you are a paleo-con. :shrug:

Once again, I am not a libertarian. I am a paleo-conservative.

[BucEyedPea]

Let me get this straight. You agree that it's fair to say that paleo-cons are racists. You also admit that you are a paleo-con. :shrug:
Where did I say that? I did not say paleo-cons are racist as a generality. I said "some" most likely are. I said some have that opinion too...I didn't say I agreed either. Some people think "l"ibertarians are racist too due to their stand on civil rights versus private property. Would that be you? Some democrats are racist. Would you have been willing to invade Iraq if they were white Europeans? Keep altering my communication to worsen to suit your own personal antagonism aka spin. I suspect there's some personal defensiveness going on here.

[patteeu]

Where did I say that? I did not say paleo-cons are racist as a generality. I said "some" most likely are. I said some have that opinion too...I didn't say I agreed either. Some people think "l"ibertarians are racist too due to their stand on civil rights versus private property. Would that be you? Some democrats are racist. Would you have been willing to invade Iraq if they were white Europeans? Keep altering my communication to worsen to suit your own personal antagonism aka spin. I suspect there's some personal defensiveness going on here.

OK, here's your chance to give a straight answer. Is it fair to say that paleocons are racists or not? A simple "it is" or "it is not" will do.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm not dancing to your tune on that pat, as it's a generality. I never even said that. You're just playing mind games.

Oh and if you paid attention, I also said I had a libertarian streak too.

FTR, I am Sicilian...and ya' know what they say about us. We're not even white. :p Be careful what tune you're tryin' to play.

[patteeu]

I'm not dancing to your tune on that pat, as it's a generality. I never even said that. You're just playing mind games.

Oh and if you paid attention, I also said I had a libertarian streak too.

FTR, I am Sicilian...and ya' know what they say about us. We're not even white. :p Be careful what tune you're tryin' to play.

In a perfect world, the fact that you can't simply say "it's fair" would give you a V8 moment and lead you to realize that the way you use the word neocon is equally screwy.

Oh, and one other thing. Libertarians are pot heads, so paleocons who have a streak of libertarian in them are dope smoking racists. :D

[BucEyedPea]

LMAO tsk tsk

[KC Jones]

This doesn't counter my examples at all.
Yes it does.
All you're doing is agreeing that changing conditions lead to changes in what ideas are good and what ideas aren't so good.
I guess it depends upon what you consider the idea. If you say the 'idea' of plate mail has expired, then fair enough. The idea of armor hasn't though. Most people would think of plate mail as an implementation of an idea, but not confuse it for the idea itself.

Sure we still use armor, but we don't see many people on the battlefield wearing heavy plate mail. Instead we see a different kind of armor that has been devised to counter the changing threat. A new idea to counter another new idea. An even newer idea is that we try to engage from beyond visual range with standoff weapons so we don't need any armor at all. People controlling RPVs in Afghanistan from the safety of a room far from the battlefield don't wear any armor at all.

The 'idea' of armor is exactly same as it was 1,000 years ago and before. The requirements and implementations are very different. Maybe we just have differing opinions about what an idea is, but since we're talking about 'isolationism' here then I'd say the context should indicate that we're talking about very general concepts rather than some very specific and detailed mental construct.

And the suggestion that there might be other arguments for polygamy doesn't change the fact that it has come in and out of fashion throughout history. Whatever the reason for thinking it was a good idea at one point in time for a given society, changed circumstances at another point lead people to think it's not such a good idea.

hmm... I wasn't aware polygamy exhibited the same characteristics as a fad in several different cultures. From my limited experience of reading about history, I got the general impression that such deep seated beliefs and such a fundamental organization of society was highly unlikely to change without fairly extreme external pressures.

[patteeu]

Yes it does.

I guess it depends upon what you consider the idea.

LOL @ your instant backtracking.

If you say the 'idea' of plate mail has expired, then fair enough. The idea of armor hasn't though. Most people would think of plate mail as an implementation of an idea, but not confuse it for the idea itself.

I don't think that's accurate at all, but even if it was, you're drawing an arbitrary distinction. The guy who builds a better mousetrap does so after first having a new idea. Trapping a mouse isn't the only idea in the chain of events that first led to the mousetrap and then to the better mousetrap.

The 'idea' of armor is exactly same as it was 1,000 years ago and before. The requirements and implementations are very different. Maybe we just have differing opinions about what an idea is, but since we're talking about 'isolationism' here then I'd say the context should indicate that we're talking about very general concepts rather than some very specific and detailed mental construct.

Even talking about general concepts they still depend on the circumstances. Ghandi's non-cooperation and peaceful resistance may have worked very well against British colonial rule, but I wouldn't recommend it if al Qaeda is in control of your neighborhood.

hmm... I wasn't aware polygamy exhibited the same characteristics as a fad in several different cultures. From my limited experience of reading about history, I got the general impression that such deep seated beliefs and such a fundamental organization of society was highly unlikely to change without fairly extreme external pressures.

Nor was I. Maybe you could read some more history so you can fill me in on how deep seated and fundamental these types of beliefs have been and under what conditions the ideas, once thought to be good ones, expired and became bad ones or vice versa. :shrug: