The middle east has been a fucked up geopolitical mess ever since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire forced seperate ethnic and religious groups into pre ordained geometric boundaries. No Peace brokering that we can engage in will change their strife.
[/quote]
In order to deal with this whole situation the US would have to acknowledge that there actually are different people there, who do not wish to live together.
Ironically, the only nation there which is historically grown and somewhat stable is Iran and Turkey, whereas nations like Jordan or SA would most likely be redrawn.
Soooo, acknowledging that most US somewhat allies are most likely not sensible constructs, that Turkey and Iran are the only somewhat stable nations in the region, that the whole region cannot be remade to fit the US interests but must be shaped to reflect ethnic, tribal and religious factions…
Absolutely. That’s why we’ve got to stop the appeasement and talking about withdrawing.
An oil deal is not an indication of stability.
All I’m saying is that in my opinion it would be greatly against U.S. and western interests to allow al-Qaeda and Iran space and time. Look at what happened in Iraq within a day of the last U.S. forces leaving. The whole place will come down like a house of cards if you try to remove the buttresses - that’s just my opinion.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Might as well make Afghanistan a state, [/quote]BINGO! Iraq too.
[/quote]
Iraq will never be a state unless it is held together by a brutal dictator, most likely an American puppet.
At the very least you would need to split of a Kurdistan, but a three way split is more likely.
That however would require Iran to cooperate with the US and for unfathomable reasons they are not in the mood. [/quote]There are much more far reaching considerations than this, but I can dream can’t I?
An oil deal is not an indication of stability.
[/quote]
Yes it is.
It takes years, if not decades to get your money back again, which is next to impossible without some political stability.
[/quote]
An Argentinian-led consortium was jostling with other groups for pipelines all through the civil war in the 90’s leading up to 9/11. It was not stable then.
I like some of the stuff I am hearing from Santorum. He is someone that speaks to working class economic issues and the importance of family.
I do have concerns, however, that he doesn’t have the gravitas or ammunition to slay the biggest dragon in the room at the moment - the crony capitalism connection with Wall Street and Washington. That was a problem before 2008, and has been made exponentially worse under the direction of Obama.
I like some of the stuff I am hearing from Santorum. He is someone that speaks to working class economic issues and the importance of family.
I do have concerns, however, that he doesn’t have the gravitas or ammunition to slay the biggest dragon in the room at the moment - the crony capitalism connection with Wall Street and Washington. That was a problem before 2008, and has been made exponentially worse under the direction of Obama.
[/quote]
Yes, I appreciate that Santorum is particularly concerned with the middle and lower income folk. I like that he’s stubbornly bringing up the family, and getting/keeping manafacturing jobs here. Crucial topics for socio-economic health and economic mobility. Yes folks, family matters. But yes, one point in Huntsman’s favor is his awareness of financial/banking issues (too big to fail), and the willingess to do something about it.
These are the ads Ron Paul will now face. I don’t want to squeal on a racist ghost writer doesn’t cut it. If he doesn’t name the name, then it was him.
“Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.”
IMO changing my stance is something I would be willing to do. In fact I think about a conversation as I am involved in the discussion. Both how to present myself better and to clearly understand the other view. However, I will admit my mind will close to ideas the moment someone, on say a video clip, says anything or makes a point way off base with no base or evidence. I will look at information on my own and draw my own conclusion.
Here is where we start to have a “problem.” I have never made the claim that Dr. Ron Paul can do no wrong. In my mind, far from it. Just like the Catholic Church, I am the biggest critic. I will look, read or watch something and make up MY OWN opinion. The moment another opinion enters into the topic my open view starts to narrow. Take for example Ron’s opinion on fighting against other countries. His stance is to follow the Constitution. This is wrong how? If Congress votes a certain way, our country acts from there. Only after a declaration of war is passed, then men and women of this country die on foreign soil.
The way I personally vote is that I find a peak topic that I believe to be the most important political issue and I then go from there. If two candidates actually vote the same way then I move down my list from there. The single stance that I use to decide between candidates is one that shows a respect of life throughout the all the stages, every single stage in between. The way a candidate votes aligns with me after that, at least very close to how I would personally decide. Show me a candidate of the current field, one who respects life more than Dr. Ron Paul and I will change my vote.
In one of the video’s I recently provided shows Gloria asking Ron Paul the exact same question three times in a row. Ron walks out because she was trying to rile him up. Paul told her that he disavowed any of the matter on the website and he wasn’t even aware of half the topics on the site. In addition, the information was over a decade old. For me to change my vote, show me how Dr. Paul no longer respects life. I wait patiently ; )
KD
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Knee:
You’re Welcome.
I’ve grown on “PWI” over the past few years for one reason and one reason only…the SELF introspection that many knowledgable people on this Forum have forced me to make; from Push to BOLT; and from Tiribulus and Jewbacca to LIFT. I’ve even “learned” from overt Rascist and NutJobs on “PWI”.
Mind you; I haven’t always agreed, and still don’t. And a lot of the people whom have lead to my growth LOVE to “mix-it-up” and get in a good fight more than me; and that’s okay. We agree to disagree and go on to the next thing.
My point is I don’t think anyone here truly “converts” or “changes” anyones mind if they are not willing to do a critical Self-Examination of what they believe and who they believe in. In this particular case; if Paul can “do no wrong”; and his followers are not willing to take a critical look at his stances, what I say and write is no more than noise.(Even your response to me was more critical of the President that it was of any of Paul’s stances).
So no…any “change” you make will have to come from “within”. There are literally hundreds of opinions about Paul on “PWI” already…if those haven’t lead to a critical analysis of his views, then nothing I say will.
Who do I think would be “best” for the Country at this point?
I think at THIS point in history we need a pragmatic “manager” and concensus builder, who understands that we live in a messy world…and that like it or not, we HAVE to deal with other Countries. We also could use a FISCAL conservative who doesn’t believe in a “scorched Earth” policy of getting things done on the backs of the less fortunate or brutal judging of the others for the Lives they lead.
The closet one to fitting that Bill is Huntsman…and he probably won’t make it past the first 1-2 Primaries.
War cannot be fought on a national security “thought.” I can be no clearer, follow the Constitution to the letter. If attacked, the Congress votes from there and we are open about what we are doing. gasp
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I misunderstood you. I already know that you believe the constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress before the executive can wage war but your statement actually implies the the declaration itself is the reason for waging war - as opposed to national security or something. I should have expressed myself better.
If you had anything to say on this particular aspect of executive war powers you could have said it during any of the lengthy discussions here or you could say it now. Posting a link to the Constitution is not a cogent argument.[/quote]
These are the ads Ron Paul will now face. I don’t want to squeal on a racist ghost writer doesn’t cut it. If he doesn’t name the name, then it was him. [/quote]
Actually I am beginning to like this-
The longer people ride this horse, the higher he climbs in the polls, minorities included.
Same way they would if we withdrew in 20 more years. Might as well make Afghanistan a state, because we’re going to be there dozens of more years if you’re worried about what they’ll do.
[/quote]
Afghanistan will just revert to the 1990’s civil war and then there’s Pakistan. We can’t just leave them to spawn al-Qaeda-like groups and work on their nuclear weapons systems in peace. Pakistan was teetering in 2008. The place is WWIII waiting to happen. It is not possible to de-escalate this war because signs that U.S. has decided to leave Muslim lands will just embolden the enemy. If we pull out of anywhere it’s got to be because al-Qaeda/sponsors are no longer a threat or because it’s a strategic withdrawal.
Al-Qaeda cannot possibly operate without state sponsorship and until safe havens and state sponsors are dealt with we cannot declare victory anywhere. And there’s also the even bigger problem of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of these apocalyptic groups like al-Qaeda and the Shia mahdists.[/quote]
Well, ok. But, let’s sell it honestly to the American people. It would take another 20, maybe 50 years, or maybe never, to achieve this victory you’re looking for. It it would involve actually outlawing particular religious teachings and practices, a hell of a lot more money, and many more deaths. The will isn’t there, and it won’t be there. Pull back, secure the borders, beef up intelligence, hit and run when needed. But we’re done with nation-building.
Absolutely. That’s why we’ve got to stop the appeasement and talking about withdrawing.
An oil deal is not an indication of stability.
All I’m saying is that in my opinion it would be greatly against U.S. and western interests to allow al-Qaeda and Iran space and time. Look at what happened in Iraq within a day of the last U.S. forces leaving. The whole place will come down like a house of cards if you try to remove the buttresses - that’s just my opinion.[/quote]
SM,
By your logic we have two choices:
Turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass.
Get the hell out of that cess pool and wait for them to get the bomb and then turn us into a sheet of glass.
And you call Ron Paul supporters nut jobs?
Or is it all a campaign of Soviet disinfo?
On a side note, it has occurred to me the Paul haters are taking a page from the Man Made Global Warming nut jobs. Just declare Ron Paul a racist, then cover your ears and continue to scream “the debate is over.”
“Ron Paul is a racist! Soviet disinfo! The debate is over! Na Na Na Na Na, I can’t hear you!”
Yeah, I am felling better and better about my choice.
Yes, I appreciate that Santorum is particularly concerned with the middle and lower income folk. I like that he’s stubbornly bringing up the family, and getting/keeping manafacturing jobs here. Crucial topics for socio-economic health and economic mobility. Yes folks, family matters. But yes, one point in Huntsman’s favor is his awareness of financial/banking issues (too big to fail), and the willingess to do something about it. [/quote]
Santorum just moved up in my book. On Ron Paul:
Ron Paul says heâ??s going to eliminate five departments. Ron Paul passed one bill in 20 years. What give you the idea that he can eliminate anything?
On a side note, it has occurred to me the Paul haters are taking a page from the Man Made Global Warming nut jobs. Just declare Ron Paul a racist, then cover your ears and continue to scream “the debate is over.”
“Ron Paul is a racist! Soviet disinfo! The debate is over! Na Na Na Na Na, I can’t hear you!”
Yeah, I am felling better and better about my choice. [/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. The Ron Paul supporters - like the Warmist Absolutists - are like a cult. Wait, no - not like a cult…they are a cult. Nothing could happen - no fact uncovered, no argument substantiated - that will shake the One True Faith in Paul.
Excerpts keep coming out substantiating Paul’s 9-11 Trutherism, weird consrpiracies (at one point, Paul discussing how Governor Rick Perry is part of the “international conspiracy”), and trafficking in racist circles. But the Paulnuts hang on. Only one conclusion I can reach - they hang on because they share the same moonbat beliefs.
It’s downright creepy - no one should be as emotionally (frankly, religiously) invested in a politician the way Ron Paul supporters are. When Paul loses the nomination, is there a plan for all of his followers to get together in South America and imbibe Kool Aid?
On a side note, it has occurred to me the Paul haters are taking a page from the Man Made Global Warming nut jobs. Just declare Ron Paul a racist, then cover your ears and continue to scream “the debate is over.”
“Ron Paul is a racist! Soviet disinfo! The debate is over! Na Na Na Na Na, I can’t hear you!”
Yeah, I am felling better and better about my choice. [/quote]
You have it exactly backwards. The Ron Paul supporters - like the Warmist Absolutists - are like a cult. Wait, no - not like a cult…they are a cult. Nothing could happen - no fact uncovered, no argument substantiated - that will shake the One True Faith in Paul.
Excerpts keep coming out substantiating Paul’s 9-11 Trutherism, weird consrpiracies (at one point, Paul discussing how Governor Rick Perry is part of the “international conspiracy”), and trafficking in racist circles. But the Paulnuts hang on. Only one conclusion I can reach - they hang on because they share the same moonbat beliefs.
It’s downright creepy - no one should be as emotionally (frankly, religiously) invested in a politician the way Ron Paul supporters are. When Paul loses the nomination, is there a plan for all of his followers to get together in South America and imbibe Kool Aid?[/quote]
Sooo…
Your response is “I know you are, but what am I.”
And please, quit being such a sanctimonious prick. You hold no moral high ground. You discuss your choice of candidate (Huntsman) ignoring the fact that he as as one dimensional as they come. Maybe this is the quality that allows you to project upon him the attributes you most esteem, without them actually having to be present. He is not vetted.
You criticize Paul for passing one bill in 20 years? I commend him for his restraint. Unlike you, I am not looking for a (nonexistent) morally elite class to tell me what I can and cannot do. My honor and ethics do this just fine for me. He is acting within the confines and restraints of the U.S. Constitution. Nothing more.
Usually, when discussing candidates people keep their criticism and name calling limited to the candidates themselves. You elevate yourself to pass judgment on me, my intelligence and my character because I took the time to actually read the books the man wrote and judge him by his plain spoken and direct word. I admire his congruency, honesty and lack of guile.
I have given you courtesy and respect on these forums.
I suggest you do the same.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
War cannot be fought on a national security “thought.”
[/quote]
Right…? Agreed.
I agree. Ron Paul flagrantly misrepresents the Constitution by claiming that a Congressional declaration of war is required before the executive can wage war. Perhaps if Ron Paul was around in the 18th Century he could’ve explained to President Adams, Congress and the founding fathers that the Quasi-war and the subsequent 158 wars fought without a Congressional declaration were all unconstitutional.
We were and are being attacked. And that was not what the founding fathers intended. If you want to follow the Constitution ‘to the letter’ you need to understand and be able to interpret the Constitution.
Sooo…
Your response is “I know you are, but what am I.”[/quote]
No, my response is as typed.
Give me a break - pointing how idiotic Paulnuts are isn’t “sanctimonious”. Please.
Secondly, let’s enjoy a good chuckle about your Huntsman comment - ironically, of all the candidates, Huntsman has the most varied resume of accomplishments: private sector experience, governor of a state, and ambassador to a foreign country. One dimensional? Paulnuts are nothing if not uninformed and unintentionally hilarious.
You don’t have to like Huntsman, I don’t care, and his resume doesn’t mean you should necessarily support him - but your statement shows just how limited you are. Try reading something - anything - on other candidates, if you can break away from Paul’s pulp. A good start might be Huntsman’s plan to reform banking:
Or check out his tenure as a governor of Utah. Happy reading. But read you should on the “one dimensional” candidate you appear to know next to nothing about.
He sponsored 620, genius, and got one passed. The man has been in Congress for twenty years and got zilch accomplished. That speaks to leadership and competence. He wasn’t “restrained” - he just wasn’t very good at the job he got elected to do.
I raise - more specifically, Rick Santorum raised - a criticism of Paul that because he got one out of 620 bills passed, he’s not the man to get things done in Washington (whatever the ideology). It’s a criticism of competence. But from the Paulnut, we get a “well, geting one bill passed out of 620 offered isn’t evidence of incompetence, it’s evidence that he follows the Constitution!!!”.
Good Lord. Do you see? Do you now see? You are a perfect example of the dimwitted sycophancy of the Paul movement.
Really? Then you must be furious at the poster who posted the following about those who would criticize Ron Paul, aka “Paul haters”:
[i]On a side note, it has occurred to me the Paul haters are taking a page from the Man Made Global Warming nut jobs. Just declare Ron Paul a racist, then cover your ears and continue to scream “the debate is over.”
“Ron Paul is a racist! Soviet disinfo! The debate is over! Na Na Na Na Na, I can’t hear you!” [/i]
I see. In addition to being a thin-skinned cipher, you’re a raging hypocrite. Well done.
No, I pass judgment on you because I think you aren’t using common sense and you’ve been suckered by a demogogue. Frankly, I think you’re smarter than that.
[quote]I have given you courtesy and respect on these forums.
I suggest you do the same. [/quote]
Your post indicates otherwise, and if you want respect, earn it. Step one would be: if you want to dish it, you have to take it.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
SM,
By your logic we have two choices:
Turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass.
Get the hell out of that cess pool and wait for them to get the bomb and then turn us into a sheet of glass.
[/quote]
Nothing that I said suggested that.
Many of them.
You may laugh at the term ‘Soviet disinfo,’ but what else would you call this sort of stuff that the Soviets did?
Promotion of false John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane.
Forged letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to E. Howard Hunt, attempting to incriminate Hunt in the Kennedy assassination.
Discrediting the CIA using the ex-CIA case officer and defector Philip Agee.
Spreading rumors that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual.
Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an “Uncle Tom” who was secretly receiving government subsidies.
Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, by placing an explosive package in “the Negro section of New York” (operation PANDORA), and by spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination had been planned by the US government.
Fabrication of the story that the AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at the US Army research station at Fort Detrick. The story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal.
That last one made the Ron Paul Newsletters years after the fall of the Soviet Union when the story was known to be false. The above is just the tip of the iceberg. That’s just a little of what the ‘Mitrokhin archive’ revealed.
So is it unreasonable for me to use the term ‘disinformation’ to describe the Soviet lie that Ron Paul spread to undermine the state? The Soviets certainly referred to it as ‘disinformation.’
I never called Paul are ‘racist’ because that’s a hackneyed, worn-out liberal left smear word. I looked at what Ron Paul actually said, what de did and what he does. Contemporary sources like Dondero just fill in some of the gaps.
