[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think he has a real naive belief that if we pull out of everywhere things will fix themselves to our benefit. [/quote]
How did getting into Iraq benefit the American people? Enlighten us.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
…
Don’t get me wrong, I see your point and I understand it. But come on! When have we “learned that isn’t very likely?” When was the last time we pulled outta anywhere? I’m not just talking about Iraq here…Germany!? I mean really, why?
Think about Afghanistan. If we would have kept our nose in it after the Soviets pulled out we would probably be in better shape. We ignored it, it turned to shit and then we were attacked.[/quote]
What if we never got involved in the first place? The soviets may have had an easier time taking the country over – I doubt it, but maybe. Even if they had taken it over, the Soviet Union would still have collapsed and who knows, Afghanistan might not have turned into such an ass backwards country. After all – at least this is my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong – by funding and arming a certain segment of Afghan society, we did create a power base that eventually turned into the Al-Qeada-supporting Taliban. Worst case scenario: Afghanistan still turns into a shit hole and we still end up having to fight the Afghan war, but with the added benefit of having just a little more credibility in the region. And I realize this is all hindsight, but that’s what history is for, we need to learn from our mistakes
[quote]Why are we in Germany? That is a better question. I would say if we didn’t need the base to operate out of then close the suckers. I favor keeping bases all over the world. I favor the US being the strongest nation. That is just the way I am.
If we changed our policies we would lose some weaker enemies but in the long run someone else would step up and cause problems and we would be dealing from a position of weakness.[/quote]
I’m not so sure not having bases everywhere would make us weaker militarily, but point well taken.
[quote]I could be totally wrong – there’s a shit load I don’t know compared with what I do – but I can’t help but feel that a number of the problems we are faced with are a product of our sticking our nose in everyone’s business for the last hundred or so years. It’s just like what I often hear conservatives say about socialist-like policies in this country, “more of the thing that got us here in the first place isn’t going to make the situation better.” I’m not saying everything is going to be peaches and cream if we elect Ron Paul, we have too sufficiently dug ourselves into a deep hole to think we can get out of it without getting dirty, but I’d rather not keep digging. In my opinion, we are essentially living out Ben Franklin’s definition of insanity.
I understand what you are saying but I think Ron Paul wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to fix a lot of things but there are good reasons those things exist in the first place.
His plan isn’t to fix things. It is to eliminate them.[/quote]
That may be what’s needed to fix things, but again, I get your point.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think he has a real naive belief that if we pull out of everywhere things will fix themselves to our benefit.
How did getting into Iraq benefit the American people? Enlighten us.[/quote]
It ain’t done yet but we did rid the world of a tyrant that we went to war with once already and that attempted to assassinate an American president.
What further evil would he and his sons have done? Who knows? What good will a democratic Iraq do? Who knows?
Either way you and your ilk would go on hating America and trying to spread your hateful brand of Islam so frankly your opinion isn’t worth a shit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It ain’t done yet but we did rid the world of a tyrant that we went to war with once already and that attempted to assassinate an American president. [/quote]
Is that the same tyrant you armed and supported?
Is going to war with a country once reason to go again?
As for the attempt on a US president’s life, I’ve yet to see solid evidence. The case was far from conclusive. Either way, that was no excuse to bomb (and invade) a country, turning millions into refugees, and many many innocents into corpses.
If you can’t have the decency to discuss the issues I raise without resorting to slander and baseless accusations, ignore my posts. The “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists” line is a pile of horseshit.
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
God I love this guy. I know he comes off a little wacky to some, and he probably – I’m being generous – doesn’t stand a chance in hell of being elected. But I don’t care what your political philosophy is, you’ve got to respect someone in national politics
who isn’t afraid to be honest and blunt when voicing his policy positions/ opinions (as opposed to a whole lot of doublespeak) – especially positions that aren’t exactly towing the party line. If he’s still around by the time my state has it’s primary I’ll be voting for him.[/quote]
It’s easy to be honest when polling as low as he is.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It ain’t done yet but we did rid the world of a tyrant that we went to war with once already and that attempted to assassinate an American president.
Is that the same tyrant you armed and supported?
[/quote]
I am neither Russian nor European. Those are the true people that armed the man. Witness the country full of Russian arms.
It is if they don’t follow the terms of the peace treaty.
I was not aware you had reviewed all the evidence. When did they present it to you?
[quote]
Either way you and your ilk would go on hating America and trying to spread your hateful brand of Islam so frankly your opinion isn’t worth a shit.
If you can’t have the decency to discuss the issues I raise without resorting to slander and baseless accusations, ignore my posts. The “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists” line is a pile of horseshit.[/quote]
You are the guy that turns every thread into an anti-American screed. I will make no apologies to you.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
If he is so fantastic, why in the name of GOD is he a mere Representative?
[/quote]
He’s a mere doctor who happens to be a representative. You are a mere cop…what is your point?
You worship the State and all the propaganda it feeds you. Pathetic!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am neither Russian nor European. Those are the true people that armed the man. Witness the country full of Russian arms. [/quote]
Oooh…so the “true people” somehow absolve you from supporting the tyrant?
I, on the other hand, was aware that you swallowed everything coming from the White House. But hey, that’s what makes a patriot…right?
I asked a simple question. I’ll paste it here for convenience.
How did getting into Iraq benefit the American people? Enlighten us.
Knowing the American people are losing their lives, money, and cred in Iraq, you came up with “we went to war with him once” and “he tried to kill a president”, then tried to portray me as being in league with the bloody criminals in Iraq (whom would not be there if it wasn’t for your invasion).
The war is increasingly unpopular with the public. The middle and lower classes are paying the blunder of Bush with their blood and tax money. Don’t try to pretend that they got anything out of it. The CIA reports that the war strengthened terrorist Islamist groups worldwide. The war is breeding a generation of limbless Americans. It’s taking the dollar down. It has fucked up the image of the - once glorious - United States in the eyes of the world. Heck, most polls show a majority of Iraqis were better off under Saddam (and that’s a feat!).
The winners in all this: People making weapons, whose stocks soared shortly after the beginning of the carnage. Israel, for brilliantly exploiting you through AIPAC. Al-Qaeda, which could hardly find a better safe haven. Dictatorial regimes everywhere, because they found a mighty good excuse to start arming themselves to the teeth. PNAC. Haliburton and others. For a government “for the people”, this one let them down BIG time!
Is that “anti-American” in any way? Pray tell.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I am neither Russian nor European. Those are the true people that armed the man. Witness the country full of Russian arms.
Oooh…so the “true people” somehow absolve you from supporting the tyrant?
[/quote]
That article backs what I said that Saddam was supported by the Russians and Europeans. The US gave him very little support.
Yes, Clinton faked it so he could make a tepid response and look weak. Your logic is stunning.
[quote]
You are the guy that turns every thread into an anti-American screed. I will make no apologies to you.
I asked a simple question. I’ll paste it here for convenience.
How did getting into Iraq benefit the American people? Enlighten us.
Knowing the American people are losing their lives, money, and cred in Iraq, you came up with “we went to war with him once” and “he tried to kill a president”, then tried to portray me as being in league with the bloody criminals in Iraq (whom would not be there if it wasn’t for your invasion).
The war is increasingly unpopular with the public. The middle and lower classes are paying the blunder of Bush with their blood and tax money. Don’t try to pretend that they got anything out of it. The CIA reports that the war strengthened terrorist Islamist groups worldwide. The war is breeding a generation of limbless Americans. It’s taking the dollar down. It has fucked up the image of the - once glorious - United States in the eyes of the world. Heck, most polls show a majority of Iraqis were better off under Saddam (and that’s a feat!).
The winners in all this: People making weapons, whose stocks soared shortly after the beginning of the carnage. Israel, for brilliantly exploiting you through AIPAC. Al-Qaeda, which could hardly find a better safe haven. Dictatorial regimes everywhere, because they found a mighty good excuse to start arming themselves to the teeth. PNAC. Haliburton and others. For a government “for the people”, this one let them down BIG time!
Is that “anti-American” in any way? Pray tell.[/quote]
Blah blah blah, Halliburton, Jews…
And yes, AQ has a safe haven in Iraq. Or maybe not. Perhaps if you paid attention to what is actually happening instead of what you want to happen you will see that AQ are being kicked out of Iraq.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
God I love this guy. I know he comes off a little wacky to some, and he probably – I’m being generous – doesn’t stand a chance in hell of being elected. But I don’t care what your political philosophy is, you’ve got to respect someone in national politics
who isn’t afraid to be honest and blunt when voicing his policy positions/ opinions (as opposed to a whole lot of doublespeak) – especially positions that aren’t exactly towing the party line. If he’s still around by the time my state has it’s primary I’ll be voting for him.
It’s easy to be honest when polling as low as he is.[/quote]
Quite an astute observation; a little too cynical for my tastes, though. He’s been saying the same thing for a long time so I don’t know if you’re just trying to be cute, or if you really mean to make a valid point?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Aside from that, can you clarify the “nuclear arsenal” point? Do you think Paul is more apt to use it?
I’m not making a judgment as to whether he is more or less apt to use it. What I’m saying is that I would not trust his judgment regarding such an important decision. In other words, I think he may use them when he shouldn’t or not use them when he should.[/quote]
On what do you base this conclusion? I can only assume you distrust his judgment based on his political philosophy – he clearly isn’t unintelligent – and because I’m fairly familiar with that philosophy, I’d like to know why one holding the views he does automatically lacks judgment?
Please define what “Presidential timber” is? I imagine it’s not an objective set of criteria, so really what you meant to say is, “in my opinion Ron Paul is Not Presidential timber.” To which, I respond, I think you’re wrong, but a reasonable position, nonetheless.
The same thing was said about a self-taught, minor representative from Illinois who managed to get elected president. And before you say it, no I’m not arguing that Ron Paul is the next Lincoln – nor would I want him to be – but every president we’ve ever had, with the exception of maybe one, has had the same thing said about him by better than you and me. So forgive me if I don’t take your proclamation to heart.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Aside from that, can you clarify the “nuclear arsenal” point? Do you think Paul is more apt to use it?
I’m not making a judgment as to whether he is more or less apt to use it. What I’m saying is that I would not trust his judgment regarding such an important decision. In other words, I think he may use them when he shouldn’t or not use them when he should.
On what do you base this conclusion? I can only assume you distrust his judgment based on his political philosophy – he clearly isn’t unintelligent – and because I’m fairly familiar with that philosophy, I’d like to know why one holding the views he does automatically lacks judgment?
Look…Ron Paul is NOT Presidential timber-PERIOD.
Please define what “Presidential timber” is? I imagine it’s not an objective set of criteria, so really what you meant to say is, “in my opinion Ron Paul is Not Presidential timber.” To which, I respond, I think you’re wrong, but a reasonable position, nonetheless.
The same thing was said about a self-taught, minor representative from Illinois who managed to get elected president. And before you say it, no I’m not arguing that Ron Paul is the next Lincoln – nor would I want him to be – but every president we’ve ever had, with the exception of maybe one, has had the same thing said about him by better than you and me. So forgive me if I don’t take your proclamation to heart.
No, I’m not going to define what Presidential Timber means. I can tell you this, it has much to do with reasoned positions,[/quote]
Example? It’s impossible to have a meaningful debate using generalities.
Serving in the Congress over a period of four decades (not continuously, of course) isn’t enough experience in your book? As compared with who?
How do you know whether he has leadership abilities? And compared with who?
You seem to assume or take much for granted, as if you don’t need to back up your assertions.
To number one, fair enough. Number 2, however, is a mischaracterization. And considering the strategy of nearly everyone else, essentially to stay until the job is done – whatever the hell that means – is the exact opposite, I don’t see how one is shallow, while the other is nuanced.
So true. Which is why Paul’s foreign policy is so novel; you know, no saber rattling, talking to people, free trade, setting an example as a means of bringing people to your side instead of pointing a gun at them…
Very true.
Answer: I’m sure there are scores, I just can’t remember who they are.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
If he is so fantastic, why in the name of GOD is he a mere Representative?
He’s a mere doctor who happens to be a representative. You are a mere cop…what is your point?
You worship the State and all the propaganda it feeds you. Pathetic![/quote]
moRon,
First of all, I’m not running around telling everyone that our Founding Father’s were against intervention. Further, I’m not berating other candidates for not following MY interpretation of the Constitution. Finally, I’m not telling everyone that all will be well if we just withdrew.
I’m far ahead of your hero in the understanding of geo-politics and history.
Pretty sad when you realize that’s what he’s running on.
By the way, I do worship the State. However, the State hasn’t ever told me what to think. It has never been in a voting booth with me. If the State fires off “propaganda,” I’m immune to it.
I do my own thinking, thanks.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
By the way, I do worship the State. However, the State hasn’t ever told me what to think. It has never been in a voting booth with me. If the State fires off “propaganda,” I’m immune to it.
I do my own thinking, thanks.
JeffR
[/quote]
Ha ha ha ha ha! Whatever clown.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
By the way, I do worship the State. However, the State hasn’t ever told me what to think. It has never been in a voting booth with me. If the State fires off “propaganda,” I’m immune to it.
I do my own thinking, thanks.
JeffR
Ha ha ha ha ha! Whatever clown.
[/quote]
moRon,
Thanks for the witticism. It’s always enlightening when we converse.
Oh, have to translate your response: “JeffR is making me think. It hurts.”
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
No, I’m not going to define what Presidential Timber means. I can tell you this, it has much to do with reasoned positions,
Example? It’s impossible to have a meaningful debate using generalities.
Tell me why Pee Wee Herman isn’t Presidential material. And make sure that you back up your assertions with examples.
Well, Paul is viewed by many as not much more viable than Herman. I know it’s difficult for you to understand, but trust me people have seen Paul, heard Paul and they reject him.
Go figure, the general public is smarter than many believe them to be.
[/quote]
Difficult for me to understand? Your right, I’m just so overawed by the sheer brilliancy of your posts that I just must not be thinking clearly…
A guy with decades of political experience is no different the Pee Wee Herman? Pee Wee Herman isn’t presidential material because he got caught jacking off in a public theater. Is that example enough? because I can give more if you like. Your turn…
[quote]Serving in the Congress over a period of four decades (not continuously, of course) isn’t enough experience in your book? As compared with who?
We’ve had Generals, Vive Presidents, Governors etc. Now I want you to name the last person who was elected President who ran as a Congressman…go ahead think about it…I’ll wait.
And there’s a reason for this…know what it is?[/quote]
The most obvious, to me anyways, is name recognition – representatives being elected by relatively few people aren’t well known outside their respective districts. (I have a feeling this isn’t what you have in mind, though.)
The typical answer is that legislative experience does not equal executive ability. But then again, last I checked, Bush was governor of one of the largest states in the Union, and hell, he’s done a bang up job; so I guess you have a point. Conversely, Lincoln had no executive experience and very little political experience in general, yet he was a strong executive; I could also mention Kennedy (he was a Senator at the time, but still lacked executive experience). So, just because someone hasn’t been in an executive position, doesn’t mean they can’t be an effective president, it only means people like you discount them out of hand. Which is your right to do, but a bullshit argument for why he isn’t “presidential timber,” nonetheless. (And no, I don’t think Ron Paul is the next Lincoln or Kennedy.)
[quote]How do you know whether he has leadership abilities? And compared with who?
Compared to Pee Wee Herman I think Pauls leadership skills look pretty good. Compared to those who could actually become President, Paul doesn’t look so good.[/quote]
Again, you aren’t basing this on anything other than this silly Pee Wee Herman comparison. That’s fine if you want to base your opinion on nothing, but good luck making valid arguments.
[quote]You seem to assume or take much for granted, as if you don’t need to back up your assertions.
I don’t think the obvious needs any evidence for support. Of course Paul supporters think differently. One more reason why I’m thankful there are so few of them around.[/quote]
Well since you think it’s obvious, it must be so. Forgive me sir, I didn’t know I was debating with someone who had all the answers figured out.
[quote]The reason I distrust Paul is two fold: 1. His shrill non-stop whine regarding …oh just about everything that he talks about. 2. His shallow hold on all of the major issues. For example, topic, Iraq, Pauls answer “get out now”.
To number one, fair enough. Number 2, however, is a mischaracterization. And considering the strategy of nearly everyone else, essentially to stay until the job is done – whatever the hell that means – is the exact opposite, I don’t see how one is shallow, while the other is nuanced.
To be there one day and then be completely gone the next is foolhardy. Even Hillary Clinton knows this. Yes, let’s make plans to leave, but let’s also make sure that these plans are as all encompassing as possible, taking into consideration every potentiality that could occur[/quote]
Yes, I know that’s the common refrain, “we can’t just pull out.” I hear this “all encompassing” bullshit all the time; no one ever explains what that means. It’s just another murky, bullshit answer designed to say a lot, with actually saying anything. What it really means is, “we’re there indefinitely,” because it’s quite impossible to take into account every potentiality – were it possible we wouldn’t be there in the first place. The only questions should be, “is our presence in Iraq increasing our security? and if we leave, will it have a negative effect on our security?” If it’s reasonably no on both counts – as Ron Paul believes – we need to leave. Just because he says in a short debate with 10 other candidates or a in tv sound-bite, “bring them home,” doesn’t mean that’s the end all and be all of his pull-out strategy. It’s the objective – put in simple, unequivocal terms.
Yeah, because I hear a lot of nuanced answers coming from everyone else. Don’t confuse convoluted bullshit with legitimate answers.
[quote]I just thought of who Paul reminds me of!
Everyone has an uncle or grandfather who rants on about the important issues of the day. And every issue has a very simple answer to these people. And when you’re 10 years old you look up to these types because they appear so very smart.
But…when you become an adult you realize that your Grand father really wasn’t all that smart.
I think many of the 97% of the voters are seeing this in Paul, and that’s why they’ve rejected him and his candidacy.[/quote]
Do you go about your daily life this arrogant? I forgot that as a child, I ought not talk back to adults, sorry sir…wont let it happen again.
[quote]no saber rattling, talking to people, free trade, setting an example as a means of bringing people to your side instead of pointing a gun at them…
Yes, I’m sure that would work very well with Iran, and N. Korea. Fortunately we’ll never have to see the resounding failure that would ensue with such a child like approach because, as I’ve been saying, Paul will be long forgotten when whoever wins the Presidency is dealing with these issues.[/quote]
Child like? Sounds rather adult like to me. But hey, to each his own.
[quote]Question: When is the last time so much has been written about someone who will not be remembered 30 days after he drops from the scene?
Answer: I’m sure there are scores, I just can’t remember who they are.
Now that’s funny. Thanks for the laugh.
[/quote]
Ask a non-sensical question, get a stupid answer.
This has quickly turned into a pissing match so I’ll let you respond to this if you feel the need, but I don’t think I’m going to have anything else to add.