Yep. Certifiably insane. Smaller government, more accountability, less bureaucracy, lower taxes and more individual freedoms. Who the hell wants that?
I can't believe you put RP in that list.
Palin followers... ahahahaha...
- Thread starter emp
- Start date
Yep. Certifiably insane. Smaller government, more accountability, less bureaucracy, lower taxes and more individual freedoms. Who the hell wants that?
I can't believe you put RP in that list.
"They attacked us because we're over there." When it comes to foreign policy Ron Paul is as much of an America hater as Chomsky or Michael Moore. In other words, he's crazy.
Ron Paul believes that the US is responsible for causing WWII. He thinks our policies created Hitler. He's quick to call WWII a continuation of WWI but I've never heard him tie the second gulf war to the first gulf war, which was caused by Saddam.
In a world where any conflict can quickly and easily have a huge impact on the state of the world, it is dangerous to take a hardline non-interventionist policy or to blame the ones who actually gave millions of lives(the allies, not just the US) preserving the freedom of millions.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
Contrary to what the declaration of independence says we were not endowed by anyone or anything with any set of rights. If you want rights, you have to fight for them, and there will almost always be someone who is trying to take them away from you or keep you from expanding the ones you currently have.
In a world where any conflict can quickly and easily have huge global consequences, that may mean fighting abroad for them as well.
Kennedy = Ich bin ein berliner
Paul = I'm an individual, don't bother me.
It wasn't the latter thinking that kept most of the world from being consumed by soviet communism.
No he doesn't, that was McCain telling RP what RP thinks (hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRbyrIzPCh4 ~40 seconds in). You're going to have to help me out here because all I've found that remotely backs this up is RP mentioning that US banks financed Hitler ... as did many throughout the world. Banks are evil, we agree there.
Even still, I'm not seeing why tying the 1st & 2nd gulf war together means anything.
Equating the Iraq fiasco to WWII is craziness. If Iraq (allegedly) hid some nukes in the sand, that's not a direct threat to us .. perhaps other countries in the middle east, but not us.
A non-interventionist policy basically says ... There's a time and a place to fight, and that's when we're directly threatened. When a big war exists and our freedoms might potentially be compromised, it's acceptable to pick up your guns and fight.
9/11 != Iraq ; // so don't bother trying that one
Also remember that congress alone holds the authority to go to war, it didn't happen with Iraq.
That's fear you're talking about, not self defense.
Our soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice time and time again to protect our freedoms. We honor their service with every breath we take in this country.
Using that power simply to selectively flex our muscles (Why not N. Korea?) is foolish and the essence of neoconservatism. George Washington wouldn't have done it. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have done it ... neither would RP have.
But again, if congress had declared war on Iraq, RP would have signed off on it and we would have kicked some Iraqi ass. That's the role of the president as the commander in chief, not to pick fights.
A fair and just leader isn't quick to throw the first punch ... but he doesn't bow down to foreign leaders either.
Ron Paul's values make him sane, not crazy.
You didn't carefully watch the clip I posted? Here's a quote in text.
The unnecessary involvement in World War I gave us Hitler and World War II and on.
He blamed both Hitler and Al-Qaeda on US policies. As if only bad things happen in the world because of US policy. The world must have been quite a wonderful place before the United States was born and started causing people to murder each other.
My point was, that like most politicians will do, Paul used a logical basis or platform for an argument when it suited his agenda. He starts with a conclusion and then tries to find "facts" to support it.
He believes all(or most) government is evil and that the US government, by getting involved in foreign affairs, surely always does a lot more harm than good. These are the assumptions he seems to make before he considers anything else, and then builds a case that will satisfy those assumptions, no matter how much of a stretch is required to make that case.
Everything that happens in the middle east directly effects not just us, but the entire world.
Do you think your software business, the affiliate marketing industry or the world's economies at large are not effected in any way by the production of oil, what it costs, who controls how much of it, how good the access is to it, or whether or not it even exists?
All of the progress that we've enjoyed as a species in the past 100+ years has pretty much happened because of access to cheap oil. That, indeed is the inconvenient truth that many seem to not want to acknowledge. However, most of the world did acknowledge this in 1990 when they decided to go to war behind the US to drive Saddam out of his neighbor's country. So when the world is forced to acknowledge this fact, it seems quite capable of doing so.
Hey but as long as Saddam is being contained by a small number of US and British forces let's just go back to pretending that everything is peachy-keen in gingerbread land.
The fact is that Saddam was a threat to the entire world. And I believe that most of the world's intelligence agencies did think he still had weapons, because that's precisely what he wanted the world to believe. The main reason he didn't want to fully comply with inspections is because being an unarmed and impotent dictator doesn't usually work too well.
Honestly that criteria sounds a bit vague and sort of like something you just made up. When a big war exists and our freedoms might potentially be compromised? Who decides when it is to be considered a big war? And what constitutes potential?
Here's what wikipedia says non-interventionist means:
"Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense."
I agree mostly. But after 9/11 you can't really think about any policies on the middle east without being informed by the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 has become an inextricable part of middle east foreign policy.
I also think the war was dishonestly sold to the public. But can you really blame them? Do you think they could have gotten a well thought-out, coherent argument/reason for going through our media which only deals in sound bites and gotchas?
It did indeed happen with Iraq. The congress passed the Iraq resolution which gave Bush the power to use military force. The Iraq invasion was completely authorized by congress. Just because there was no formal declaration of war doesn't mean it wasn't authorized by congress.
I can say this in Paul's favor though, at least he voted against it when he had the chance, and wasn't like some democratic(maybe even a few republican) congressmen/women who voted for it and then backpeddled when it became unpopular.
It's not fear, it's keeping a vigilant thumb on the pulse of reality. Kennedy's "ich bin ein berliner" or Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" come from the same fundamental belief that what happens in the rest of world has great potential to effect us all; it may effect us immediately or ten years from now, but it will effect us because we are not a proverbial island.
We already intervened in Korea. South Korea is free today probably because we did.
Give me Kennedy or Reagan interventionism over Paul any day.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pjn5E6yOKo"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
So you're holding up the Couric/Gibson interview and the Tina Fey impersonation as evidence for your assertion, I'm assuming?
Just wanted to confirm that's where your getting your opinion from, through the medium of SNL, CBS, and NBC. And I'm sure all three of those programs/media companies did their level best to provide an objective/unbiased view of Palin, right?
Please, post the interview that you'd like us to form an opinion of Palin with.
The first two, yes, but not the third. But thanks for insulting my intelligence. Tina Fey is just entertainment, not a news source.
Charlie GIbson is ABC, don't forget them, they're doing their part in the liberal media conspiracy. But if you're asking me do I think they had George Lucas come in and do digital shit to make it look like she said the retarded shit she said? No, I don't think that. And if they did then I'd be pissed because he didn't put Katie Couric in a Princess Leia outfit.
Ok, so you based your statement and subsequent opinion on those two interviews, both by noted liberals. And clearly you had no problem whatsoever with the line of questioning, the interviewers, the clear ambush attempts, or the general tone of the exchanges.
You haven't read her book, haven't watched interviews from a less biased source, or examined her record as Governor of Alaska.
Just wanted to confirm that. Thanks.
And what 'retarded shit' exactly did she say?
Post a video interview of her in which she comes off as intelligent and actually knows what she's talking about.
Yes, I watched the 1st video but it wasn't a direct accusation. I really appreciate this last one though as it's one I've not seen before (from lewrockwell.com no less, sorry guerilla).
I'm no WWI historian, but from my understanding the Treaty of Versailles was very harsh on Germany, assigning them full responsibility and reparation that would have taken them until ~1988 to repay. Germany was a broke country that turned to a socialist wacko.
Also, blaming this treaty on WWII isn't exclusively a Paul thing as many Historians agree on that. But hey, my opinion is you fight in a war and you have to deal with the consequences of losing ... which is why I'm for making damn sure a war is worth fighting for.
Perhaps ::emp:: can jump in and give us a German perspective of whether this led to Hitler's rise.
This doesn't make him a crazy guy assuming he can back it up with fact. Blaming Hitler's rise on the US without any proof would be nuts ... he has historians on his side.
No argument there, I feel the same way. Everyone uses their version of "logic" to validate their beliefs. Numbers don't lie and can't be manipulated ... right?
But that doesn't give us a right to take other countries property like Obama takes tax dollars. Besides, we have plenty of oil in Alaska ... hell, that's the whole reason we brought them in as a state.
I understand the argument you're making but I think it's a shitty reason to take lives and has nothing to do with our country's sovereignty. It's just oil and we'd be fine without theirs. In fact, if "cheap oil" was the reason ... it was a bad battleplan. Even considering inflation oil is much more expensive now.
Congress decides when it's a "big war" and yes, I was paraphrasing and didn't have to go look it up. Same definition, I just gave a 3rd graders version of it.
Is this an argument for dishonesty when waging war?
Lets look at the 5 wars that were declared by congress
War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II ... we kicked ass in all of them. If we had a congress at the time, they would have been behind the Revolutionary War too.
Now lets look at some of the wars that congress pussed out on and dodged their responsibility
Vietnam - withdrew
Afghanistan - ongoing
Iraq II - ongoing, looking ugly
None of these can be considered a true win like the 1st set and most were eventually opposed by the public. When we are unified, our heart is in it and we win. When we're 1/2 assing it, well it shows.
To be fair, Desert Storm can be considered a total success as it was quick and efficient. It did, however, put Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq.
My point, Congress holds the power to go to war. The bottom 3 were not wars worthy of defending our national security.
So ... non-interventionalism when it's done by someone other than Paul is good? Remember, those speaches were great but the point got across without gunfire. RP's not an isolationist or for considering ourselves a "proverbial island". I could not have found 2 better videos myself, thanks.
And by the way, I guarandamntee you that if he had the balls to stand up and say what he did to the American public knowing it would be unpopular to most he's have no problem giving ultimatums for other countries. It would probably make the old man erect to do so.
I'll take Reagan over Paul in a close one. He's one of the top 5. Kennedy, meh.
Are you a tool? WTF. Obama had ZERO experience at shit except well, umm Nothing! Obama was a Senator and over half the time he held that office he was campaigning. You can say what you want about Stupid people on both sides of the Aisle, cause they are everywhere.
But do not make non factual remarks to belittle someone you despise when they are False as Hell. Palin had more time as a damn Council woman in Alaska before she became Mayor than barack has had in the senate and Oval office.
Obama sucks, is a fukn idiot. He want raise your taxes but they want to raise the 18-30 yr olds Insurance costs by 1100 a yr and then possibly add a War Tax of 1% ( up to 60k a yr) to 5% a yr on everyone that draws a check.
Theres sheeple on both sides of the aisle, Vote all of these fuckers out and get some people who want to go back to the founding values back in and get big govt out of shit/
" I will not Raise anyones taxes who makes less than 250k a yr,,,, 95% of people under my plan will not see 1 penny of increases" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WTF EVER
Her book seems quite amusing to me - Is the concept to burn bridges within the Republican party, and then try to make a play for another political position? I don't care who you are, from what party, that just seems like a stupid idea to me. There have been some pretty negative reviews of the book by conservative, former McCain supporters, where online comments (from people who most likely haven't read the book) accuse the reviewer of siding with Obama. Yeah... The Republicans in McCain's campaign get skewered pretty hard, it seems, if not worse than what democrats get.
wrong, saddam was pretty much already dictator if iraq after Michel Aflaq's death in 89 which allowed him to attack kuwait without any internal opposition.
I haven't researched the issue at all, but doesn't basic business sense say that increased expenditures should be justified with increased revenues or decreased expenditures elsewhere? What's worse - Going into a war, and deficit spending to fund it, or going into a war (or inheriting, and then continuing) and raising taxes to pay for it? Because W sure as hell didn't cut spending, and didn't raise taxes to pay for a new expense.
Republicans like to increase spending in certain areas while not actually being able to reduce expenditures as promised (due to opposition congress or contacts that are unable to be broken), while Democrats increase spending while increasing taxes - Both going against campaign promises. It feels like someone should have listened to George Washington about having 2 parties, and someone should start to run the government like a business...
He won't. Hellblazer knows that he can't win this so he will do anything to change the focus / blaim the source. Notice that he has never ONCE attempted to provide evidence (be it an interview, a policy statement, anything) that Sarah Palin is more intelligent than we think she is.
His defense of Sarah Palin was that the interviews were "ambush attempts" and that we only think she's retarded because we were told to think that. Apparentely asking a vice presential nominee what foriegn policy experience she has or what she thinks of the Bush doctrine or what she thinks about the current bank bailouts was completely out of bounds and clearly an attempt to make her look bad. She should have been asked about her hunting and fishing experience up in Alaska.
Don't expect anything of substance from him. Ever.
Well I agree the govt should be ran as a business. my previous points was for Obama Supporters who are blind.
The govt would never succeed as a business because it would have to take the P out of P&L's. If you look at everything, and I do mean everything that DC has pushed ( Both sides of the Aisle) in the past 80 years they are all sinkholes.
I would love for the govt to quit spending so much damn money, but the fact of the matter is, that want happen until we clean house. Everyone on both sides of the aisle that has had more than 2 terms in office should go. Then the new people that come into office would not be so pre-conditioned to think that spending money they do not have is not acceptable.
I mean take the votes that pelosi bought to get the health care bill passed. 3 votes for 800 million dollars in pork. What happens with that is the 3 votes she won, their districts/states see the benefit of that 800 million while the rest of the states have to pay for it.
We need to get back to the point where the govt can only control what is written in the Constitution. Then we need to give back power to the states. Thats how it was intended not the states having to answer the the fed govt.
I have said it before and will say it again,,, I do not agree with abortions unless it was a gang raping or life saving to the mother. ( i think if the girl takes her clothes off and willingly accepts tubesteak into her life, she should have to deal with it), I believe in the rights to own guns, to protect life,limb and property, I agree that one personal property should be just that, I am for smaller govt and less taxes.
Big Govt sux plain and simple, but until we fire everyone in DC and get some damn small govt minded individuals without the spend what we dont have attitude shit is only going to get worse.
Fire everyone in DC, and break contracts, without causing massive chaos among all those who have lost their jobs in the process. Unfortunately, it's a bit too idealistic at the moment. But we can dream, right?