The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives.
To try and compare the actions of our forefathers in foreign policy matters to today’s environment is intellectually dishonest at best. Totally different scenario, chasing barbary pirates with a portion of your armed forces versus maintaining 1,000 plus bases abroad is night and day especially with the difference in debt accumulation currently. Also I’m pretty sure Paul is talking about pulling all foreign aid in order to pull ourselves back towards a more reasonable budget balance not like that option (as in aiding a foreign country in revolution) is off the table forever.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]
The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.
And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
can someone define conservative and liberal in American politics, it is confusing to me. I mean liberals want to control every aspect of your life with government and conservatives want to expand corporatist america and maintain an imperialist military base across the world. This is what I get from seeing the ones that say they are conservative and liberal in politics.
Oh, happy day - here is the list of candidates Paul - “Founding Father’s favorite” - endorsed after his unsuccessful bid in 2008:
Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination, will tell supporters he is not endorsing GOP nominee John McCain or Democratic nominee Barack Obama, and will instead give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, according to a senior Paul aide.
That’s right: Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, in addition to Barr and Baldwin.
You know, just like Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton would have.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The establishment is afraid of him, specifically the so called conservatives. [/quote]
The “so-called” conservatives don’t like him because he isn’t a conservative. That is easy enough to figure out.
And no one fears him - there’s nothing to be afraid of.
[/quote]
Of course they fear him - not personally, though.
His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.
And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Of course they fear him - not personally, though.
His ideas, or, the thought of having people calmly assessing the emperor’s nakedness is unnerving.
Ron Paul doesn’t have to be a presidential heavyweight contender for that.
Every word he speaks in public could let the butterfly of reason spark a storm of upheaval.[/quote]
“Butterfly of reason”, aye? I just spewed coffee on my keyboard. Paul is a fringe candidate and a fringe personality - no one is listening. The world simply doesn’t exist with the simplicity that Paul and his acolytes would prefer, and so he’s a man without a serious audience.
[quote]And I still don’t get why a true conservative must be a warmonger when all these wars (read:imperialistic twitchings) are clearly pulling you down the mudpool.
[/quote]
True conservatives don’t have to be “warmongers”, so you don’t have a point.
And don’t confuse rock-ribbed isolationism or the idea to seek more independence from a world that doesn’t share American interests with Paul’s creepy anti-American foreign policy views that are straight out of the Marxist playbook. Some of the aims might overlap, but the philosophy is very different.
Why is anyone discussing things with thunderbolt? It’s completely pointless. He’s an irrelevant fool.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
Why is anyone discussing things with thunderbolt? It’s completely pointless. He’s an irrelevant fool.[/quote]
Translation: he asks hard questions I don’t have good answers to.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
True conservatives don’t have to be “warmongers”, so you don’t have a point.
[/quote]
Are there any other candidates that don’t support the 1.25 wars? Just getting up an leaving might not be a good idea but I hear very little talk from anyone else about doing something differently. So when the choice is keep doing things the same way or doing a 180, naturally some people are feed up enough to choose the latter.
[quote]Dijon wrote:
Are there any other candidates that don’t support the 1.25 wars? Just getting up an leaving might not be a good idea but I hear very little talk from anyone else about doing something differently. So when the choice is keep doing things the same way or doing a 180, naturally some people are feed up enough to choose the latter.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the label that they are (or are not) a “warmonger”?
I was serious, what makes a candidate conservative.
What makes a candidate a liberal?
I don’t care so much about labels, but how much their policies align with what I take from the constitution.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
Are there any other candidates that don’t support the 1.25 wars? Just getting up an leaving might not be a good idea but I hear very little talk from anyone else about doing something differently. So when the choice is keep doing things the same way or doing a 180, naturally some people are feed up enough to choose the latter.
[/quote]
What does that have to do with the label that they are (or are not) a “warmonger”?
[/quote]
All of this is built on subjective labels and definitions that attempt to assign some sort of greater value to a candidate. The point was Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a greatly different foreign policy (whether you agree with it or not). True or false?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Ron Paul Iran Policy = BS - YouTube!
???[/quote]
What an asshole. First he plays a clip of O’Rielly saying one thing then he makes up shit and acts like that is what O’Riely said.
Besides all that was on O’Rielly’ part was giving Romney some talking points to counter. [/quote]
This is what O�´Reilly said. from 11 min onward.
Nothing was taken out of context.
Also, if he said it he really did not mean it?
Come on…[/quote]
Starting at 1:25-1:31 the young douchbags guy said “In this clip he says, Oh well everybody knows that we can’t start war with Iran”. Show me where O’Rielly said “we can’t start war with Iran”?
Real talk. No one is going to start world war three with the United States of America over us dropping some bombs on Iran to take out their nuclear weapons program. No one in their right mind is going to start a war with the United States of America over that.
Think about it. Why would the Russians go to go to war over that? They ship as much oil as the Saudis. Do you think they are going to be even remotely upset let alone, want to go to war if the price they sell their oil for doubles? They aren’t going to fight for the Iranians.
The Chinese aren’t going to go to war either. Sure it’s going to hurt them to pay more for oil, but what can they do about it? Stop selling cheap shit to us? I don’t think so. Are they going to stop buying our debt so our country goes bankrupt and we can’t continue buying their cheap shit? Not going to happen. If we go bankrupt our wage structure will collapse so it becomes cheaper to make things here just as the cost of shipping across the Pacific goes up because of the price oil just doubled. They need us more than we need them.
The Pakistani’s aren’t going to fight us over it. They are Sunni. They have had border clashes with the Iranians. If we prevent Iran from going nuclear it maintains Pakistani superiority.
If the Iranians declare war on us it is the end of the Ayatollah’s reign. If they even try to retaliate through terrorism it gives us a reason to hit them back.
The bottom line is bombing Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is not going to start world war three.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I was serious, what makes a candidate conservative.
What makes a candidate a liberal?
I don’t care so much about labels, but how much their policies align with what I take from the constitution.
[/quote]
You ask a difficult question, because the term you want defined can have different definitions dependent on who you ask and in what context you ask.
To make it simple, a true liberal should be a person who belongs to the traditions of liberalism and that a true conservative should be a person who belongs to the conservative tradition. The problem however is that the ideology of conservativism from Burke to today is a liberalist ideology. In other words Burke where a liberalist. However the difference back then( the late 1700`s )where beetwen radical liberals and moderate liberals. Burke gave the moderate( conservative ) liberal a face by writing a book where he critised the revolution of france and the bloodshed in it. The difference is also perhaps found in the two party system of old england with the wighs and torys who both can be said have been more or less liberal and conservative at various stages of the political history of England.
In an American context I understand the meaning of the terms liberal and conservative absurd and misleading. After what I understand as an outstander of american politics, I do understand that conservativism is in fact liberalism and that american liberalism is a vague centrist and pragmatic form of liberalism with some influence from moderate socialist ideas and cultural-liberalism( called often social-liberalism ).
ps. The clearest and simplest defintion of conservative would be a person who would want to preserve what are and that a person who want to go back to an older way of life are actually a regressive person aka the opposit of a progressive person who wants to push the society forward in a positive direction( what he thinks is positive offcourse for the society )
This is how I see it, so you might get a different answer from someone else.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Bill O'Reilly on Ron Paul Iran Policy = BS - YouTube!
???[/quote]
What an asshole. First he plays a clip of O’Rielly saying one thing then he makes up shit and acts like that is what O’Riely said.
Besides all that was on O’Rielly’ part was giving Romney some talking points to counter. [/quote]
This is what O�?�´Reilly said. from 11 min onward.
Nothing was taken out of context.
Also, if he said it he really did not mean it?
Come on…[/quote]
Starting at 1:25-1:31 the young douchbags guy said “In this clip he says, Oh well everybody knows that we can’t start war with Iran”. Show me where O’Rielly said “we can’t start war with Iran”?
Real talk. No one is going to start world war three with the United States of America over us dropping some bombs on Iran to take out their nuclear weapons program. No one in their right mind is going to start a war with the United States of America over that.
Think about it. Why would the Russians go to go to war over that? They ship as much oil as the Saudis. Do you think they are going to be even remotely upset let alone, want to go to war if the price they sell their oil for doubles? They aren’t going to fight for the Iranians.
The Chinese aren’t going to go to war either. Sure it’s going to hurt them to pay more for oil, but what can they do about it? Stop selling cheap shit to us? I don’t think so. Are they going to stop buying our debt so our country goes bankrupt and we can’t continue buying their cheap shit? Not going to happen. If we go bankrupt our wage structure will collapse so it becomes cheaper to make things here just as the cost of shipping across the Pacific goes up because of the price oil just doubled. They need us more than we need them.
The Pakistani’s aren’t going to fight us over it. They are Sunni. They have had border clashes with the Iranians. If we prevent Iran from going nuclear it maintains Pakistani superiority.
If the Iranians declare war on us it is the end of the Ayatollah’s reign. If they even try to retaliate through terrorism it gives us a reason to hit them back.
The bottom line is bombing Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is not going to start world war three.
[/quote]
There it is.
All you can show is that he said something else, somewhere else yet again.
Which does not make OReily irrelevant, it just shows that he was all along.
He says whatever floats his boat at that exact moment.
I think the “fear” of the GOP is that Paul could realistically trigger a 3rd-Party candidacy, which, in turn, would favor the President.
Also; his “be-all-to-end-all” is not to “make Obama a one-term President”…but to completely reform our Government and it’s policies.
I don’t know if you guys have noticed; but you can probably count on one hand the number of times Paul even mentions the President. I get the feeling that he views the Presidency as just one part of a much larger systemic problem.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I think the “fear” of the GOP is that Paul could realistically trigger a 3rd-Party candidacy, which, in turn, would favor the President…
[/quote]
I can see no other outcome. Can you?
[/quote]
Good question. It’s hard to say, Push.
Now…my impression is that Paul doesn’t have strong allegiance to any Party. I think that he will most likely follow the path that his supporters desire. (He seems as loyal to them as they are to him).
As you’ve seen on this thread (and many like it); Paul and his supporters are very “principal driven”; where “winning” and “losing” is more a matter of whether they get the message out, NOT whether they “win” a debate or even the GOP nomination.
While I don’t see a 3rd Party candidacy generating “Perot” kinds of numbers; in a close Presidential race, they certainly can represent numbers that will affect the outcome.
Mufasa
If you support any other person that Ron Paul for prez I don’t know why you would care about Obama winning a reelection. All the other candidates besides Ron Paul are the same as Obama – in other words they are all pro-government socialists.