Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[CILONE/SK]

It's a good point but it seems like you're insinuating that any of the military intervention we've been involved in over the past decade can be compared to what the French did for us during the Revolution. I would have to disagree with that insinuation, and it also insinuates that RP's foreign policy would become the everlasting FP of the nation forever. I think at this moment in history it would be beneficial for us to be non-interventionist, to pull our troops, to redefine the role of government and to take a step back to analyze our position in the world and start repairing what got out of hand. This doesn't mean that we would be a non-interventionist nation for the remainder of our existence, I think that's impossible for the most part.

 

I was not insinuating anything. I am fully aware of the retarded military operations we have been in. But I can not help but wonder if some of those countries are in a position like we were back then. If we did not have France, who knows what we would have turn out like, but what if we are their France now? It is hard to see any of this come into fruition during our lifetimes. Sometimes it is a very long time from planting the seed to seeing it grow.

[Zig]

Sure, I understand what you're saying. I think at times we attempt to be the France for other nations and it goes awfully awry. The problem is that our nation/government/military attempts to be moralistic through their rhetoric when preparing for military action yet once we are engaged the truth of the matters is that we are, most of the time, making the situation worse or instigating and perpetuating new engagements that last for decades and more. The end result is that we fester new, more dangerous threats against us, and you could even get all conspiracy-theory with it and say that this is part of a vicious racketeering cycle that benefits special interests. Most of the time the average citizens aren't being protected at all...

 

the revolutions we see today aren't legitimate in MY opinion.

[CILONE/SK]

I can agree with that. But I will add that I do not think any military involvement is moral. The moral aspect is used to sell it to the people. There always is money behind it, in one way or another. I think this included France back then too. They were not helping us, because they thought it was the nice thing to do. They wanted a financial gain in it. This is the same as todays fights. That is why we are not playing in Africa that much, despite the genocide and rapes, no money involved.

 

As far as us making the situation get worse. That is a matter entirely of speculation. It is like being an armchair quarterback. There is no way to tell who is right or wrong.

 

My own opinion is that we should help the world out when we can, since we currently are in a position to do so. Who knows if they will need to help us out in the future. Sure we fuck it up, but that is a problem we should look more into in another debate. The whole sending an Army to police is wrong in my eyes. The Army is suppose to occupy and kill an enemy, not to police and rebuild. A whole different debate, but it is relevant because I think that is where we mess up. I will still stick by helping others always.

[christo-f]

One correction there, the US is in Africa.

 

You have boots on the ground, planes in the sky and ships off the coast of Libya. You have planes in the sky and ships off the coast of Somalia. Both deployments are for different reasons.

 

Of course that is just military but the military is only one element of foreign policy. USAID is all over Africa along with a large number of other state and 'private' deployments.

[CILONE/SK]

That is why I said "we are not playing in Africa that much" I understand that we are there, but we are no where near the places that I think we should be to stop real issues, like the mass rapes and genocide.

 

I would rather be in those places to help for real, then in the places we are currently in, but like I said, there is no money in it, so we do not go.

[the.crooked]

ARE WE GONNA DO IT THIS YEAR?!

[cptundercover]

And that is exactly the point. Indigenous Australia was non-interventionist but it made ZERO difference to their fate. What did make a difference was the power balance and their occupation of fertile land and fresh water sources. The English didn't give a shit whether the Abos were interventionist or not, they made their decision on opportunity and possibility of victory. Seriously, nations do NOT form foreign policy along moral lines such as "well they never did anything wrong to us, we really shouldn't fuck with them".

 

Nations can and do take advantage if it is in the interests of a leading administration. The US is perfect proof of that and so is any other imperialist or colonialist nation.

 

See y'all in another few months for my next post.

 

With all due respect you are sticking to the same simplistic argument by, again, rail-roading this into a binary scenario. Does non-interventionism prevent all war? No of course it doesn't, Like I said earlier, their are a myriad of factors which can contribute to a decision to engage in warfare. However, if blowback is identified as one of them, then preventing blowback may remove an element of causality even though all the other factors would remain. Trade, in the same sense, can also reduce casual factors to war.

 

More broadly, I fully recognise that realpolitik/power politics pervades international relations, but the framework of analysis that it provides is narrow and focuses on immediate issues; what actions can a state take? What are the barriers to these actions? This framework, like all analytical methods, produces reflexive results. A context where state actors purely operate on the basis of power will produce more of the same.

[angelofdeath]

However, if blowback is identified as one of them, then preventing blowback may remove an element of causality even though all the other factors would remain.

 

very well put

[CILONE/SK]

With all due respect you are sticking to the same simplistic argument by, again, rail-roading this into a binary scenario. Does non-interventionism prevent all war? No of course it doesn't, Like I said earlier, their are a myriad of factors which can contribute to a decision to engage in warfare. However, if blowback is identified as one of them, then preventing blowback may remove an element of causality even though all the other factors would remain. Trade, in the same sense, can also reduce casual factors to war.

 

More broadly, I fully recognise that realpolitik/power politics pervades international relations, but the framework of analysis that it provides is narrow and focuses on immediate issues; what actions can a state take? What are the barriers to these actions? This framework, like all analytical methods, produces reflexive results. A context where state actors purely operate on the basis of power will produce more of the same.

 

Hahahaha. First post and you come out with this. I am calling bullshit. Also since AOD came on and positively commented in it, I am willing to say that AOD has some alter egos.

 

What a bitch move. Grow some balls and use the same name.

[christo-f]

Hahahaha. First post and you come out with this. I am calling bullshit. Also since AOD came on and positively commented in it, I am willing to say that AOD has some alter egos.

 

What a bitch move. Grow some balls and use the same name.

 

Ah, actually not, that's old mate Frankie who I was originally discussing the issue with and that I promised to reply to.

 

And to a point I agree with the way the point has been moderated here. I will however point out the over-simplification of his position towards minimising blowback in foreign policy, when time permits.

 

 

AOD is clearly insane but I would argue that he's not childish and petty enough to act like that. He has the courage of his conviction and he's educated himself on what he discusses and I'd say that is something to be respected.

 

In saying that, I haven't read anything in between my last comment and now, other than Zig's response.

[CILONE/SK]

I am cool with it if you say it is not bullshit christo. Just seems funny cOming out like that with a first post. My apologizes to AOD.

[christo-f]

hahaha, well, not exactly his first post. It's Frankie Fiver, he got banned about 82 times earlier this year. This is just his latest persona.

 

BTW Frankie, I'm back on home turf again. Hit me up if you ever pass through Australia's most boring city.

[Zig]

With all due respect you are sticking to the same simplistic argument by, again, rail-roading this into a binary scenario. Does non-interventionism prevent all war? No of course it doesn't, Like I said earlier, their are a myriad of factors which can contribute to a decision to engage in warfare. However, if blowback is identified as one of them, then preventing blowback may remove an element of causality even though all the other factors would remain. Trade, in the same sense, can also reduce casual factors to war.

 

More broadly, I fully recognise that realpolitik/power politics pervades international relations, but the framework of analysis that it provides is narrow and focuses on immediate issues; what actions can a state take? What are the barriers to these actions? This framework, like all analytical methods, produces reflexive results. A context where state actors purely operate on the basis of power will produce more of the same.

 

yea great post, excellently said.

[cptundercover]

hahaha, well, not exactly his first post. It's Frankie Fiver, he got banned about 82 times earlier this year. This is just his latest persona.

 

BTW Frankie, I'm back on home turf again. Hit me up if you ever pass through Australia's most boring city.

 

Yo Ill prob get slammed again. I sent you a pm with my email. Hit me up.

[Decyferon]

jon stewart had a good bit on how fox news wouldn't even mention his name after the iowa straw pull or whatever. worth watching.

 

sorry to bump something from a few pages back. I watched this last night, as the Iowa poll doesn't realy get any air in the UK I wasn't 100% sure what was happening, but I am surprised at how many votes RP got, he was just a few 100 votes off winning, yet Fox news pretty much refuse to use his name or acknowledge him.

 

Obviously they aren't the only news station but they are a big one, and things like that would really affect someone's ability to be successful.

[CILONE/SK]

Here is another viewpoint on why ron paulie does not get love from the media.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asher-smith/ron-paul-media_b_928592.html

 

 

Has Ron Paul been "shafted" by the mainstream media? Politico columnist Roger Simon certainly thinks so. Noting that "Paul lost [last weekend's Ames Straw Poll] to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast," Simon thinks that Paul has not received enough attention from the chattering class. And it is true that Paul's chances have been summarily dismissed; Paul has did not appear on any of the Sunday talk shows following Ames, is never included among lists of top tier contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, and was described by a Monday Wall Street Journal editorial in a parenthetical aside as a candidate "who has no chance to win the nomination."

 

Roger Simon is not alone in this view. Jon Stewart weighed in on the question during his Monday night show, calling out a variety of FOX News and other pundits for pretending Paul doesn't exist. "How did libertarian Ron Paul," Stewart asked his audience, "become the thirteenth floor in a hotel?"

 

Yet while the grievance aired by Simon and Stewart is understandable, it is misapplied in this case. The exclusion of Ron Paul from discussions of Republican front-runners is not a sign of the mainstream media's blindness, but rather of their competence in serving, finally, as an adequate filtering mechanism.

 

If anything, political commentators tend to suffer from the opposite problem, failing to distinguish between campaign noise and nonsense. The emergence of Michele Bachmann as the front-runner in Iowa is a prime example. Bachmann, during her two terms in Congress, has been a clearinghouse for views and positions that under most circumstances would disqualify her as a mainstream presidential candidate. Among the most notorious was her spring 2009 observation that flu outbreaks during Democratic presidential administrations represent an "interesting coincidence." She also has a record of statements about homosexuality that most Americans would find abhorrent, and has questioned the patriotism of Democratic adversaries on multiple occasions. This, combined with a sparse record of actual legislative achievement, should have ensured that she was provided the same coverage due to most vanity candidates. Instead, she was treated as a legitimate contender from the get-go -- and that attention, combined with the self-immolation of Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty, have branded her as a conservative champion.

 

The media should be applauded for the collective observation that success the Ames Straw Poll is not an indicator of broad-based support. The Straw Poll is a small enough event to be held inside the Iowa State University basketball arena; The results are far from scientific, and every four years plenty of top-tier candidates (including, this year, Mitt Romney) decline to compete. The event's importance to individual campaigns directly correlates with the expectations set by that candidates. Tim Pawlenty invested heavily and was forced out of the race due to his third place finish, while Romney's seventh place finish elicited only shrugs.

 

This is to say, the Ames Straw Poll is an event specifically tailored to Paul's strengths. Once the parameters of this year's Staw Poll were established Paul quickly ponied up $31,000 to get the prime location beside the entrance to the polling place, and his campaign funded $20 of the $30 price of tickets for all Ron Paul voters. Most prognostications offered before the event assumed that Paul would finish either first or second.

 

Though Paul has proven his ability to pack the house, his tally represents a significant bulk of his support and not a small sampling. While Jon Stewart is certainly right in pointing out that Ron Paul laid much of the ideological groundwork the Tea Party currently rests on, Paul himself has never established himself as a viable contender. Speculation about how Ron Paul may impact the presidential race more frequently centers on whether he will run as a third party candidate, rather than on the possibility that he may eventually claim the nomination. The newest Rasmussen poll of the Republican field pegs Paul at nine percent, within one percentage point of where he stood in the last Rasmussen poll and 20 points below the current leader, Rick Perry.

 

The opportunity cost of devoting more attention to Paul is time not spent attempting to force Mitt Romney to settle on explicit positions, and missed opportunities to interrogate Rick Perry on what, exactly, about the Federal Reserve's current policy amounts to "treason." A sophisticated triage is required in prioritizing coverage of presidential candidates, and reporters and commentators are not incorrect in their evaluation of Ron Paul's chances. In reality, a media that is able to distinguish between Ron Paul and candidates who actually have a chance at becoming the next President of the United States is far preferable to a mainstream press that chases every shiny object that glints their way.

[Zig]

 

RP addresses the statement that he is an isolationist at 18:20

 

I'd post a transcript if there was one but I couldn't find anything.

[CILONE/SK]

Of course he will say that he is not an isolationist. He is not dumb and he knows that he has to tone down his rhetoric to stay afloat with mainstream voters. This is a main topic push straight out of his campaign to make him more feasible to more voters.

 

Here is the plan from the daily paul:

The first part of the conversation does not involve foreign policy, but it was a crucial way for me to initially establish Paul's credibility, soundness of his ideas, and dismantle this notion that he is "crazy." After that, this is the general framework to dismantle the isolationist argument: 1) Ask person to define "isolationism"; 2) point out their definition of isolationism is inconsistent with how the word is commonly used; 3) point out the "isolationist" stance of other countries toward the US and the outcome if they behaved in a non-isolationist fashion; 4) draw analogies to basic property relationships and/or travel; 5) displace the term isolationist and replace it with a more appropriate term (e.g. non-interventionist). Your choice of word or phrase is largely dependent on your audience and your desired effect.

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/174111/ron-paul-is-a-crazy-isolationist-loon

 

Whatever word that ronnie paulie supporters decide to use, it still means the same thing. Nitpicking the isolationist word is a way to define the debate from what his foreign policy would do. Same thing as changing the subject.

 

 

This seems to be a theme with all RP supporters, try to define the debate into something that does not make him seem crazy and then use simplified examples to make a complex point.

 

Do not feel like arguing today, so reply all you want. I will be drinking a beer on my deck.

[Zig]

You mske him sound so malevolent as if he is purposely misleading people with rhetoric to pursue some wicked agenda. :lol:

 

There is a big difference between the word isolationism and the word non-interventionism. They have two separate meanings, although one can argue that non-interventionism is a form of isolationism but that would be wrong.

[CILONE/SK]

Accomplishes the same thing regardless of what word is used. That is why they try to distract and misdirect with meaningless debates over a word. All of you are just following a RP script. And you say that the rest of us are brainwashed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Now go ahead and give us some simple examples that do not apply and ask questions, instead of actually providing substance. Those are the next two steps in the script. Just read the link I provided from the Daily Paul.

 

This is very comical and pitiful to me.

[Zig]

eh I don't know about all that.

[Decyferon]

You mske him sound so malevolent as if he is purposely misleading people with rhetoric to pursue some wicked agenda. :lol:

 

There is a big difference between the word isolationism and the word non-interventionism. They have two separate meanings, although one can argue that non-interventionism is a form of isolationism but that would be wrong.

 

that can be said of all politicians, RP included

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

So for 20+ years this man has been manipulating libertarian's and conservatives to suddenly change all his views on policies once he becomes president?

 

 

RP is all for trade, with the way you are tossing around your believes on "isolationism" it makes me think you think all of these wars we are in now are a good thing, after all we are "spreading democracy" and we saved Iraq from the terrible Saddam Hussein. Not to mention drones being flown into Pakistan killing who knows how many children and innocent civilians, but hey, if the French didn't involve themselves in our revolution would America exist today?

 

Yet you talk about helping the suffering but who do we actually help who is suffering? Unless we can benefit greatly from our involvement, you are painting a picture of America involvement overseas's as some giant peace keeping mission, when it isn't.

 

Trying to paint this man as some kind of evil villain that is trying to end America with his FP is quite hilarious considering the path we've been down the last 20 years, how many enemies it has created. Perhaps we should fall back, reevaluate our position, recover from our own woe's and than rethink about the whole "isolationist" argument. After all if America doesn't exist, who can it help?

 

BTW: Who do you want to see in office for the next four years?

[Zig]

So for 20+ years this man has been manipulating libertarian's and conservatives to suddenly change all his views on policies once he becomes president?

 

 

RP is all for trade, with the way you are tossing around your believes on "isolationism" it makes me think you think all of these wars we are in now are a good thing, after all we are "spreading democracy" and we saved Iraq from the terrible Saddam Hussein. Not to mention drones being flown into Pakistan killing who knows how many children and innocent civilians, but hey, if the French didn't involve themselves in our revolution would America exist today?

 

Yet you talk about helping the suffering but who do we actually help who is suffering? Unless we can benefit greatly from our involvement, you are painting a picture of America involvement overseas's as some giant peace keeping mission, when it isn't.

 

Trying to paint this man as some kind of evil villain that is trying to end America with his FP is quite hilarious considering the path we've been down the last 20 years, how many enemies it has created. Perhaps we should fall back, reevaluate our position, recover from our own woe's and than rethink about the whole "isolationist" argument. After all if America doesn't exist, who can it help?

 

BTW: Who do you want to see in office for the next four years?

 

great post

 

Well it's obvious if we're all Ron Paul slobber knockers that CILONE is an Obamanoid. I think that much is clear. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

no offense, just sayin.

 

Decy you're right btw.

[CILONE/SK]

So for 20+ years this man has been manipulating libertarian's and conservatives to suddenly change all his views on policies once he becomes president?

 

Wrong, his FP has been wrong the whole time.

 

 

RP is all for trade, with the way you are tossing around your believes on "isolationism" it makes me think you think all of these wars we are in now are a good thing,never said that after all we are "spreading democracy" and we saved Iraq from the terrible Saddam Hussein. Not to mention drones being flown into Pakistan killing who knows how many children and innocent civilians, but hey, if the French didn't involve themselves in our revolution would America exist today?using single items to support a RP FP does not make sense. yet, this is part of the RP script that you all follow. Simple examples seem to be the norm with all of you, yet the issues are much more complex. You have to look at the whole thing to come up with a reasonable solution. Everything has good and bad. No one has a perfect solution and no one saying an all or nothing approach is going to be right.

 

Yet you talk about helping the suffering but who do we actually help who is suffering? Unless we can benefit greatly from our involvement, you are painting a picture of America involvement overseas's as some giant peace keeping mission, when it isn't. It is better then hiding behind our borders and pretending nothing bad happens in the world. And I know that it is not a giant peacekeeping mission, never implied that it is. But when was the last time America has invaded for the purpose of taking over a country to claim as its own? Never, we have always gone in to the benefit of America, in one way or another. It is very misguided at times, but that is a problem of using the military who has a different mission then the one they are doing, which is a whole different topic.

 

Trying to paint this man as some kind of evil villain that is trying to end America with his FP is quite hilarious considering the path we've been down the last 20 years, how many enemies it has created. you seem to imply that if RP FP was in affect we would not be in any wars. That is being a armchair quarter back. There is no possible way to tell if RP isolationism would be feasible at all. In fact there are valid arguments that without Americas involvement, the world would be a worse place then it is. Perhaps we should fall back, reevaluate our position, recover from our own woe's and than rethink about the whole "isolationist" argument. After all if America doesn't exist, who can it help?To imply that America will be lost if we stay on the same FP track is nonsense. This is simply a version of the GOP selling fear to keep their people voting for them. The same tactic is used against the mosque in NYC. For example, if we let them build a mosque, the terrorist will take over ground zero. That is such bullshit. I can say the same thing about RP policy. If we do not take part in any action that does not affect our borders, we will be setting ourselves up for a enemy that will wait and build their power until they are big enough to to take us on. To wait until they affect us economically or attack our borders is just letting them build themselves stronger to hurt us more. See, you can make the argument both ways. If you are not happy with how things are, hiding yourself in your own borders is not an answer, it actually might make the problem worse.

 

BTW: Who do you want to see in office for the next four years?

 

I am voting for Obama, not because he is the perfect candidate, but because, he is the only single person right now running for the next 4 years as president that is truly for helping people. He does not go far enough to squash all the bigots and piece of shits that would sell out our country to the corporations, but he is a hell of alot better then the current candidates on the right.

 

 

Any candidate or supporter of that candidate that would advocate to maintain tax breaks for the rich while at the same time wanting to cut medicare/medicaid, SS, and other entitlement programs, should be laughed off the national stage, but it is sad that they are given leeway to spout their nonsense. When i meet people living off of SS and using medicare, while at the same time voting for a candidate that supports cutting those programs, I want to smack some sense in them. Yet these people are the majority of the GOP, which RP is trying to win.

[Zig]

How are YOU not being an "armchair quarterback" exactly? just wondering.

 

The same tactic is used against the mosque in NYC. For example, if we let them build a mosque, the terrorist will take over ground zero. That is such bullshit. I can say the same thing about RP policy.

 

Isn't this the same kind of argument tactic AOD uses that you were heavily criticizing?

[CILONE/SK]

Because this we are currently using a nonisolationist system. It is working and there is no major world threats to us.

 

No it is not the same because it actually is a critique of that kind of argument.

 

Btw, stop editing your posts, it makes it hard to respond to them. Say what you want the first time.

[CILONE/SK]

The more I think about it, the more it seems you are following the script. Hahaha

 

Do you have anything related to the arguement or are you just going to nitpick my posts?

[Zig]

You nitpick everyone elses posts, I've added PLENTY to this entire thread in general what exactly have you added? You're attempting to make it sounds as if our nation isn't currently in crisis with our economy, and engaged in several unconstitutional illegal wars around the world that have devastated things here at home. Are you living in a different reality or something? Even Obama acknowledges how serious and dire our situation is PUBLICLY if congress doesn't act. All I'm doing is asking you the same things you confront everyone else about, you're being a hypocrite.

 

I edit my posts all the time who are you to tell me what to do rofl. Shows you're mentality bro bro.

[Zig]

Because this we are currently using a nonisolationist system. It is working and there is no major world threats to us.

 

There are no major world threats to us? What the fuck is the war on terror about than? You kidding me???