[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Meanwhile, all the “real” candidates apparently believe that US Foreign Policy is infallible at all times, and nobody ever deserves to be angry at our perfect country. And thus all dissenters should be shouted down, put away, or blown up.[/quote]
Add discredited to this list or at least consider it a subset of being shouted down…
You are describing a lot of the people posting in these forums, but I suspect you already knew that.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Hell, if WWII would have ended with anything less that the thorough destruction of Germany they would have started WWIII.
Trying to pin these wars on America instead of German aggression is laughable. They were an extremely militaristic and warlike society.[/quote]
I totally agree with these points, but you’re getting ahead of yourself again. Germany got that way for a reason, and the U.S. had much to do with it.
By the way, there is no “one cause” for anything so complex as an international war. Causality, is, in-and-of itself, a thorny issue which is strongly influenced by philosophical beliefs and patterns of thought. “Blame” is a religious, not a scientific concept, because it necessitates a very straightforward and linear interpretation of causality.
There can be no middle ground. Conservatives tend to approach political issues with the mindset of establishing a “right” and a “wrong” side and moving on, rather than studying the issue methodically and trying to determine the underlying causes of events.
From this, the following can be stated:
-Nobody is to “blame” for WWI, WWII, or any war. The definition of the word is simply too narrow to provide an accurate depiction of causality in such scenarios.
-Certain actions undertaken by certain parties can be identified as having likely contributed to the occurrence of certain events in retrospective analysis.
With that said, there can be no reasonable doubt that the actions of the United States influenced both World Wars, and so, the question that must be asked is whether or not this influence was great enough to have potentially changed the outcome of either or both conflicts.
It’s a perfectly valid debate.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If America was not involved it still would have been a blood bath. The Czar still would have fallen and Germany would have went at it again.[/quote]
If America had not involved herself in WWI then Germany likely would have won. The German/Austrian empire would have risen to become a dominant power in continental Europe and Northern Africa/the Mediterranean. The biggest loser would have been Britain, whose substantial empire would have been curtailed significantly. But England was decimated by the war anyways, if not militarily then economically, as any post-war account could attest.
WWI was the greatest calamity ever to befall humanity – far, far greater in scope than it’s successor, which seems to attract a lot more attention today.
The essential outcome of WWI was the emergence of Fascism in almost every industrial nation. Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan adopted the most radical forms, while in the U.S. and Britain the same system was implemented more gradually under the name Social Democracy.
As Western Europe and America witnessed the rise of the Third Reich, the defining question among commentators of the day was whether their nations would follow the German example. At the time, fascism was well regarded by most western establishments.
Populists, such as George Orwell, found their calling in the communist and socialist movements of the day, with the Soviet regime enjoying unparalleled support in academic circles during this time period. Communism, indeed, was the ideology held by “decent people”, whereas most Western establishments much preferred fascism.
Indeed, where socialism arose – such as in Spain – it was forcibly put down by the Western governments. Where fascism arose, it was widely praised by the Western establishments. In the end, the Allied Nations got a “Third Way” – the institutionalization of the fascist system without the violent, ultra-nationalist base which led to it’s early downfall in the Axis powers.
That was the greatest catastrophe ever to befall Western civilization, and it’s result will be nothing less than the collapse of the West, led by America, in the middle of the 21st century. That is, if things continue on their present course. I believe the 2008 election will be historic because it represents what must be the last chance this country has to reverse it’s present, downwards course. This is due entirely to the candidacy of one man in this election, whose name is Ron Paul.
To not vote for Ron Paul in the coming election would be a travesty of epic proportions for this country and the Western world. He is the last, real chance we have to turn things around.
I am saddened and disgusted to see so many people (just one would be one too many) yet again resorting to the old game of “voting for the lesser of two evils”, or “anybody but Bush/Clinton/etc”…
Wake up, idiots. Before it’s too late…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Do you think he’ll even make a showing? I mean statistically that is.[/quote]
Yes, I really do. I think he will put up a hell of a fight for sure, and I wouldn’t count him out of the final race. The progress of his that I’ve seen since his candidacy was announced in January has both impressed and suprised me and – I’m sure – many others.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You are sort of blind huh?
Here pull up a chair and I’ll explain how American political debates work.
It’s not necessarily the facts that stand out in peoples minds after a debate. It’s how each candidate conducted himself and how each responded to the the others comments. Wit is as important as intellect here.
[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying and I think there’s no question that there is validity to that. But nothing is written in stone, and Ron Paul may have something which gives him a distinct advantage in this election. Time will tell.
I disagree with your assessment of his character and his odds of winning. You neglect to mention that he is widely percieved to be the most honest candidate in the entire round-up, and this factor could greatly work in his favor at a time when public trust of the GOP is at an all-time low, so much so that right-wing analysts are calling it a shoo-in election for the Dems.
I would also ask you to explain, in detail, why you are so opposed to Hillary being elected that you would vote for any big-name candidate from the other side just to defeat her.
That’s another area where I’m at odds with you. I don’t look at sides or parties. I see Ron Paul and I see the “other guys”. If Ron Paul isn’t elected, I couldn’t care less if it’s Hillary or McCain who wins the race.
Mick28:
How much does charisma count? The reps elected Dole as thier front man and he couldn’t even string together a coherent thought. And W. consistently mangles the English language and comes across as a silly hick.
Although most Americans may not have taken a class in formal debate I still believe they have the ability to see through Rudy’s bullshit. Hopefully they will apply their ability.
And it counts in the majority of the voting public, not just the public at large!
By the way, why does Rudy make you sick?
Paul’s chance of winning has nothing to do with the reason I like some of what he says. In a day and age where the debates have become so homoginized and predictable, it is refreshing to hear someone speak out instead of parroting cliches. Even though his ideas aren’t knew, they have alot of merit in them and offer much more in terms of alternatives among both parties.
I think Ron Paul speaks truth that nobody else does. Here is a video my friend and I made.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Psst…let me clue you into something about honesty and running for President…it doesn’t work.
I won’t get into the “honest” candidates who have lost in the past. Suffice it to say that that sort of honesty won’t work. You overestimate the American people. Why do you think they want to hear the truth?[/quote]
Try Jimmy Carter. Bush2 is this generation’s Nixon admin. That’s why Ron Paul has a chance. There is a right time for everything and now is the right time for Ron Paul. He will go far, I’m sure of it.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
But don’t kid yourself charisma counts, and Ron Paul has none. No wait…he has less than none. He should be called the “anti-charisma” candidate.
He has minus charisma. Wait I think we have to make up a new word here. You work on it and get back to me.[/quote]
What do you base this assessment on? The 30 second soundbites they were given during the debates? He hasn’t yet recieved enough exposure in the press for his true character to shine through. At this point, this is what we know: He did well in the debates, based on the popular opinion reflected in the major network polls. Therefore, he will at least get ONE more major opportunity to spread his message to a wide audience. If he does well again, his success will build and he will go from “no charisma” to the likable family doc that he is.
If everything you claimed was true, he wouldn’t be where he is today. He’s come a long way since January. I’ve been along for the ride.
You still think most people will take Rudy’s side in their quarrel. You don’t realize that there is an inherent danger in using propagandist arguments such as his. Sure, you may be able to fool some people, OR you may get caught and exposed as a phony. What did Paul do after the debate - do you know? He went on several major talk shows and gave Giuliani a so-called “reading list” of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report, which backed up his claims. Even ignorant people could stop and think twice after seeing this. Paul knows full well that he is preaching an unconventional message to virgin ears. Doubtless, there will be many more “Rudy moments” before his campaign is through, and it would be quite ignorant to think that his team hasn’t planned for them.
As public awareness of his position increases, his opponents will look more and more foolish for attacking him with such sensationalistic claims. At least, that is the goal. And it is not an implausible one. If and when his opponents are forced to debate him in earnest, THAT is when the soundness of his ideas will come to light and his opponents will literally be decimated. I can assure you that bringing this scenario about is the #1 goal of the Paul campaign.
Rudy’s remarks are exactly the type of thing that could come back to bite him in the ass later on. It’s happened many times in the past. That is, IF Ron Paul’s campaign succeeds in spreading his message to a sufficient degree. It is in their hands and they know what they are up against. They plan their methods accordingly. Count them out only if you wish to appear foolish later on.
I’m seeing a lot of people on the board who seem to be borderline hostile to the idea of Paul’s running for Prez. That saddens me, because I really think that Ron Paul (or someone like him) could be exactly what is needed in the Republican party these days.
His record shows me that he does more than just pay lip service to the idea of “smaller government”, in fact, Paul’s approach to government is almost minimalist - he thinks that our government should stick to doing those things that it can do well, and without interfering in the lives of the citizens.
He’s the first politician I’ve felt excited about for a long time, which is why I attended my first ever political support rally last night. Well, “rally” might be a little grandiose, it was more like a support group, I guess. But it was cool to see other people who were enthusiastic about someone who could make a serious change.
For me, Rudy McRomney is the waste of time, they are all the same right now, and not much different from what we’ve had for the past 7 years. I can’t vote for them with a clear conscience, so I won’t.
As of right now, the only candidate in the race who I feel deserves my support is Ron Paul, and he’s going to get it, even if he’s “unelectable”, due to all the people who won’t vote for him because he’s unelectable. Which is pretty stupid, honestly. It’s like refusing to push a lawn mower because it’s not moving. The grass needs to be cut, so push the damn mower already.
Support:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
About the Rally:
http://arkansasmatters.com/content/fulltext/?cid=56558
.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
.[/quote]
That poll is a joke and obviously appeals to people with a huge bias.
Look at the # 2 choice.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that actually knows what he is talking about. What does Rudy know? He still thinks terror exists because of our “freedom”.
Go for the candidate who doesn’t spit ill-founded rhetoric.
The other republican candidates don’t like Ron Paul because he doesn’t use scare tactics to persuade people–that should be the first clue who is more capable of handling the responsibility of the office.
Would you pick liars over someone who stands on principle–whether you agree with all of their principles or not?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
.
That poll is a joke and obviously appeals to people with a huge bias.
Look at the # 2 choice.
[/quote]
Even if 50% of the people answering the poll were democrats it still shows Rudy getting his ass kicked by a huge margin. If 90% of the poll were answered by democrats Rudy still gets his ass kicked in the Republican nomination. You really think the margin favors Rudy–then you are real bad at math?
I think 90% of people can actually tell the difference between a douchebag and a future president.
EDIT: I was looking at the wrong value. Rudy plainly got his ass kicked. Even Mit Romney beat him. I also meant to say that, yes I agree this isn’t a scientific poll in the least.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
.[/quote]
Not according to Mick28
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
For me, Rudy McRomney is the waste of time, they are all the same…
Dam I wish you knew what you were talking about…
[/quote]
Right back atcha Mick;-)
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Mick28:
How much does charisma count?
Charisma? Intelligence? Ideas? Who knows exactly what gets someone elected to the highest office in the land.
It’s probably a combination of the above three things and many more as well.
But don’t kid yourself charisma counts, and Ron Paul has none. No wait…he has less than none. He should be called the “anti-charisma” candidate.
He has minus charisma. Wait I think we have to make up a new word here. You work on it and get back to me.
The reps elected Dole as thier front man and he couldn’t even string together a coherent thought.
Actually, Dole is not a dumb guy. But he too suffered from a lack of charisma, not to the degree that Ron Paul does however. I don’t think anyone is that low on the big “C”.
By the way, we never had a President Dole. Case closed.
And W. consistently mangles the English language and comes across as a silly hick.
Hold on there, we went from charisma to mangling the english language. I think that mangling the english language is less important than having no charisma.
Do you know why people vote for any given candidate?
No? Well I don’t either. But I think it has more to do with emotion than you might think. At least with the majority of American.
Although most Americans may not have taken a class in formal debate I still believe they have the ability to see through Rudy’s bullshit. Hopefully they will apply their ability.
Oh I do hope you’re right. The man makes my skin crawl.
By the way, why does Rudy make you sick?
Probably for some of the same reasons that you don’t like him.
Using 9/11 as a stepping stone.
Flip flopping on his true core beliefs.
And a few dozen other reasons.
By the way from a marketing stand point (that’s my field of expertise…if you want to call it that) America is NOT going to elect a half bald man to the Presidency.
Paul’s chance of winning has nothing to do with the reason I like some of what he says.
I want you to read that sentence over again.
In a day and age where the debates have become so homoginized and predictable, it is refreshing to hear someone speak out instead of parroting cliches. Even though his ideas aren’t knew, they have alot of merit in them and offer much more in terms of alternatives among both parties.
I agree.
[/quote]
True the voting public didn’t elect Dole but did vote Bush in the second time around. You see in my response above I entioned W’s personality as coming across as a silly hick. Charisma?
I agree Rudy has used 9/11 but so has the Bush administration.
What I meant to say in relation to Ron Paul’s chance of winning is that I don’t care how marketable he is. I do care about his message!
Sorry Mick28, we’re not “on”, because I’m not convinced that Paul will actually win the nomination. All I said is that he’ll go farther than most people expect and at least put up a considerable fight before going down – if he goes down.
Ford wasn’t elected? Yeah, you’re right. But guess what: Half the voting population thinks Bush2 wasn’t elected, either. The parallels go on. They may be important or they may not be, but there’s no question that they exist.
I realize that, to you, I probably come across as a prototypical “true believer” for the Ron Paul cause; however, that’s only because you haven’t witnessed the evolution of my thinking. Prior to the debates in May, I posted very skeptically on another message board in regards to his chances of getting any national attention. Despite the fact that I supported him then, as I continue to do now, I did not think that his campaign would go far at all.
The things that I witnessed in May have made me change my opinion about Ron Paul’s chances. I’m not a true believer. I started out a skeptic, and I reached my current opinions objectively. If his campaign takes a noticeable turn for the worse, I’ll adjust my opinions accordingly. But, at this point in time, as I noted earlier, he’s doing very well and there’s no reason to think he won’t go far if he continues this way,