profsuspecto
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by profsuspecto
-
-
You obviously do not realize that I just put up a bunch of crap to show zig how easy it is to find things online that will support your point of view. He has a habit of posting campaign rhetoric that really gas not facts in it. I figured I would do the same.
I really would be willing to honestly discuss anything about Ron Paul, but no one here so far is willing to take a objective look at him and his flaws. Until that happens, I am going to keep calling bullshit to all the stuff that is posted.
This is not a satisfactory response. It is the equivalent of saying 'he did it first so I can too'. It is just further evidence of your childish, surface level, partisan buffoonery. If you want to have a serious discussion then you need to raise the bar. Stop insulting people and demonstrate that you will engage with the response of the other contributors.
How long you have been on this website is irrelevant. Based on reading your previous posts my suspicion is that you are a troll and have no interest in a real discussion, but that could be giving you too much credit. Equally you could just be a complete moron. You reply within minutes every-time someone posts in here but never manage to offer anything more than taunts or insults or both. If you are well read, demonstrate it.
-
CILONE/SK, it is easy to google 'problems with Ron Paul', or something similar, and cut and paste the results, but you appear not to be able to critically evaluate the substance of the text you are posting. While some of these concerns are legitimate, and an outcome of using various economic methodology, what appears to be unapparent to you is that there is no consistency between critiques. For instance, some articles are arguing from a Keynesian perspective, others are arguing from a neo-classical etc. In fact some of the articles appear to be internally inconsistent themselves! If it were the case that you had understood these articles developed some considered opinions on the issues raised, you would not dredge up any old article that has an anti-Ron Paul bent, instead there would be a clear line of critique established through the selection of text you presented. The fact that this clear line of critique is not present even when simply cutting and pasting articles that you agree with, which is much easier than writing a critique yourself, indicates to me that you do not have a grasp on these issues and instead have either an irrational, or simply an uninformed, dislike of Ron Paul.
-
The government is not there to make a profit, it is there to take care of their people.
This is probably the most naive comment I have read in quite a while.
-
Bring back the fun ..... Klark Pre in 83' in 2011 lol
This is fresh!
-
If any of you guys had anything, one of you would have said it by now. None of you haven't yet or are willing to discuss it, so that just shows everyone that none of you can support you candidate.
So you think calling everyone "knobslobbers" has nothing to do with it?
-
1
-
-
I could write extensively on all of these issues, however I choose not to because I don't feel it is worth my time to engage with you. Hence, I wrote some bullet points alluding to the answer I would give. Your language and the calibre of your previous posts rules out any serious, thoughtful, engagement. I'm sure most of the others in this thread would agree.
-
All of your questions have been discussed previously. Look back through the thread before making such crass dismissals. I'm sure you genuinely mean to promote discussion but you only work to alienate yourself with your low brow responses and your 'black and white' refusal to engage with anything other than these poorly conceived questions.
how do we stop terrorists from getting too powerful if we do not do anything as long as they do not mess with our borders???
See previous discussion relating to blowback.
What happens to sick people who are too poor to afford health care???
Pick up any micro-economic textbook and you will see that government intervention increases the cost of any service rather than lowers it.
What is to stop corporations from ruining our environment under a free market when you take the teeth out of the government????
Property rights.
-
Yes you need a membership to access Oxford Reference Online. If you don't want to pay then go to a library or look up the definition from another source.
I really have better things to do than argue with someone so obviously moronic.
Peace out.
-
Just because I am sick of seeing this inane point being slugged back and forth.
Isolationism. The term isolationism denotes a country's determination to avoid unwanted foreign involvements and the power to compel others to respect that intention. In practice the internal and external foreign policy environment of the United States permitted an isolationist policy only under uniquely favorable circumstances. U.S. isolationism was never a mere response to geographic factors or a thoughtless preoccupation with internal concerns or self-sufficient pursuits. The United States was never a hermit nation; its isolationism was predominantly military and political, not commercial or intellectual. From its beginning the United States faced the recurrent demands for protection of its commercial and trading interests, the pressures of democratic ideologues to involve the country wherever freedom and self-determination seemed to be at stake, and the necessity to curtail or eliminate competing centers of power in the Western Hemisphere or threats to the balance of power in Europe. The Founders demanded the freedom of action that would enable the nation, in George Washington's words, to choose “peace or war, as our interests, guided by justice, shall counsel.” Together these external pressures permitted little isolation, whether in mind or action, from the major trends and events in world politics. From its founding, the United States became involved in every European war that ventured onto the Atlantic.
Behind the isolationism of the Founders was the conviction that the United States would render itself more harm than good by meddling in external affairs that were not its direct concern. Policy, so defined, governed the conduct of nations generally. U.S. noninvolvement in the political and military affairs of Europe in the nineteenth century resulted from the continent's fundamental stability. The perennial security of the United States from European encroachment in the absence of costly defense measures created the illusion that such security flowed, not from the European equilibrium or British naval dominance of the Atlantic, but from the great ocean itself. For many in the United States, security became synonymous with separation from the politics of Europe under the assumption that no European development could endanger the United States. What began to change after 1900 was the increasing frequency of trends and events that seemed to challenge the country's ever-expanding interests. Writers and intellectuals who demanded U.S. responses to perceived threats from abroad seldom advocated more than moral strictures or reliance on international agencies. Interwar isolationists still presumed that German power and expansionism could not endanger the security of the United States if properly defended with air and naval power. By the late 1930s U.S. isolationism assumed an Asia-first cast; leading isolationists who opposed any involvement in European affairs from 1939 to 1941 revealed no restraint in their demands for an uncompromising posture toward Japanese expansion in the Far East.
After Pearl Harbor some historians accused the isolationists of poor judgment, sympathy for fascism, even denying the United States the policies required to prevent war. A determined, if ineffectual, isolationism reappeared in opposition to the Cold War involvements in Europe from the Truman Doctrine to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as well as in the determination of some Republicans, in their response to the China, Indochina, and Korea issues, to return U.S. foreign policy to an Asia-first orientation. Only later amid the globalist policies of the Cold War did many historians and analysts begin to judge that the isolationists of the 1930s were not totally wrong in their efforts to constrain the country's burgeoning commitments that led eventually to a two-front U.S. war during World War II. But isolationism cannot describe the preferences of those in the United States who, since midcentury, have favored a more limited definition of national interests and thus a more restricted use of force than that demanded by concepts of global danger and responsibility.
Norman A. Graebner "Isolationism" The Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World, 2e. Joel Krieger, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 19 August 2011 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t121.e0380>
CILONE, you are wrong. Learn to read before mouthing off.
-
Graffiti that looks like graffiti. NSF's are solid!
Ron Paul Revolution!!!!
in News
Posted
What rubbish.