[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I fear the right’s nutjobs just as much as I do the left’s.[/quote]
That’s the point I’ve made a few times in other threads. The loony extremes of both sides are a big part of the problem. Their loony issues are distracting from the real problems (like we’re going broke supporting this huge empire, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are being lost) and making things worse.
[quote]Nick Danger wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
I fear the right’s nutjobs just as much as I do the left’s.[/quote]
That’s the point I’ve made a few times in other threads. The loony extremes of both sides are a big part of the problem. Their loony issues are distracting from the real problems (like we’re going broke supporting this huge empire, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are being lost) and making things worse.
[/quote]
We are not going broke because of military spending which is one of very few actually constitutional expenditures. The “real problems” which I’ve already addressed are causing us to broke.
Our going broke is a direct ipso facto symptom of social liberalism and the devastating effect it’s had on what was once the bedrock foundation of this culture which is the committed faithful family. Yes it absolutely is.
Nothing and I mean nothing, will have any permanent lasting impact while we continue to believe that social hedonism can sustain a free and powerful nation. Those loony right wing extremes were the norm at this nations founding which is why it more or less worked and continued to ascend until the 60’s when the tailspin began. No neato study from some eggheaded university group will convince me this is not the case.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
We are not going broke because of military spending…[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
I agree that social spending is a big factor in our going broke. Where we disagree is I think our military spending is also a big factor, and together military/social are bankrupting us.
In The Neoconservative Empire Ron Paul asked “Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?” One of his central ideas is that America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world, and practice a non-interventionist foreign policy. He’s mentioned that we just can’t afford it (even if we wanted one which we shouldn’t):
This is mentioned at around the 7 minute mark.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
–James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Would you consider this ‘loony right wing extremism’?
I am well aware of Ron Paul’s views. Many of which are utterly impossible to improve upon. He is exactly right on in many areas.
However, he is naive and dangerous in his views on the modern geo political arena. I know you haven’t been here that long, but I have gone over this 100 times already. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has more respect and reverence for the defining views of our founders than I do. Nobody. That said, the one area where they are unavoidably obsolete through no fault of their own is in some aspects of national security. They lived in an age where todays technology was not so much as even dreamed of in the wildest fantasies of the most imaginative peyote induced fiction writer.
I may not go along with it’s every alleged instance, but preemption is simply common sense in todays world. We would have mountains of surplus funds for 5 more Iraq wars if we hadn’t started down the futile and disastrous path of state provided fairness and financial security those many decades ago.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am well aware of Ron Paul’s views. Many of which are utterly impossible to improve upon. He is exactly right on in many areas.
However, he is naive and dangerous in his views on the modern geo political arena. I know you haven’t been here that long, but I have gone over this 100 times already. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has more respect and reverence for the defining views of our founders than I do. Nobody. That said, the one area where they are unavoidably obsolete through no fault of their own is in some aspects of national security. They lived in an age where todays technology was not so much as even dreamed of in the wildest fantasies of the most imaginative peyote induced fiction writer.
I may not go along with it’s every alleged instance, but preemption is simply common sense in todays world. We would have mountains of surplus funds for 5 more Iraq wars if we hadn’t started down the futile and disastrous path of state provided fairness and financial security those many decades ago.[/quote]
I tend to agree with this as a practical matter.
However, wouldn’t a highly developed and effective intelligence network (backed by military force if and only if needed) be a better way to achieve global security and stability?
Granted - we don’t have that; and it would take decades to build.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am well aware of Ron Paul’s views. Many of which are utterly impossible to improve upon. He is exactly right on in many areas.
However, he is naive and dangerous in his views on the modern geo political arena. I know you haven’t been here that long, but I have gone over this 100 times already. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has more respect and reverence for the defining views of our founders than I do. Nobody. That said, the one area where they are unavoidably obsolete through no fault of their own is in some aspects of national security. They lived in an age where todays technology was not so much as even dreamed of in the wildest fantasies of the most imaginative peyote induced fiction writer.
I may not go along with it’s every alleged instance, but preemption is simply common sense in todays world. We would have mountains of surplus funds for 5 more Iraq wars if we hadn’t started down the futile and disastrous path of state provided fairness and financial security those many decades ago.[/quote]
I agree with this on one level, but think there’s another way to insure our safety other than an empire with over 700 bases worldwide, and a defense budget that’s almost equal to the rest of the world combined. Ron’s words are better than mine so I’ll quote him:
“Well,” he said, “I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. Senator Robert Taft didn’t even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy â??no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There’s a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.”
And…
“I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They come and they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if we were â??if other foreign countries were doing that to us?”
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a strong military, and I’m not saying that today’s technology hasn’t changed things from 1776. I am saying that along with a strong military, lowering our profile and not meddling would decrease the threat against us.
Given your point regarding technology today (WMDs getting more powerful and smaller and easier to deploy, etc.) relying solely on a huge military can’t protect us 100% – even if we spent 0 on social programs, had a great economy, and spent every penny wisely on defense.
Cliff short notes: we’re going broke and military spending is part of it, and the more we use our military the more blowback, and just increasing military to compensate for that increased blowback is a self-perpetuating cycle leading to bankruptcy (even if all social spending were eliminated).
And thank you for the polite and well-reasoned response. Folks like you and Bill are a pleasure to argue (argue as in debate) with.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Well maybe you should actually go to an event. I am a member of the Tea Party. I have proven that I know a thing or two about free market principles. These people do not know the details but they know that when America uses free market it grows, when it uses socialism/fascism/communism things go bad. They saw the fall of the USSR and saw what the people lived through.
These people are busy with their lives, raising a family running a business. So if they need someone to go over the details I would be more then happy to be that person.[/quote]
I attended a Ron Paul event in Boston in 2008. There were a bunch of clueless-albeit-enthusiastic kids, aging hippies, and at least one devoted Marxist preaching a mix of conspiracy theories and Das Kapital gospel. I decided that was the last time I’d participate in grassroots politics. Good quesadillas, however.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m afraid that the Constitutional/Less Government/Free Market message that some would like to see and hear will be drowned out by the birthers/“The-Country-is-being-taken-over-by-the-anti-Christ/Fascist/Nazi and anybody-who-disagrees-is-the-same” crowd.[/quote]
I’m afraid you’re right. I learned something during the Ron Paul campaign of '08 and that was that there is an even bigger disconnect between “internet reality” and the real world than I previously imagined.
Previously I had thought that internet sentiment could be relied on as a more-or-less accurate reflection of certain real life trends. Turns out that was incorrect. For example, I read FreeRepublic.org to get a gauge on what the “mainstream” GOP base was thinking in the run-up to the nominations.
FreeRepublic is full of “Christian conservative”, pro-war, pro-Bush, militant anti-abortion types who reside in the South so I figured it couldn’t be too far of a stretch, right? Well, wrong. FReepers overwhelmingly wanted Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Fred Thompson. Second picks were Giuliani, Huckabee and Romney. In last place were Paul and “McStain”. We all know who got nominated…
Oh, and we all know how far Paul’s “internet popularity” got him in the real world. Paul had a shot at taking New Hampshire and his campaign blew it.
Paul was more organized than these teapot clowns and he lost ignominiously. What do you think will happen to Teapot?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
What do you think will happen to Teapot?[/quote]
Exactly what is happening. It is being infiltrated by establishment republicans as launching point for their “conservative Renaissance.”
They may absorb some free market ideology from the libertarian wing but they still embrace a militant empire building republic. In other words, it will become the party of Neocon 2.0.
'Twas a rhetorical question.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon. [/quote]
43 posts and still have said nothing of importance.[/quote]
It’s been 2,656 for you. I’m still waiting.
Pot meet kettle.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
Well maybe you should actually go to an event. I am a member of the Tea Party. I have proven that I know a thing or two about free market principles. These people do not know the details but they know that when America uses free market it grows, when it uses socialism/fascism/communism things go bad. They saw the fall of the USSR and saw what the people lived through.
These people are busy with their lives, raising a family running a business. So if they need someone to go over the details I would be more then happy to be that person.[/quote]
I attended a Ron Paul event in Boston in 2008. There were a bunch of clueless-albeit-enthusiastic kids, aging hippies, and at least one devoted Marxist preaching a mix of conspiracy theories and Das Kapital gospel. I decided that was the last time I’d participate in grassroots politics. Good quesadillas, however.
Paul was more organized than these teapot clowns and he lost ignominiously. What do you think will happen to Teapot?[/quote]
When I attended a Ron Paul Lecture I saw none of those things you are describing, when I see the tea parties around here I see business men and women who have had it with the government. Our there extremest? sure. But most of them our hard working business owners. In other words they are the driving force of this country and they have become pissed. If you think any government can hold these people back come 2012 you are mistaken.
The Tea Party will give the Republicans one last shot in 2010. The Republicans will then act as the democrats are now and that is when you will see them finally break free of the Republicans.
This will be a slow process, took about 100 years for the progressives to take over the country, going to take about that long to get it back.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon. [/quote]
43 posts and still have said nothing of importance.[/quote]
It’s been 2,656 for you. I’m still waiting. [/quote]
Is this a joke? John’s posts are usually spot on.
Here is some insight into “Tea Party” organization. The “Contract From America” is a project asking *The People" their top 10 priorities as presented by Tea Party organizers.
This site is run/sponsored/endorsed/funded/supported by several organizations that fall under the broad “Tea Party” umbrella.
[i]The Contract from America serves as a clarion call for those who recognize the importance of free market principles, limited government, and individual liberty. It is the natural extension of a movement that began in the local communities and quickly spread across America in response to unprecedented government expansion, reckless spending, and a blatant disregard by our leaders of the nationâ??s founding principles.
During the past several months, hundreds of thousands of Americans have debated thousands of ideas to solve our nationâ??s most pressing problems. It has been an open process and has provided a genuine opportunity to give voice to a broad cross section of concerned Americans.
Now we enter the next phase; to narrow the list and let America draft the final version of the Contract from America. Click here to vote on your priorities. The final document will be unveiled on Thursday, April 15, 2010. Together, we can and will make a difference.[/i]
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon. [/quote]
43 posts and still have said nothing of importance.[/quote]
It’s been 2,656 for you. I’m still waiting. [/quote]
Is this a joke? John’s posts are usually spot on.[/quote]
Agreed, I enjoy John’s posts as well.
[quote]John S. wrote:
When I attended a Ron Paul Lecture I saw none of those things you are describing, when I see the tea parties around here I see business men and women who have had it with the government. Our there extremest? sure. But most of them our hard working business owners. In other words they are the driving force of this country and they have become pissed. If you think any government can hold these people back come 2012 you are mistaken.[/quote]
There’s the people the TEA party is trying to attract, and then there’s people attracted to the TEA party. The racists/loonies/etc. are the latter (IMO).
As for people being fed up with our government, I think that’s shown by how a few elections ago the pundits were declaring rove a genius for creating a republican juggernaut that would rule for years to come. A few elections later pundits were declaring democrats had taken over and would rule for years to come. Now we’re hearing how the dems are on the run and reps are resurgent. Such large swings in such a short time tells me the electorate is fed up with both reps and dems, throwing out whoever is ‘in charge’.
Whether third parties can take advantage of this remains to be seen.
I used to think that things would have to get really bad for the electorate to get so fed up they’d act to stop what’s been going on. Given we ended up in an unnecessary war, got ripped off by the bankers/enron/savings&loan, have seen basic constitutional protections eviscerated, etc., I’m starting to wonder if people will ever wake up and grow a spine.
People get the government they deserve, and by our allowing things to be as they are, we have only ourselves to blame.
[quote]Nick Danger wrote:
<<< And thank you for the polite and well-reasoned response. Folks like you and Bill are a pleasure to argue (argue as in debate) with.[/quote]
Then allow me to be polite once more and say again that I have addressed all of these things either directly or by clear implication many times. If I get up the motivation maybe I’ll tackle some of them again.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
you sound flustered. don’t let those dimwits get you riled up. wearing your ass as a hat causes cancer so they all should pass quite soon. [/quote]
43 posts and still have said nothing of importance.[/quote]
It’s been 2,656 for you. I’m still waiting. [/quote]
Is this a joke? John’s posts are usually spot on.[/quote]
When according to a broken clock some second clock is wrong, this actually is a good commentary on that other clock.
If the first one said the other was always or usually right, that would be a bad commentary.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
When according to a broken clock some second clock is wrong, this actually is a good commentary on that other clock.
If the first one said the other was always or usually right, that would be a bad commentary.
[/quote]
Is this a polite way to say “an insult from an idjit is a compliment, and a compliment from an idjit is an insult”?
If so, your diplomatic skill >> mine.
[Note: I’m not calling anyone here an idjit]