We All Know Ron Paul Kicks Ass

Zeppelin795 · December 17, 2007, 6:01am

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
How many of us are out campaigning for him and who will be voting!? It seems many people talk about the candidates they like until their faces turn blue but don’t even vote.

Visit his website, sign up to campaign and go to the poles!

I’m a voter myself and will be voting for Ron Paul should he make it. I also am a campaign volunteer. Ron Paul for President!!

[/quote]

After voting for third party candidates over the last few elections I may be persuaded to vote for this libertarian in republican clothing.

Mikeyali · December 17, 2007, 2:13am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Woah. I’m tracking today’s “money bomb” on one of the Ron Paul forums. They’re on track to raise 6 million in donations in 24 hours. No pledges, actual reciept in hand donations.

Except how are all those 16 year-olds doing it?

Heh. You won’t find me saying that anywhere. I have a great deal of respect for him.

In another thread I expressed my disgust with the Republicans and this election cyle in general. However, over the past couple of days I’ve been doing a little thinking. But, it’s only today that I’ve reached a conclusion. I too will throw my support behind Ron Paul. Here’s to a smaller and less intrusive government. Or, at the very least a Republican party that is put on notice, “Act like conservatives.”

I know, it’s a shocker, right? Everyone knows my stance on Iraq, after all. Well, I’m pretty sure that by the time Ron Paul could be sworn in, I too will be ready to start bringing the troops home. Not because we’re losing, or some crap like that, but because we won the war and accomplished the security mission (assuming security improvements continue). At which point, the Iraqis are going to have to step up completely.

There are far too many important issues that I’m in agreement with Ron Paul on, to throw away my vote for one of the other Republicans. Rudy? Huckabee? Never.[/quote]

I’m really glad to hear that. I challenge anyone to be more pro-Iraq than I am, but as you know I threw my towel in with Paul some time ago. I thought it was a noble war when it started, and maintain it now that we’re continuing to do good and see some real results from our sacrifice. That said, I pretty much considered the war “won” when we got Saddam. The Iraqis will step up for freedom with or without us now, I’ve no doubt about that. I also believe that they will be great and reasonably powerful friends in 20 years. I merely believe that our continued presence helps to give them a better chance by keeping the wolves (Iran, Syria, ect) off Iraq’s doorstep.

This is the greatest nation in human history. No one has shed more blood for other men’s liberty than us. Paul will never stop us from taking our right and dutiful place on the world stage, but he will help us move back in the direction of what made us a great nation.

mike

Varqanir · December 17, 2007, 4:39am

Wow, Sloth.

I think that just made my day. Seriously. Welcome to the good side.

I’ve been on the good side, and I’ve been on the winning side, but up until now I’ve never been on both at the same time. Let’s hope things are different this time around.

Cheers.

V

Varqanir · December 17, 2007, 4:58am

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:

This is the greatest nation in human history. No one has shed more blood for other men’s liberty than us. Paul will never stop us from taking our right and dutiful place on the world stage, but he will help us move back in the direction of what made us a great nation.

mike[/quote]

Well said, Mike.

As much as I’ve maligned some of the things various administrations have done, I’ve never stopped believing in the greatness of our nation, what a force for good we have been, and can be.

A Ron Paul victory would just be the icing on the cake if I return to the States. I’d much rather come back as a patriot than as a cynic. I’ve been a cynic for far too long.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · December 17, 2007, 4:05pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I’d much rather come back as a patriot than as a cynic. I’ve been a cynic for far too long. [/quote]

OO-Rah!

that’s Marine Corp-ese for “Amen”.

Sloth · December 17, 2007, 4:50pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wow, Sloth.

I think that just made my day. Seriously. Welcome to the good side.

I’ve been on the good side, and I’ve been on the winning side, but up until now I’ve never been on both at the same time. Let’s hope things are different this time around.

Cheers.

V[/quote]

Well, I’ve always agreed with Ron Paul on a good number of issues.

-Pro-life: My personal stance is religious, while my policy stance is secular.

-Anti-income tax: Plans to do away with it outright. As oppossed to simply changing to a new tax system such as the Flat Tax, or Fair tax.

-A 2nd amend. champion: His record speaks for itself.

-Cutting Bureaucracy: Not the usual “slowing the rate of growth.” We’re talking a majority of federal departments being done away entirely.

-Anti federal drug laws: I’ve said plenty about my stance here.

-He’s a Christian family man: While his religion isn’t exactly important, it doesn’t hurt either. And, like me, he realizes Christianity shouldn’t be in the business of using the Federal government of enforcing moral laws between consenting adults, as long as noone’s rights are infringed upon. We can dissaprove of behavior and lifestyles without calling on the government. That’s what free people do.

-Illegal Imigration: No complaits at all. He’s got a great stance here. Time to start dealing with this, while still welcoming those seeking citizenship legally.

-Foriegn Policy: Yes, I largely agree with him here, though not for the reasons many do. My present support of the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts obscure may not make it seem so. Basically, there’s a good many nations that need to carry their own weight, and not rely on the US taxpayer. I’ll probably get hammered with questions like, “What about Israel?! You come off as pro Israel!”

Some of his views I strongly disagree with.

-Doing away with the CIA and FBI completely: What kind of foriegn intelligence system does he plan to rely on? Domestically, it seems that some criminal organizations and crimes are too geographically wide-ranging to not have some kind of FBI like agency.

-Islamic terrorism: He relies on the “Blowback” theory. I don’t. The suppossed anti american-intervention Jihadists are ultimately interventionists themselves. I won’t go into that here.

-And of course, Iraq and Afghanistan: But like I’ve said, by the time he’s in office (you never know) I’ll be looking for an exit for our troops. We won the war, and we now seem to have a working security stragety. But, ultimately the Iraqis are going to have to carry the fight on their. They’ll have to decide if they’re willing to fight to keep a democracy, or if they’ll roll over for some Military dicator or sectarian theocratic regime. Hopefully we’ll have left them with a much, much, much weakened enemy.

And some issues I’m just too ignorant about to form an educated opinion. Hey, I’m not proud too proud to admit my shortcomings.

-The Gold standard: Such a drastic change. Yet, like I said, I’m not capable of having an educated opinion on this.

-Getting rid of the Fed: I suppose the Gold standard probably would do so anyways. Again, not something I can offer an educated opinion on. Though I am starting to read some Austrian Economics literature. Oh boy, Orion is going to have a field day with that.

And overall impression of the man.

Honest. No flip flopping and pandering. He’s told us exactly what he’ll do, knowing how drastic it will sound to a large part of the American population, without flinching. He’s not looking at opinion polls and wondering if and how he should change his platform. In short, he doesn’t come off as a salesman, but as a leader. “This is who I am. What I’ll do. And, why it should be done. Hope you’ll join me.” I respect the hell out of that.

Lastly, he believes in the American people. Think about it. He’s not offering up new programs as “safety nets.” He’s not telling us how he’s going to make America better. He’s promising to get the government out of the way of the American people’s ability to make this a better nation. That kind of optimism in the character and ingenuity of the American people has been sorely missed.

lixy · December 17, 2007, 6:04pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Some of his views I strongly disagree with. […]

-Islamic terrorism: He relies on the “Blowback” theory. I don’t. The suppossed anti american-intervention Jihadists are ultimately interventionists themselves. I won’t go into that here. [/quote]

I don’t know if he “relies” on that, but he certainly acknowledges it, unlike many others. That’s a prerequisite to being serious about the issue.

Do share your views on the matter. How would you deal with problem? Invade the only secular majority-Muslim country in the region and turn it into a nest for Al-Qaeda?

You also have to realize that everybody is in the same boat with regard to the whacky crowd. A little good faith and international cooperation achieves a lot more against terrorism than jets, tanks and bombs. The war on Iraq seriously undermined efforts to curb radicalism around the world.

I believe Ron Paul can do a lot more harm to Islamists than Bush ever did in his two terms. Bush called it “the war on terror”, and that is certainly a catchy phrase giving a fake sense of effectiveness. Unlike W., Hillary or Rudy, paul is not in bed with the Al-Sauds, and that is the biggest blow. He will lean on those rascals to clean house much more severely than the rest.

After that, it’s a matter of vigilance, police work, and education. While other GOP candidates are selling a “quick fix”, Paul is being pragmatic about the situation. Also, I don’t have the slightest doubt that he won’t hesitate to annihilate the first country that messes with the sovereignty of the US. That is what defense’s about.

While on the subject, I believe that attacks of the scale of 9/11 are history now that we are aware of that possibility. Smaller attacks are going to take place and there’s simply nothing anyone can do to stop some of them. I expect terrorist tactics to adapt in the future. That is, emptying automatic weapons in crowded areas and similar low-scale suicide attacks. Please tell us how you would deal with “Islamic terrorism” if you were in the White House? If you disagree with Paul, then surely you must have alternatives.

Sloth · December 18, 2007, 12:03am

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Some of his views I strongly disagree with. […]

-Islamic terrorism: He relies on the “Blowback” theory. I don’t. The suppossed anti american-intervention Jihadists are ultimately interventionists themselves. I won’t go into that here.

I don’t know if he “relies” on that, but he certainly acknowledges it, unlike many others. That’s a prerequisite to being serious about the issue.

Do share your views on the matter. How would you deal with problem? Invade the only secular majority-Muslim country in the region and turn it into a nest for Al-Qaeda?

You also have to realize that everybody is in the same boat with regard to the whacky crowd. A little good faith and international cooperation achieves a lot more against terrorism than jets, tanks and bombs. The war on Iraq seriously undermined efforts to curb radicalism around the world.

I believe Ron Paul can do a lot more harm to Islamists than Bush ever did in his two terms. Bush called it “the war on terror”, and that is certainly a catchy phrase giving a fake sense of effectiveness. Unlike W., Hillary or Rudy, paul is not in bed with the Al-Sauds, and that is the biggest blow. He will lean on those rascals to clean house much more severely than the rest.

After that, it’s a matter of vigilance, police work, and education. While other GOP candidates are selling a “quick fix”, Paul is being pragmatic about the situation. Also, I don’t have the slightest doubt that he won’t hesitate to annihilate the first country that messes with the sovereignty of the US. That is what defense’s about.

While on the subject, I believe that attacks of the scale of 9/11 are history now that we are aware of that possibility. Smaller attacks are going to take place and there’s simply nothing anyone can do to stop some of them. I expect terrorist tactics to adapt in the future. That is, emptying automatic weapons in crowded areas and similar low-scale suicide attacks. Please tell us how you would deal with “Islamic terrorism” if you were in the White House? If you disagree with Paul, then surely you must have alternatives.[/quote]

In the event of another attack, I’ll sum it up like this. Nations that directly use, or knowingly allow, religious “charities” to teach Jihad and Islamic terror will be abandoned by Allah. Or so that will be the impression. I’d pick the strongest Muslim nation responsible for such things and make their life hell.

They’d never own a military force again. They’d never ship goods again. Mosques known as anti-western Jihad preaching centers would be targeted by air and sea. If places of worship or to be used as a place to instill a political, relgious, and warrior doctrine, they’re legitimate target.

I’d have any Islamic school that instructs the next generation of Jihadists bombed, from grade school to University. I’d have clerics assassinated in the street.

No nation building. No attempts to rebuild bridges, schools, or hospitals. No attempts to get their economy back on track. No food drops. No security offered against looters, sectarians, and criminals. No security provided so the people can turn out and try to put their own new government in place. Nothing.

It’s simple, Lixy. No more occupation and reconstruction. Go in, turn everything that we might even suspect could be hostile to us into a smouldering heap, and leave. But, then sink any ship, or down any air craft, trying to move that nations goods. When that suppossed vast majority of muslims, the cowards, decide they’ll actually pick up a rifle to drive out the snakes themselves, we’ll back off and see how it goes.

Is it overtop? Well, considering that all I’d expect is for that suppossed vast majority of moderate muslims to shut down the preachers of Jihad, nope.

Would it create more terrorists? Do you know what that question implies in the first place? It says “Leave us alone, the suppossed vast majority of muslims who are moderate, to sit on our asses and not police ourselves. All the while our clerics publically instruct others to kill you. All the while our nation is the origin of hate, terrorism, and seperatist movements.” Pick up a rifle, drag the clerics out, and handle before we have to.

Sloth · December 18, 2007, 12:06am

And I think you underestimate what Paul’s reaction would be if he deemed a nation directly (government funded) or even indirectly responsbile (goverment deliberately allows clerics to fund) for another 9-11 attack.

lixy · December 18, 2007, 12:35am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
[/quote]

I see.

But you started your post with “in the event of another attack”. How’s that an alternative to Paul’s stance?

Sloth · December 18, 2007, 12:41am

Now, Lixy, let me ask you a question. Do you support non-interventionism? Do you right here and now, call on all nations supporting Palestinian fighters, to stop providing those fighters with resources. You know, leave the fight between the two combatants?

Sloth · December 18, 2007, 12:44am

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…

I see.

But you started your post with “in the event of another attack”. How’s that an alternative to Paul’s stance?[/quote]

True. Let me clarify. In the event of another attack, or attempt.

lixy · December 18, 2007, 1:47am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, Lixy, let me ask you a question. Do you support non-interventionism? Do you right here and now, call on all nations supporting Palestinian fighters, to stop providing those fighters with resources. You know, leave the fight between the two combatants?[/quote]

If the whole Arab world aided the Palestinians with weapons or military expertise, they’d still get their asses handed to them. Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. The only thing giving rockets to Palestinians has done, is inflame the whole situation. Palestinians are doomed, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. They will keep blowing up innocent Israelis in cafes and restaurants because the only resource they have is people. Death probably seems like sweet relief given the circumstances under which they live.

I don’t think any nation are actually supporting the Palestinian fighters out of principles or because they expect to gain something out of the Occupied Territories. The only reason they are doing it - IMHO - is to get bargaining chips when talking to the US. We know that even the Iranians agreed to put their support to Hamas on the table in 2003. Heck, they even initiated the talks with the US via the Swiss embassy. We all know how Washington responded. I’m sure that declassified documents will reveal many more similar stories decades from now.

So yes, I do call on every nation to quit supporting them Palestinian fighters. Of course, I also call on Israel to abide by resolution 242. In fact, I call on every nation giving out weapons to stop fueling conflicts. That includes the billions of dollars you spend on arming the Zionist state, Egypt, Turkey, and all the others.

Sloth · December 18, 2007, 2:28am

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Now, Lixy, let me ask you a question. Do you support non-interventionism? Do you right here and now, call on all nations supporting Palestinian fighters, to stop providing those fighters with resources. You know, leave the fight between the two combatants?

If the whole Arab world aided the Palestinians with weapons or military expertise, they’d still get their asses handed to them. Israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. The only thing giving rockets to Palestinians has done, is inflame the whole situation. Palestinians are doomed, and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. They will keep blowing up innocent Israelis in cafes and restaurants because the only resource they have is people. Death probably seems like sweet relief given the circumstances under which they live.

I don’t think any nation are actually supporting the Palestinian fighters out of principles or because they expect to gain something out of the Occupied Territories. The only reason they are doing it - IMHO - is to get bargaining chips when talking to the US. We know that even the Iranians agreed to put their support to Hamas on the table in 2003. Heck, they even initiated the talks with the US via the Swiss embassy. We all know how Washington responded. I’m sure that declassified documents will reveal many more similar stories decades from now.

So yes, I do call on every nation to quit supporting them Palestinian fighters. Of course, I also call on Israel to abide by resolution 242. In fact, I call on every nation giving out weapons to stop fueling conflicts. That includes the billions of dollars you spend on arming the Zionist state, Egypt, Turkey, and all the others.[/quote]

It’s interesting that intervention is a “bargaining chip” in this case. Should these nations not unilaterally became non-interventionist? For instance, you make it sound like the US is to blame for Iran’s continued interventionist policies.

Blackmail doesn’t fly. Iran can stop supporting Hamas, the Hezbohs, and others regardless of the US. They could approach Israel and say “We’re at peace. We will from now on take a non-interventionist position in the conflict, regardless of who is winning. Let us sign these agreements” Bam, done. But now, it’s blackmail (bargaining chip).

Resolution 242 isn’t merely for the Israelis to abide by. When the Muslims nations rejected it they made a mistake.

Of course Islamist interventionism doesn’t stop at Israel. You’ll find it in Africa, Asia, Europe…well, around the globe. It comes in the form of seperatist groups, those looking to install Sharia courts, etc.

Now, while I do support Israel’s position, I’d cut off aid, Military or otherwise. But not just to them. To Europe, S.Korea, Japan, Africa, etc. My position is that US taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize the security (militarily or economically) of foriegners. Not, because of blowback.

Nominal_Prospect · December 18, 2007, 2:29am

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

I love to hear the man talking about economics.

And I would love to hear you talk about the merits of racial superiority, which you have tried to cowardly shrink from.

Must have slept in, aye?[/quote]

I hide little in my personal life and even less when I’m on the internet. I’m an essentially honest person. I tell the truth, not out of moral compunction, but simply because I don’t see the point of fabrication. I’m a highly analytical person who finds reality sufficiently complex without the need creating additional complications.

You’ve been after me for ages with the “fascist” charge and now you’re going after me for my racial views. It’s true that I’ve admit to both charges; however, that doesn’t imply that you have any understanding of what I believe. I’ve tried explaining it on a few occasions, but you still don’t seem to get it, or else, you just don’t want to understand.

One of the reasons why I choose to post on this board is because I don’t feel the need to hide my true opinions here.

I’ve been extremely busy in real life and I’ve also discovered some fascinating European anthropology message boards. That’s why I haven’t been posting or even reading this board, of late.

In the past, I’ve called myself an elitist and a fascist. Yet, I frequently advance libertarian/classical liberal viewpoints. There is no contradiction here. The fact that I consider myself an elitist is your clue that I’m looking out for myself, first and foremost. All of my views are grounded in individualism and psychological egoism (the belief that self-interest guides the actions of all individuals at all times). Naturally, when looking at political systems, I separate the notion of “the greatest good for the greatest number” from my personal good, which necessarily occupies a higher place in my intellectual hierarchy.

I strive to make my political beliefs completely non-normative. That is to say, it’s not a matter of opinion or ethics, of what “ought” to be, but what purely what is. My aim is entirely scientific. I am interested in the science of economics, which is “thermodynamics using individual human organisms rather than molecules as the fundamental component of reactions”. That’s all there is to it. Nothing more nor less.

I’m a proponent of capitalism and free markets insofar as I believe them to be the most efficient and beneficial human social systems - resulting in “the greatest good”, if you will. Once again, a matter of economic reality, rather than personal preference.

So what is my personal preference, if not libertarianism? Well, that shouldn’t matter for the purpose of political discussion - we don’t argue over such subjective notions as which foods taste the best to us, which colors we find most pleasing to the eye, but it’s a simple question to answer, nevertheless. I’d prefer to live in a monarchy - so long as I was part of the ruling class. What rational-minded person could say otherwise?

In the end, everybody is looking out for themselves. Don’t ask me “what type of system I envision” - it’s a dumb question. I’ll tell you that I envision a system wherein you are my subordinate and I hold unquestionable authority over others.

On the other hand, you could ask me what type of system I envision for the prosperity of this nation. That’s an economic matter, not a personal preference, and that’s something that we could debate to a resounding conclusion.

Nominal_Prospect · December 18, 2007, 2:33am

I respect nearly everyone here and welcome the opportunity to learn from you all.

However, the “learning” must not be forced, and it must be reciprocated.
Most of you are far older than I am; however, that doesn’t automatically make you the better man in a rhetorical duel.

Trust me, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t worth my time.

thunderbolt23 · December 18, 2007, 12:42pm

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote: