Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[christo-f]

christo you make good points, and there is even some of RP's domestic positions that I also disagree with but no one is perfect, and a judging whether or not to vote for someone as leader of your nation shouldn't be based on his/her rhetoric and idealogical view alone. i would also base my decision on merit, integrity and overall character, all of which i believe RP shows strong signs of having among other qualities that are in my opinion, presidential.

 

 

And mate, that's about all we, as voters can really do. Using that perspective I also give RP credit. I trust the big two in my country about as far as I trust myself to learn from a hang over. Neither do I vote for any major party. I vote for an independent not because I think they could do the job any better or not even because I think they have a chance of getting in. Simply because they have the courage of their convictions and they actually stand for something. That alone is more than I can credit mainstream representatives with.

 

 

As for the Mubarak $$$, yeah, I'd bet my third testicle that his wealth was not achieved by honourable means. I just suggest that the way it was interpreted by RP in that speech was very misleading and simplistic to a point that it discredited an argument that with greater insight may have been more accurate while still making the same point.

 

The average American interest, the defining of what that is, is really the center of the issue. That really needs to be determined before any of us can have a real discussion on what US forpol should be. Unfortunately I don't think anyone has that info so I/we tend to err on the side of security, which also means we err on the side of belligerence a lot of the time. That comes back to the blowback theory and more investigation on that is needed before anyone can have a credible opinion (as in everyone, not just us oontzers). Maybe caution over trust creates greater risk in the long run. Definitely a valid question and one that certainly weighs heavy in academia but not so much in policy making processes. Maybe for good, maybe for bad. I'm not the one to say. But certainly a question that should be at the center of all forpol formulation and evaluation.

[angelofdeath]

i think are you dwelling to much on the mubarak thing.

the point he was trying to make was the US gave egypt 30 billion, they used it to buy weapons, they used those weapons to oppress their people and now the US is rattling their sabers about mubarak and 'human rights.'

i think you are focusing to much on technicalities and semantics instead of the big picture. i think we can all agree that foreign aid results in taking money from middle class US citizens, giving it to a dictator to buy weapons (and mercedes) which then in turn puts it into the bank accounts of the military industrial complex. you make it sound that taking money from citizens and it ending up in the hands of wealthy militarist entrepreneurs is the same as the citizens getting their own money back.

another thing RP says...'the FED prints money out of thin air!'

i'd imagine if you were a monetary geek you would say 'dude, he is absolutely full of shit! he doesnt know how the system works!' when in fact the FED doesnt necessarily print the money anymore, they just buy bonds from the treasury by putting 0's on the treasuries bank account and no money came out of the FED's account, but the effect is just the same as printing money.

 

i dont want to get into this huge debate about the intricacies of various strategic policy concerns, because you operate under the assumption governments can and should do whatever they want to achieve certain things. i operate under the assumption that the US government should follow its own laws and their foreign policy should reflect a stand for liberty and freedom, not domination and empire. but i will touch on the russia/china/blowback thing.

 

you want to dwell on the fact that i said russia. lets change it around a tad. RP's and michael scheuer's entire theory of blow back goes as follows. the US government has intervened in more ways in the middle east than one can count. it supports one dictator in one war against another, then gives money to the other guy, CIA actions overthrow governments and install US puppets, foreign aid distorts things, muslims hate israel; the US's govt's biggest ally etc etc. bin laden was the US govt's man in the 80's fighting the russians, saddam was our man around the same time, tables turn, US defends kuwait, puts bases on sacred muslim soil, imposes sanctions and embargoes that kill thousands, wars kill thousands, muslims get pissed about these actions and start blowing up buildings, then they fly a plane into the twin towers. US goes to war 'stan, then iraq turning everyday people into insurgents the more they are present. muslims consider the US their enemy and they have to deal with all these interventions causing blow back

 

so lets apply it another way. we had nukes within miles of russia's territory, but if russia was putting nukes in canada, we'd flip. if russia, the US govt's enemy was putting military bases in the UK or near it, we'd flip. if russia instituted embargoes that kill thousands on US allies, we'd flip. all these policies have blow back.

 

look at more examples of blow back. guy in the north east is harrassed by zoning enforcers for 15 years... one day he flips, starts shooting cops and judges. US govt kills 80 people at a church in texas in 1993. 3 years later on the same day as the final assault some guy blows up a federal building where the raid was planned. this is blow back.

 

economics teaches all government interventions have unintended consequences. RP understands this and is simply saying that various US policies create unintended consequences. im not saying that mcveigh was right in blowing up the OKC building or arabs are right for flying planes into buildings, but it does us all a world of good to understand WHY people are motivated to do these things. the arabs own explanations put to all the things i listed...bases on holy lands, war, intervention, etc etc

 

for what its worth, RP is not an isolationist. he is a non interventionist. just like switzerland. he believes in free trade and talking to people just like switzerland.

and switzerland seems to be doing pretty good, infact they kept themselves out of WW2 when germany was knocking on their door.

 

it boils down to this.... people who seek liberty believe in using violence only in defense. we do not believe in screwing with other peoples business. i dont mess with my neighbor, the government shouldnt mess with any of us and it surely shouldnt be telling the world how to run its own business. the US foreign policy is based on the idea that we can bring democracy to the world at the point of a gun. i 100% disagree with this position both from a moral perspective and from a practical perspective.

[christo-f]

i think are you dwelling to much on the mubarak thing.

the point he was trying to make was the US gave egypt 30 billion, they used it to buy weapons, they used those weapons to oppress their people and now the US is rattling their sabers about mubarak and 'human rights.'

Well if that is what he was saying he would be incorrect as well. It's not the army that is the main oppressor in Egypt it is the internal security services, the police and CSF. They don't use Abrams tanks, F-16cs and PAC-3 systems to oppress. They use batons, tear gas, small arms and simple man power and surveillance. If you do some homework on the issue you will see that these are not the things that get bought with the US military aid. So, if that is what RP is saying, he is wrong again.

 

 

i think you are focusing to much on technicalities and semantics instead of the big picture.

 

Ah, hang on a second. A politician made a direct call, that's what happen. Are you saying that he should not be held accountable for those calls? Are you saying that his statements are not as important as some nebulous 'big picture' that he never actually articulated?

 

I'm not sure that is a good standard to hold politicians to.

 

i think we can all agree that foreign aid results in taking money from middle class US citizens, giving it to a dictator to buy weapons (and mercedes) which then in turn puts it into the bank accounts of the military industrial complex. you make it sound that taking money from citizens and it ending up in the hands of wealthy militarist entrepreneurs is the same as the citizens getting their own money back.

 

No I don't, show me where I said that.

 

I even mentioned that there is an issue with the military industry and corruption, you didn't see that? Why did you just ignore that and try and put words in to my mouth?

 

Two reasons why I am not going to it; firstly is because THAT'S NOT WHAT RP SAID. He made calls about US aid and mubarak's bank account, not the mil industry. Second, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, however I'm pretty sure if I sniffed hard enough I'd smell a mountain of shit. I have no doubt they are swine, but I'm talking about what RP actually said.

 

 

 

another thing RP says...'the FED prints money out of thin air!'

i'd imagine if you were a monetary geek you would say 'dude, he is absolutely full of shit! he doesnt know how the system works!' when in fact the FED doesnt necessarily print the money anymore, they just buy bonds from the treasury by putting 0's on the treasuries bank account and no money came out of the FED's account, but the effect is just the same as printing money.

 

Did you COMPLETELY miss the part where I said I'm only talking about foreign policy, because I don't know anything about domestic issues?

 

Did you seriously miss that??!!

 

 

i dont want to get into this huge debate about the intricacies of various strategic policy concerns, because you operate under the assumption governments can and should do whatever they want to achieve certain things.

 

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to read that as you not knowing your shit. All my argument here is that RP doesn't have much of a knowledge at all on how foreign policy works based on his exact words. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, the whole discussion you want to have. I am just saying that he does not grasp what is actually happening now. Once again, I'm not saying he is right or wrong or that I agree with any political philosophy, I am just saying his explanations of what is happening now is totally inaccurate.

 

 

i operate under the assumption that the US government should follow its own laws and their foreign policy should reflect a stand for liberty and freedom, not domination and empire. but i will touch on the russia/china/blowback thing.

 

you want to dwell on the fact that i said russia

.

 

Before I read any further, if you can't defend the words you use you need to chose your words more wisely.

 

 

 

lets change it around a tad. RP's and michael scheuer's entire theory of blow back goes as follows.

 

Once again, it is not their theory, it is Chalmers Johnson's theory. The book that started it all was even called Blowback. I've read it, I've written about it, I know it.

 

 

 

the US government has intervened in more ways in the middle east than one can count. it supports one dictator in one war against another, then gives money to the other guy, CIA actions overthrow governments and install US puppets, foreign aid distorts things, muslims hate israel; the US's govt's biggest ally etc etc. bin laden was the US govt's man in the 80's fighting the russians, saddam was our man around the same time, tables turn, US defends kuwait, puts bases on sacred muslim soil, imposes sanctions and embargoes that kill thousands, wars kill thousands, muslims get pissed about these actions and start blowing up buildings, then they fly a plane into the twin towers. US goes to war 'stan, then iraq turning everyday people into insurgents the more they are present. muslims consider the US their enemy and they have to deal with all these interventions causing blow back

 

Yes, if I could put it more accurately, true to the actual theory and succinctly, the theory is that foreign policy can have unintended consequences that result in harm to the national interest. The popular and very good examples are bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

 

so lets apply it another way. we had nukes within miles of russia's territory, but if russia was putting nukes in canada, we'd flip. if russia, the US govt's enemy was putting military bases in the UK or near it, we'd flip. if russia instituted embargoes that kill thousands on US allies, we'd flip. all these policies have blow back.

 

Ah, have you read history? You realise that this actually happened, right? Cuban missile crisis, 1962, JFK?!

 

Now to look at the placing of strategic weapons like that is misleading. These decisions don't happen in a vacuum, there is a whole dynamic that leads up to that decision. The one about US placing missiles in Turkey was that after WWII Russia and the US became strategic competitors and look at the immediate few years after. The Russians deployed their military and interior security services, set up massive gulags, oppressed millions and held countries through force and walls.

 

What did the US do? It rebuilt Japan and Germany, opened the US markets to them to help them rebuild in return for bases to guard against Russian expansion. If you wanted to leave Germany, France, Sweden, etc and move to the Soviet Union, you were free to. However if you wanted to move out of the Soviet Union you were denied this freedom (unless your name was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course....).

 

Many countries (such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States, etc.) were part of the Warsaw Pact/USSR through Russian force, they had no Choice. NATO membership was completely voluntary and the West never took any country by force after WWII and all countries since 1991 in the EU and NATO expansion have done so voluntarily.

 

That just gives you an idea why the US placed missiles in Turkey, a NATO country. Because these countries WANTED THE US TO DEFEND THEM against Russian expansionism. Just like the Mujahudeen specifically asked for US help fighting the Russians.

 

These decisions weren't made in a vacuum, they were a result of Russian foreign policy, so one may say that it was blowback against them. You may also argue that the missile placement in Turkey was a tactical mistake, etc., sure, you could do that. However if the US did not have an aggressive foreign policy the USSR would EASILY expanded to cover Europe. Then your strategic competitor will own all of Eurasia and the bulk of the world's energy and industrial capacity.

 

How safe do you think that policy would have been for the US? You seem to like liberty, freedom and all these things, I would have thought you'd have been happy about the US winning the Cold War......, a war they didn't necessarily start either. PRetty sure the US didn't create the 1916 revolutions in Russia....

 

look at more examples of blow back. guy in the north east is harrassed by zoning enforcers for 15 years... one day he flips, starts shooting cops and judges. US govt kills 80 people at a church in texas in 1993. 3 years later on the same day as the final assault some guy blows up a federal building where the raid was planned. this is blow back.

 

Once again, foreign policy dude. Let's stick to whipping a live horse, for once.

 

Secondly, he theory of blowback is a theory of foreign policy, it does not accommodate individual actions. Let's try and remain focused and accurate. Foreign policy, Chalmers Johnson.

 

economics teaches all government interventions have unintended consequences. RP understands this and is simply saying that various US policies create unintended consequences. im not saying that mcveigh was right in blowing up the OKC building or arabs are right for flying planes into buildings, but it does us all a world of good to understand WHY people are motivated to do these things. the arabs own explanations put to all the things i listed...bases on holy lands, war, intervention, etc etc

 

Yeah, sure, I agree with that (and that also comes back to my other argument of people being irrational beings. We cannot tell the future and calculate all contingencies and therefore there are decisions that have negative outcomes based on unforeseen consequences. That makes rational decision making impossible).

 

However the theory of Blowback doesn't mean you shouldn't have a foreign policy!

 

 

 

for what its worth, RP is not an isolationist. he is a non interventionist. just like switzerland. he believes in free trade and talking to people just like switzerland.

and switzerland seems to be doing pretty good, infact they kept themselves out of WW2 when germany was knocking on their door.

 

You're comparing a tiny country with a tiny population that is landlocked, surrounded by mountains and has a service economy to a MASSIVE country with a MASSIVE population that has oceans on BOTH sides and a mixture of an agricultural, industrial and service economy.

 

Think about how completely unworkable that comparison is. Geography and population size alone protects Switzerland more than people owning weapons. Ocean approaches are great force multipliers ONLY IF YOU CONTROL THEM. If you don't control them they become force multipliers for the attacker and you are pretty much fucked. Coastal denial is a VERY hard thing to achieve. Based on Geography alone, the US HAS to expand its defensive view to the western Pacific and the Eastern Atlantic. That means you have to have resupply bases and allies on the other side of the world just to protect your approaches.

 

The US has very little choice on whether they are in Asia or Europe and if you'd like historical evidence, Pearl Harbour. If you guys hadn't have been there the battle would have been fought in your cities instead of the Pacific islands. You see what I'm getting at here? The US has no choice but to extend its reach and to gain allies to help it do so. It's just a reality of you geography, not my statist beliefs or realist foundations.

 

 

it boils down to this.... people who seek liberty believe in using violence only in defense. we do not believe in screwing with other peoples business. i dont mess with my neighbor,

 

Sure, but that's not going to stop your neighbour from messing with you. And warfare is different than small scale/small arms combat. having a defensive position allows your enemy to surveil you, gain intelligence, undermine your defences and take whatever time they need to build up their offensive strengths whilst you just sit there and wait. Being static is what China did and the West came in and took their coast from them. The defensive position is usually the weakest because unless geography assists you, you do not have the initiative.

 

 

 

the government shouldnt mess with any of us and it surely shouldnt be telling the world how to run its own business. the US foreign policy is based on the idea that we can bring democracy to the world at the point of a gun.

 

Hang on, one minute you are saying that the US supports dictators and the next you are saying that the US forces countries to become democratic. You're contradicting yourself and not making sense.

 

 

Not proof read and

 

 

CAPS LOCK IS FOR EMPHASIS AND TO ATTRACT ATTENTION. I am not yelling at you and don't want it to come across that way.

[christo-f]

To add to that, it seems that the argument you should be making is that the US forpol needs to have greater vision and foresight.

 

That's something I could only agree with for most nations. The best example of this is the invasion of Iraq.

 

Most monumental forpol failure I know of in my lifetime.

[angelofdeath]

Did you COMPLETELY miss the part where I said I'm only talking about foreign policy, because I don't know anything about domestic issues?

 

Did you seriously miss that??!!

 

i only pointed this out to show how you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

in fact, i know 100% being the statist that you are, you'd say the exact thing i said about 'printing' money if you talked about such issues.

 

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to read that as you not knowing your shit. All my argument here is that RP doesn't have much of a knowledge at all on how foreign policy works based on his exact words. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, the whole discussion you want to have. I am just saying that he does not grasp what is actually happening now. Once again, I'm not saying he is right or wrong or that I agree with any political philosophy, I am just saying his explanations of what is happening now is totally inaccurate.

 

no, i dont think you should read that i dont 'know my shit'

what im saying is.. it is impossible for you to even grasp an argument of freedom because you fundamentally dont believe in it. it isnt even possible for you to wrap your head around it. if someone present a libertarian or liberty oriented argument... you have a shit fit and go into hysterics about how natural rights are fallacy, freedom is stupid, the state rules, governments know best and how civilians should be disarmed. its not possible to have a rational discussion with you on these topics because you think wont even afford me the courtesy of promising not to use governmental violence against me if i disagree with you on these basic issues. whereas i would never think of ever using force against you if we lived on the same government because you believed in a certain policy or position and i would never force you to my side, nor make you pay for it.

 

that is why its not possible to discuss these issues with you because you come from a 100% statist and strategic position where as i come from a 100% liberty oriented position.

 

i know at this moment you are not saying you disagree with his political philosophy, but every debate you have been involved in with me shows that you in fact disagree with almost everything RP stands for.

 

 

Once again, it is not their theory, it is Chalmers Johnson's theory. The book that started it all was even called Blowback. I've read it, I've written about it, I know it.

 

yup, you are right. in fact RP told guiliani to read this when he gave him his reading list.

 

 

Ah, have you read history? You realise that this actually happened, right? Cuban missile crisis, 1962, JFK?!

 

sure i know it happened. look how the US government acted, YET in the same standard the US puts missiles near our enemies all the time. while i dont want russian missiles near me, i think we should afford the rest of the world the same right and keep our weapons to ourselves.

 

 

Now to look at the placing of strategic weapons like that is misleading. These decisions don't happen in a vacuum, there is a whole dynamic that leads up to that decision. The one about US placing missiles in Turkey was that after WWII Russia and the US became strategic competitors and look at the immediate few years after. The Russians deployed their military and interior security services, set up massive gulags, oppressed millions and held countries through force and walls.

 

i know full well there are strategic concerns why these things are done.

what im saying is just because we CAN, SHOULD we and is this compatible with liberty which entails a foreign policy of non aggression? you cannot wrap your head around this position, which is why there is no use in trying to talk like strategic concerns and concerns about liberty are part of the same argument.

 

However if the US did not have an aggressive foreign policy the USSR would EASILY expanded to cover Europe. Then your strategic competitor will own all of Eurasia and the bulk of the world's energy and industrial capacity.

 

this is why its not possible for us to discuss these issues.

lets lower the scale a tad. lets get into the neighborhood scale. is it possible think that there might be some unintended consequences if i placed weapons in offensive positions around the neighborhood not on my property, told everyone i was running shit and i would destroy everyone if they messed with me?

 

How safe do you think that policy would have been for the US? You seem to like liberty, freedom and all these things, I would have thought you'd have been happy about the US winning the Cold War......, a war they didn't necessarily start either. PRetty sure the US didn't create the 1916 revolutions in Russia....

 

the US won the cold war for one reason...

communism cannot calculate. the system was brought down because of its own internal contradictions not because the US did something. regardless of what the US did or does, socialism must always fail.

 

Once again, foreign policy dude. Let's stick to whipping a live horse, for once.

 

Secondly, he theory of blowback is a theory of foreign policy, it does not accommodate individual actions. Let's try and remain focused and accurate. Foreign policy, Chalmers Johnson.

 

i think this is very narrow and short sighted.

if you believe that individual actions cannot be encompassed in this theory of unintended consequences then you must also believe that a handful of arabs flying a plane into the world trade center can not be called blow back even if they considered their strike as a response to various US interventions abroad.

 

the theory is the exact same. mcveigh supposedly acted alone to blow up the OKC building. he stated it was a direct response to the federal burning of 80 people in a church in waco texas. so the murrah building where the raid was planned was blown up.

so even though it wasnt a covert government action, but it was a public government action, and even though mcveigh retaliated against the government its self and not the civilian population, the overall theory, blow back, holds for this situation.

i dont see how you can say it doesnt.

 

However the theory of Blowback doesn't mean you shouldn't have a foreign policy!

 

i dont think this theory tells a government how to conduct its foreign policy, it just says certain things happen in response to certain things. RP just draws a different conclusion than you do.

foreign non-intervention is the only forpol compatible with freedom. a foreign policy of empire results in oppressing people abroad, stealing their sovereignty, ruling them against their will and results in oppressed liberties at home because we have to 'sacrifice' liberty for 'security.'

 

but your only talking points are purely from a government perspective about strategy and how various actions affect the government and not necessarily the people and their liberty.

 

 

Sure, but that's not going to stop your neighbour from messing with you. And warfare is different than small scale/small arms combat. having a defensive position allows your enemy to surveil you, gain intelligence, undermine your defences and take whatever time they need to build up their offensive strengths whilst you just sit there and wait. Being static is what China did and the West came in and took their coast from them. The defensive position is usually the weakest because unless geography assists you, you do not have the initiative.

 

you are talking strategy, not morality.

you are correct on strategy, but you are not even considering how this foreign policy is not reflective of a republic, but of an empire.

 

back to my example of a neighborhood. am i morally justified in setting up offensive positions on property that isnt mine? lets atleast call it like it is, the DOD is not the department of defense, but the department of offense. i believe in using force only self defense. i cannot justify aggressive action against others unless i am first under direct threat.

 

am i more likely to be harassed by my neighbors if i treat them well and trade with them, help them out, talk to them or am i more likely to be harassed if i act aggressively, steal stuff from them, do what i want, invade their property, and do stuff to aggravate them? nothing is a guarantee to stop my neighbor from messing with me, but its more likely if you are nice and behave accordingly and respect property rights, you will be left alone than if you do the opposite. and if they do mess with you, that is when you exercise your right to self preservation and defense.

 

and i'll restate it again, you suffer from that all to common mind set.

that because things are the way they are now, there is no other way.

as if we had food distribution off of army trucks and i said...'i think the market could do a great job at this!' you would laugh and scold me for not knowing anything about the real world or how people are, how we need govt food trucks for security because people will starve, etc.

when in reality rights are protected under a free market food system and the job gets done.

 

 

Hang on, one minute you are saying that the US supports dictators and the next you are saying that the US forces countries to become democratic. You're contradicting yourself and not making sense.

 

the US supporting 'democracy' is the wilsonian leftist vision adopted by neo cons and modern left. when they say democracy they mean only US backed puppets and they the hypocrites because they arent concerned with democracy as much as getting what they want out of various countries/governments.

[christo-f]

i only pointed this out to show how you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

in fact, i know 100% being the statist that you are, you'd say the exact thing i said about 'printing' money if you talked about such issues.

 

Pointing out that a prominent member of congress is talking about forpol issues when he doesn't understand them is blowing an issue up??! I chose two comments among many stupid ones that he has made regarding forpol and you refuse to accept it because he is your darling.

 

You have absolutely no idea what I'd say. I don't even know what I'd say because I don't understand the issue (but unlike RP, I keep my mouth shut in issues I don't understand). Calling me a statist is about as ridiculous as me calling you a conservative.

 

 

 

no, i dont think you should read that i dont 'know my shit'

what im saying is.. it is impossible for you to even grasp an argument of freedom because you fundamentally dont believe in it. it isnt even possible for you to wrap your head around it. if someone present a libertarian or liberty oriented argument... you have a shit fit and go into hysterics about how natural rights are fallacy, freedom is stupid, the state rules, governments know best and how civilians should be disarmed. its not possible to have a rational discussion with you on these topics because you think wont even afford me the courtesy of promising not to use governmental violence against me if i disagree with you on these basic issues. whereas i would never think of ever using force against you if we lived on the same government because you believed in a certain policy or position and i would never force you to my side, nor make you pay for it.

 

My god, I am just trying to say that RP doesn't understand much about foreign policy based on the inaccurate things that he says such as the cost of US bases and how US military aid works.

 

How in god's name you bring that argument back to statism and gun control is totally beyond me. It's a really simple discussion that you seem incapable of having because your classification of me is all you are willing to work off. You simply refuse to address the very basic issues that I am putting forward and have laid out very clearly.

 

Afford you the courtesy of not using force against you??!! WTF are you talking about??!

 

Foreign policy, dude, that's all I'm talking about here.

 

 

 

that is why its not possible to discuss these issues with you because you come from a 100% statist and strategic position where as i come from a 100% liberty oriented position.

 

i know at this moment you are not saying you disagree with his political philosophy, but every debate you have been involved in with me shows that you in fact disagree with almost everything RP stands for.

 

Unbelievable, I said very plainly I'm not talking about any other policy of his than foreign policy and I use very simple cases to illustrate my point. You cannot argue against my point because neither do you understand foreign policy and the global structure. That is why you want to move the discussion in to an area that you feel confident in.

 

 

 

 

sure i know it happened. look how the US government acted, YET in the same standard the US puts missiles near our enemies all the time. while i dont want russian missiles near me, i think we should afford the rest of the world the same right and keep our weapons to ourselves.

 

Hahaha, you think the USSR wanted courtesy??!!

 

You seem to think that the global system works on a 'do unto others' basis. If the US pulled out of West Germany in 1955 do you honestly think Russia would not have taken it?

 

You don't seem to understand that Russia invaded half of Europe and took them unwillingly by force. If the US didn't deploy its forces then Russia would have taken the rest.

 

You're viewing international relations through a libertarian mindset. That may be fine and workable on a national basis but not on a global basis. Just because you view it as a libertarian concept doesn't mean other countries will and they will take advantage of your position.

 

 

 

 

i know full well there are strategic concerns why these things are done.

 

Not sure you do, to be honest.

 

 

what im saying is just because we CAN, SHOULD we and is this compatible with liberty which entails a foreign policy of non aggression? you cannot wrap your head around this position, which is why there is no use in trying to talk like strategic concerns and concerns about liberty are part of the same argument.

 

what I'm trying to explain to you, using the deployment of missiles to Turkey is that these were not AGGRESSIVE moves. They were DEFENSIVE because the USSR was expanding its territory through aggressive force. The US didn't make the first move, Russia did. The responded by making a move that really put Russia back on the defensive. Their deployment of missiles to Cuba were a panic move by Krushchev evidenced by the way the Russians approached the US for a negotiated settlement.

 

The issue of international relations is very complex and does not on the basis of 'if I leave you alone you will leave me alone'. The Australian aborigines didn't deploy offensive weapons to threaten GB but they still got fucked.

 

The Chinese didn't threaten the British, French, US, Germans, etc. but they still got fucked.

 

As it stands now and has all throughout history the world is a jungle. Just because you are a vegetarian doesn't mean the tiger won't eat you. The Afghanis didn't threaten Russia in anyway but that sure as hell didn't keep them safe!!

 

 

 

this is why its not possible for us to discuss these issues.

lets lower the scale a tad. lets get into the neighborhood scale. is it possible think that there might be some unintended consequences if i placed weapons in offensive positions around the neighborhood not on my property, told everyone i was running shit and i would destroy everyone if they messed with me?

 

First, THE RUSSIANS EXPANDED BY FORCE BEFORE THE US DEPLOYED MISSILES AIMED AT RUSSIA. The Russians did not create the USSR out of a reaction to US aggression. I have no fucking idea how you get that idea.

 

Secondly, you cannot shrink global issues to a neighbourhood level because the differences are just too great. Distance and geography play to big of a part to make the issue as simple as you would like to.

 

 

 

the US won the cold war for one reason...

communism cannot calculate. the system was brought down because of its own internal contradictions not because the US did something. regardless of what the US did or does, socialism must always fail.

 

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Russia could have raped all the Soviet/Warsaw pact countries for decades before they collapsed due to the problems with socialism. The US was able to make them spend money in ways that forced the collapse sooner. And on that, it is too simplistic to say that 'Socialism will always collapse', but I know how you prefer to deal in simplistic concepts and analogies and it makes your position easier to defend.

 

 

 

i think this is very narrow and short sighted.

 

Lol, what?! It's the theory, it's how it is written, that's what it is!! You can't change it to suit your purposes. If you change it then it is a different theory, which is fine, but you have to make it your onw, not twist some one else's.

 

 

if you believe that individual actions cannot be encompassed in this theory of unintended consequences then you must also believe that a handful of arabs flying a plane into the world trade center can not be called blow back even if they considered their strike as a response to various US interventions abroad.

 

Oh Jesus, man. You're not even reading from the same page as me.

 

 

 

the theory is the exact same. mcveigh supposedly acted alone to blow up the OKC building. he stated it was a direct response to the federal burning of 80 people in a church in waco texas. so the murrah building where the raid was planned was blown up.

so even though it wasnt a covert government action, but it was a public government action, and even though mcveigh retaliated against the government its self and not the civilian population, the overall theory, blow back, holds for this situation.

i dont see how you can say it doesnt.

 

I see what you are saying and I agree. But I am trying to keep this conversation on the one track....., for once. And, the theory of Blowback as created by Chalmers Johnson only refers to foreign policy, not individual actions. If you are going to transfer that theory to another dynamic you first have to test for new variables and retest the theory.

 

So I am only going to discuss foreign policy and not allow the discussion to go to the same old place that you try and drag it to.

 

We are talking international strategic and military relations.

 

 

 

i dont think this theory tells a government how to conduct its foreign policy, it just says certain things happen in response to certain things.

 

Well, kind of, yes.

 

 

RP just draws a different conclusion than you do.

 

No, you are COMPLETELY avoiding the whole premise of the discussion. RP says things about US foreign policy that are completely untrue (using US military aid as just one example) and talks about strategic concepts in a way that does not make any sense (using his example of Chinese bases in NY). HE seems to think that international strategic relations work on a do unto others principle. In other words, he and you seem to be saying that if you don't act aggressively towards other countries this will improve national security because you aren't inviting reciprocal behaviour from other countries or sub-national actors like terrorists.

 

I am saying that this is 100% inaccurate, untrue, mislead and dangerous as a foreign policy based on the global system as it stands now.

 

I can list you THOUSANDS of instances where a country did nothing to provoke a response but were still attacked and subjugated by other nations/sub-national actors.

 

You seem to think that ideology, greed, irrationality, theology, etc. don't exist and if the US were to act benevolently everyone else would too! History is rich with examples of how countries don't give a shit about 'fair play' and if they can take something they will no matter what the fuck you think about it. PRetty sure Brazil didn't do anything to invite Portuguese colonialism, same that the Thais didn't provoke Japanese invasion, same that East Timor didn't do anything to threaten the security of Indonesia. Keeping to yourself and not provoking a response didn't work too well for these countries, why do you think it's going to work for the United States?

 

 

 

foreign non-intervention is the only forpol compatible with freedom. a foreign policy of empire results in oppressing people abroad, stealing their sovereignty, ruling them against their will and results in oppressed liberties at home because we have to 'sacrifice' liberty for 'security.'

 

Agree to some, disagree with some of the premise. The US is not conducting empire in Japan. Even after the end of WWII the US pored money in to Japan, opened the US market to Japanese exporters and provided protection from the USSR and China that had OPENLY EXPRESSED EXPANSIONIST foreign policies. What the US got in return was the ability to contain Russia within its borders. The same goes for Germany and pretty much all of Europe. When it comes to South America, you may have a point. My knowledge on SA is not so good so I can't credibly say that the US doesn't act imperialistically down there. The Middle East, it can be a mixture of both. Where they support obviously corrupt dictators such as Mubarak, Hussein, etc. that is closer to imperialism than not.

 

My point is that having a presence in a country is not instantly imperialism (or neo-imperialism to be precise). Sometimes it is to the mutual advantage of the host country (such as Japan, Germany, Austaralia, Singapore, Romania, etc.) including the govt and its citizens (shit, the poles are BEGGING for US presence in their country because they want to make sure Russia doesn't come back!! The same is for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, no one wants Russia to come back after what they did last century).

 

Having a presence in friendly countries does create security for the US as it secures open markets, mutually agreed access to resources, voting blocs in the UN, intelligence networks, technology transfer and a whole host of things that support the US national interest. I'm not sure if you call that interventionism or not but this gets back to my point.

 

RP sees the US bases in Japan as a provocation to China and a waste of tax payers money. Whilst not only is that wrong for starters, what about Russia, the nukes they have in Vladivostok, the Nuke subs they have in Kamchatka, the Mistrals they are building for the Pacific fleet? Should the US just forget about that? Or is the argument that they only have these deployed there because of the US and if the US pulled out of Japan Russia would remove the missiles, subs and stop building the mistrals? Please don't say that is the argument because that argument then says that Russia doesn't care about Japan or China, countries they have been to war with about 6 times in total now. PRetty sure Russia has their eye on the east more so than just because the US has a base there....

 

 

 

but your only talking points are purely from a government perspective about strategy and how various actions affect the government and not necessarily the people and their liberty.

 

Dude, I'm just saying that based on what RP says he doesn't understand forpol. You just want to make it a discussion about liberty and freedom....., again.

 

Try and stick to the point that I am making and all that is, is that the way RP frames CURRENT issues is totally inaccurate and misleading. I have used two examples of his and explained why they are misleading.

 

 

you are talking strategy, not morality.

 

YEah, that's because foreign policy is of a strategic nature, not moral. That's not to say that it a natural way of things and maybe it is unfortunate that there is little to no morality in forpol. The problem is that as the system works now you may act morally but how can you trust that some one who has the ability to destroy you will act morally too? The argument is that to act morally is to take a risk and trust other countries and because that is such a huge risk to take a leader would be irresponsible taking such a risk with the whole country like that. That's the realist theory and from observation that seems to be the way the world is working at the moment.

 

 

 

 

you are correct on strategy, but you are not even considering how this foreign policy is not reflective of a republic, but of an empire.

 

 

Because that's not the discussion that I'm having, FFS!! I just want to say that the way RP explains current US forpol indicates that he either doesn't understand it or that he is being deliberately misleading. I used two examples as evidence.

 

 

 

back to my example of a neighborhood. am i morally justified in setting up offensive positions on property that isnt mine?

 

No, stop using analogies and stick to the real world. If you want to talk about foreign policy use examples of foreign policy not simplistic analogies that are not comparable to such complex issues.

 

 

lets atleast call it like it is, the DOD is not the department of defense, but the department of offense. i believe in using force only self defense. i cannot justify aggressive action against others unless i am first under direct threat.

 

The US was under threat from Russia and China, that's why it had the bases in the Pacific and Europe. So now you should see my point, right?

 

am i more likely to be harassed by my neighbors if i treat them well and trade with them, help them out, talk to them or am i more likely to be harassed if i act aggressively, steal stuff from them, do what i want, invade their property, and do stuff to aggravate them? nothing is a guarantee to stop my neighbor from messing with me, but its more likely if you are nice and behave accordingly and respect property rights, you will be left alone than if you do the opposite. and if they do mess with you, that is when you exercise your right to self preservation and defense.

 

 

That may be fine when you are dealing with neighbourhood issues but it is not at all comparable to international security. Just as the Chinese, the American Indians, the Brazilians, the Mexicans, East Timorese, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, India, Afghanistan, Somalia, South African blacks, Angolans, Cote D'Ivorians, Finland, Algeria, Tunisia........, how many countries do you want me to name that were non-interventionist but still got FUCKED??!

 

Seriously mate, history is packed full of invasion, colonialism, imperialism against countries that never went outside their borders. I cannot understand how you think it really makes much difference. When it comes to a substate level there is a VERY good point for what you are talking about as they are the kinds of decisions individuals make (like your neighbourhood analogy). But nation states, like them or not, evil or good, make decisions based on very different reasons and agendas than individuals. I have just listed 16 examples from history of the top of my head that back this up. I know I could find another thousand if I were to research (shit, just think of how many empires there have been and each one will provide you of at least ten examples of where non-interventionist countries got fucked).

 

 

 

 

and i'll restate it again, you suffer from that all to common mind set.

that because things are the way they are now, there is no other way.

 

HAhaha, if you only knew, my friend. Just because I understand how things work now doesn't mean I believe it cannot change. That is your assumption of me, that is all.

 

And once again, I'm not arguing that RPs philosophy of forpol is wrong I'm arguing that what he says about it now is totally untrue.

 

 

as if we had food distribution off of army trucks and i said...'i think the market could do a great job at this!' you would laugh and scold me for not knowing anything about the real world or how people are, how we need govt food trucks for security because people will starve, etc.

when in reality rights are protected under a free market food system and the job gets done.

 

You can't help yourself can you? Foreign policy dude, foreign policy, foreign policy, foreign policy. Please, try and stay on topic.

 

 

the US supporting 'democracy' is the wilsonian leftist vision adopted by neo cons and modern left. when they say democracy they mean only US backed puppets and they the hypocrites because they arent concerned with democracy as much as getting what they want out of various countries/governments.

 

You seem to be making the mistake of taking politicians word at face value. When a politician says 'supporting democracy' what they mean is 'support democracy when it suits the national interest or maybe even when it suits my share holdings'. There's really not much else to it than that.

 

 

 

 

 

So, in conclusion:

 

All I am saying is that RP's conceptualisation of how US forpol is working either indicates that he doesn't understand it or that he is being deliberately misleading. I have used two clear and concrete examples to illustrate this point.

 

The fact that RP is off the mark (by such a wide margin) forces one to ask the question (not make the claim, but ask the question), if RP doesn't understand what is going on now would he be able to adequately do the job if he was president of the US?

 

 

Non-interventionism does not increase national security because history shows many many times that non-interventionist states have been attacked regardless of their foreign policy.

 

 

You cannot use the security relationship of individuals as an analogy for international security/strategic relations because first off people act very differently than states and have very different concerns. Secondly interpersonal relationships are are much more simple because it is one person dealing with other individuals where as states are legal structures, economic structures, whole electorates, vast distances, geographic features (such as oceans, deserts, mountains, jungles) and many other variables dealing with each other. International relations are very complex and many things have to be taken in to consideration when making a decision. Interpersonal relations comparatively are exceedingly simple and that makes using interpersonal relations as an analogy for international relations unacceptable.

 

 

Just because I accept that the world is an anarchic jungle (realist) right now does not indicate whether I agree with it, support it or think it cannot be any other way. It is just simply an analysis of how things work now. If you want to extrapolate what you think is right or possible out of that, go right ahead but you are only guessing at best as I have been meticulous at not showing what I believe is right or wrong in a moral or ethical sense. Think what you will, though.

 

 

Lastly, dud, I'm just talking about RPs understanding and conceptualisation of how forpol works right now. I'm not talking about liberty, freedom, getting fed off the back of a fucking truck or timothy fucking McVeigh. I am not going to enter in to these conversations because we've been down that road and I'm not talking about that here and now. Ron Pauls comments on US foreign policy are the issue, nothing else.

[Decyferon]

to look at AODs analogy of the neighbourhood, the way I see it you can set up weapons in your neighbours gardens, because like poland and former soviet bloc countries, those neighbours will be asking you to place weapons there, like poland wants US weapons. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference if you own the land because the owner of the land is inviting you to place those weapons.

 

But the I don't know enough about this shit to really comment. But I do agree that you cannot have a libertarian foriegn policy like AOD suggested because the world is dog eat dog and as soon as you display that weakness you will be eaten.

[J B Suspecto]

 

 

 

 

Sure, but that's not going to stop your neighbour from messing with you. And warfare is different than small scale/small arms combat. having a defensive position allows your enemy to surveil you, gain intelligence, undermine your defences and take whatever time they need to build up their offensive strengths whilst you just sit there and wait. Being static is what China did and the West came in and took their coast from them. The defensive position is usually the weakest because unless geography assists you, you do not have the initiative.

 

This is hardly a reasonable comparison to make. Paul advocates non-interventionism, not isolationism as China did in the era you speak of. As I'm sure you know, the Chinese state considered itself the centre of the civilised universe and grossly underestimated the the power of these western barbarians who were skirmishing on the coastline trying to secure port space and trade networks. By comparison, Paul is pro free-trade, which eliminates much of the source of this conflict to begin with.

 

In a previous post you have said;

So, an isolationist US would equal:

 

Increase of Russian, Chinese and Iranian influence.

That would mean access denial to the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal along with the South China Seas and the Malacca Straits. The outcome of that would mean energy prices would rise DRAMATICALLY, access to raw materials would become more complicated and expensive due to declining access to key water ways and export markets as well as cheap labor bases would be closed off to the US (as well as a HUGE amount of US interests throughout the world would be nationalised and the US couldn't do shit because mobilising to take them back would be so damned expensive).

 

 

The cost of living in the US would triple within 5 years and your access to products would decline MASSIVELY. The US (And the world) would be forced to totally change their societies, culture and economies. That may result in a nice, green, egalitarian society like we all want it to be. It could also change in to a messy, polluted, authoritarian state where people screw each other over for resources and access (thinking China today here). There is no reason to say that this change would bring about the results that you want for your country. The only thing we can say for sure is that it would bring change, TOUGH change and it would be decades before the country stabilized again, if it didn't break apart or get eaten by Russia, China or Iran first.

 

You often accuse people of sounding like chicken little, I think you have now demonstrated a propensity to the same behaviour. This line of argument would suggest that no other nations bar the US and perhaps some of their allies benefit from trade. This idea is patently untrue. However, focussing purely on the cost to US citizens, even if transport became more expensive in absence of US gov naval protection, this increased cost would be offset by the dramatic decrease in government spending paid for through taxation.

 

It is one of the great fallacies of a statist position that looks at the current role of state actions and argues without any particular gov institution there would be chaos and disorder. There is very little that a government can do that can't be replicated by private action in a more efficient way. Wholesale theft and oppression of a citizenry may be one exception, leading an entire nation to war may be another.

[CALIgula]

frankie?...is that you?

[J B Suspecto]

Non-interventionism does not increase national security because history shows many many times that non-interventionist states have been attacked regardless of their foreign policy.

 

This statement is disingenuous. What R. Paul is talking about is reducing motivation towards negative engagement. Quite obviously there are many reasons why a nation or political organisation may negatively engage with another, the consequences of interventionism and blow-back are just two forms of these which exists within a spectrum of others. Yet, if blow-back is identified as a concept with explanatory power factoring in several major cases of negative engagement since the terms conception, surely it is a reasonable response to attempt to neutralise this motivation to warfare or other manoeuvring.

 

So if we can move past such simplistic and misleading arguments which present a binary outcome of either non-interventionism preventing war or not, we can see that the real argument is if non-interventionism reduces the frequency or severity of war or other negative engagement. The most obvious way to answer this question would be to look backwards to find historical comparisons. Yet all of the historical examples you have mentioned have been much more an issue of the relative power between nations/political units than interventionism or non-interventionism. Indigenous Australia could have hardly lead a forward deployment policy preventing British conquest, for example. In contrast, as the US is still by far the most powerful nation on this earth, a point which you have made repeatedly in other threads, the kind of power imbalance which led to conquest in the colonial period is hardly likely to be replicated in between the US and other interested countries in the near future should the US pursue an non-interventionist policy.

[christo-f]

Sorry, not being rude, I do intend to respond to this. Yesterday was my first day off in well over a month, I need a rest.

[wearekilluminati]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^lmao shut the fuck up

[laughslast]

Hey man yall are rude

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/davis-ch1.1.1.html

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

And Ron Paul is running again.

[Zig]

good man... good...

 

i want this man to become president, and it's not because i am a huge libertarian or because i 100% agree with everything he says and does... it's because this man is the ONLY politician, and probably will be the ONLY presidential candidate, that is speaking and taking the stances RP is taking. i dont hear anyone else talking about the federal reserve, ending the drug war, bringing our troops home, or even tipping their hat towards 9/11 truth the way RP does. not a single politician has the integrity that he has in my opinion, and i really think that this time around RP has a big chance at making headway. he has been all over the media during these 4 years of the obama administration, and if it's not RP that wins it... than i think Obama will probably get re-elected. either way, i'll tell you right now i'm going to vote for RP in 2012 my vote is pretty much secured. i wish i could do more for his campaign but i will encourage all of my friends and family to vote for him.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Just wondering if the Ron Paul supporters here think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea?

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

No Racheal Maddow, blacks should stay where they belong. Plessy vs Fergeson, separate but equal.

 

C'mon man, we already addressed this. Stop trying to spin it as he's a Racist.

[Zig]

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

[angelofdeath]

this is basically a debate with theo:

 

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/interview-with-a-zombie/

[TheoHuxtable..]

this is aod's condescending face when he debates those he disagrees with while calling them stupid:

 

[TheoHuxtable..]

No Racheal Maddow, blacks should stay where they belong. Plessy vs Fergeson, separate but equal.

 

C'mon man, we already addressed this. Stop trying to spin it as he's a Racist.

 

I never said he was racist; I'm aware Ron Paul considers MLK to be one of his heroes.

 

I think their argument is that it's a "state's rights" issue, not a racial one.

 

Both Ron & Rand Paul have both implied that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional. Rand said businesses should be allowed to not admit people of certain races or various other backgrounds, but that he personally would not support those businesses, and that the "free market" would collapse racist business practices. Yet, the "Whites Only" businesses pre-1964 seemed to be doing just fine.

[angelofdeath]

the 64' civil rights act is unconstitutional. the only way to make it NOT unconstitutional is to amend the constitution. if you believe it is constitutional, then please point to the enumerated power in article 1 section 8 that gives congress this power. but constitutional arguments mean little to you, and actually, they mean little me.

so i prefer not to argue this aspect of this issue at all.

 

rand and ron paul take issue with the clause in the civil rights act that states people have a right to do business with another. in another words, forced integration. this is hardly freedom of association, it is forced association.

 

now, take off your maddow goggles for one second.

 

by saying that you believe in the government being able to force people to do business with others, and that this 'increases freedom,' you are also saying that it is perfectly legitimate for the government to force you to open your front door and allow anyone into your property.

the part you completely miss is that segregation, were GOVERNMENT LAWS on the state level.

many greedy white capitalists wanted these stupid ass laws overturned so they could 'exploit' consumers and sell their services and products to EVERYONE.

 

i just dont get it. the lefties such as theo have this insane theory that businesses are both greedy and exploitative of the consumer and seek profits at any cost, YET at the same time want to NOT serve customers, therefore reducing their profits. something just doesnt jive with this theory.

 

anyone with half a brain wants government laws enforcing segregation gone. even though the process used is technically unconstitutional, im personally fine with the outcome. the problem and the actual issue at hand is whether a property owner has control of his property or not. can the government force owners of private dwelling to open their doors to allow in homeless people in order to increase the freedom of everyone? can we also force the jewish store owner to do business with white laced boots, braces wearing, bone head neo nazi's? i mean, hell, if perfect association is what we want, did it ever occur to you that any customer/consumer can, whenever the hell they want, discriminate on the basis of race when they choose to do business with a store owner? shouldnt the government intervene on behalf of the white store owners who are denied business by racist black or latino customers?

 

if you acknowledge on principle that the government has a right to intervene and force associations, you must also realize that the same principle can be used to force you into various associations.

 

but do you, for one second, think that a 'lunch counter' in 2011 seeking maximum profit, without a government law enforcing segregation, would put up a sign refusing to allow blacks into the establishment and that it would not be boycotted into the ground in about 2 seconds? and if it was even conceivably possible to have a country full of greedy capitalists trying to 'exploit' everyone, that denied services to every single minority in the country, therefore reducing their evil profits, this demonstrates to my greedy capitalist mind that i can make insane amounts of money by serving this group that has been discriminated against. any one looking out for their own self interest, of any race, color or creed, can figure this out.

and why is it that bars can kick out drunks, restaurants can refuse to allow people not dressed properly into the establishment, convenience stores can make people wear shoes and shirts, businesses can kick out non payers, men can discriminate on which race of woman he wants to marry, woman can refuse to marry dumb men, and straight people can discriminate against gay people in choosing a sexual partner, but it is forbidden for a stupid racist to reduce his profitability and shoot himself in the foot by refusing to serve various races? shoot i say look at it like this. lets see if people actually do this and refuse to admit certain races, etc onto their property... that way they can go bankrupt and the community knows his real feelings.

racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I never said he was racist; I'm aware Ron Paul considers MLK to be one of his heroes.

 

I think their argument is that it's a "state's rights" issue, not a racial one.

 

Both Ron & Rand Paul have both implied that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional. Rand said businesses should be allowed to not admit people of certain races or various other backgrounds, but that he personally would not support those businesses, and that the "free market" would collapse racist business practices. Yet, the "Whites Only" businesses pre-1964 seemed to be doing just fine.

 

That's pre-1964.

 

Not that racism has vanished, I'm just trying to say that the minority population in general has exploded here. Do you think any legit business would be able to survive in 2011 with such a policy? Perhaps in very small local area's, but I honestly doubt it.

 

It wouldn't be able to stay low key, not in today's society. That shit would be all over the news, with people tweeting about it who don't even live remotely near it's location. Most people regardless to whom the business happens to discriminate against will be up in arm's. Don't really see any kind of long term future for that kind of business decision. Who's going to want be seen even if they feel the same way coming in and out, or doing business of any kind with that kind of establishment?

[Zig]

Funny that you make that point LOTS, as RP had a debate with Chris Matthews on this very same subject only 4 days ago...

 

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

 

again Theo, you seem to always imply the weakest arguments. What exactly are the points that you are trying to make when you bring these things up? You kind of just bring them up, back off a little, and then your forced to defend yourself from people that actually have knowledge about the issue/debate.

 

Watch the video (IN FULL) and listen to RP's perspective from the man himself, then you will understand better the argument you are presenting here.

[lord_casek]

Theo, haven't you told me a few times that you actually like Ron Paul a lot?

Obviously not enough to vote for him, but I think you've told me before that

you think a lot of what he says is good.

[TheoHuxtable..]

Theo, haven't you told me a few times that you actually like Ron Paul a lot?

Obviously not enough to vote for him, but I think you've told me before that

you think a lot of what he says is good.

 

 

Liberals/Progressives tend to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, and that's about it. His foreign policy makes the most sense of any politician, with the exception of the fact that he thinks a rapid immediate withdrawal from an ongoing-war like Afghanistan or Iraq would be the best option. It would be irresponsible. The best objective is to avoid war in the first place of course, but once involved, it is our responsibility to make a responsible, phased withdrawal.

 

Also, I think Ron Paul has the best chance of winning nomination than he ever has before, given the sad state of the current GOP pool.

 

I don't think he'll become the nominee though - most likely it will be Romney.

[oookeybooty]

bullshit...it's what makes the world go around.

:lol:

 

does any real politician give a shit about what's happening miles away?

 

sure it may cross their mind but guess what? they're thinking the same shit you ppl are...

 

GLAD ITS THEM AND NOT ME.

 

 

you pay taxes= you're a slave.

 

they who control the money control the world...and it ain't who you think.

[oookeybooty]

bullshit...it's what makes the world go around.

:lol:

 

does any real politician give a shit about what's happening miles away?

 

sure it may cross their mind but guess what? they're thinking the same shit you ppl are...

 

GLAD ITS THEM AND NOT ME.

 

 

you pay taxes= you're a slave.

 

they who control the money control the world...and it ain't who you think.

 

 

 

ohh and i forgot fuck ron paul :lol:

[lord_casek]

Wow...Such deep and relevant sentences.