The problem of "they all suck, but Ron Paul sucks the least"?

[Anarchist420]

As long as we can somehow ensure that every other nation stays out of our affairs, that sounds like a workable plan. But since we live in a globally interdependent age, and the theory of isolationism came from a time when the only way to interact with other nations was by sailboat, I'd say that sounds like a pretty bad idea.

Non interventionism worked fine during the World War until FDR intervened, didn't it?

It's also not isolationism. Dr. Paul only fits one of the 3 isolationist characteristics. Most people are isolationists if Dr. Paul is except they don't fit the one good isolationist characteristic like Dr. Paul does.

The question is, is someone be considered an isolationist if they're only for two of the 3 isolationist planks or should it require all 3? Why is only one sufficient for Dr. Paul to be called an isolationist, but the others get away with one without being called isolationist?

Anyway, my point is that Romney is for at least one of them (he's a protectionist and whether he's closed borders for travel/immigration isn't really clear yet), so he's not any less isolationist than Dr. Paul is.

 

[alent1234]

we need to send all the libertarians back to the 1800's and early 1900's

 

[peonyu]

A large chunk of votes for Obama was just because he was black, it was "cool" to vote for the first black President ever. And the same people who voted for him for being black, many of them are now surprised to see that hes a weak President even though it was obvious he was not qualified to be President from the start...You reap what you sow. Even Hillary would have ran circles around Obama if she was elected.

 

[brencat]

So long story short.... how come I can't vote for a candidate that isn't a liar, has balls, and isn't either crazy or an idiot? Do we really have these bottom barrell candidates in the US to choose from, and that's it? Ron Paul only seems great because the people that stand next to him are SUPER morons. It's like being the skinniest chick in a bunch of fatties. And honestly, I don't want to pick the least fat, or the least dumb. I want to pick somebody GOOD.

There's no answer for my question, I guess I'm just venting. But that's what Mondays are for

The short answer... to which I'm sure you already know... is that the people you and I want in office are happily and most importantly anonymously occupying lucrative private sector careers without the stress of a low paying, media scrutinizing, limelight gathering high profile government job.

 

[DAGTA]

The short answer... to which I'm sure you already know... is that the people you and I want in office are happily and most importantly anonymously occupying lucrative private sector careers without the stress of a low paying, media scrutinizing, limelight gathering high profile government job.

If it was low paying, candidates wouldn't spend massive amounts of money on their campaigns. No one spends $1M to get a job where they truly believe they will only make $250k / yr.

 

[brencat]

If it was low paying, candidates wouldn't spend massive amounts of money on their campaigns. No one spends $1M to get a job where they truly believe they will only make $250k / yr.

I should have said "relatively" low paying since we're talking about generally successful charismatic people in the private sector anyway as potential candidates, but that isn't what I wanted people to focus on.

It's the disruption of family order, the media digging up and sensationalizing any dirt or imperfection past or present, and the general thanklessness of that job that scares off the good people. Most successful private sector people just want to go about their lives, make a sh*t ton of money, go home to their families, and generally be left alone.

 

[SilthDraeth]

I should have said "relatively" low paying since we're talking about generally successful charismatic people in the private sector anyway as potential candidates, but that isn't what I wanted people to focus on.

It's the disruption of family order, the media digging up and sensationalizing any dirt or imperfection past or present, and the general thanklessness of that job that scares off the good people. Most successful private sector people just want to go about their lives, make a sh*t ton of money, go home to their families, and generally be left alone.

Sounds like a libertarian life...

 

[brencat]

Fuck yeah it was a mistake. I can't believe that Dr. Paul voted for the initial resolution but at least he admits he regrets doing so.

So when a bully attacks you, do you go tell the teacher/principle, file a report, call his parents in and warn him to not do that again?

Or do you pull out the tried and true page from the book of schoolyard justice and beat his ass senseless so that he knows for sure never ever to fvck with you again...?

I prefer method #2 thank you.

 

[Broheim]

Non-interventionist policies ≠ Isolationism

Would you say that Sweden or Switzerland as isolationist nations?

Answer: No they are not.

However it seems those who most whined about our wars are taking up the neo-con banner to push that we become the world's policemen.

Sweden has troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo among other places.

edit: also has anyone noticed that anarchist has said "Dr. Paul" 6 times in three posts, someone has a serious school girl crush on a certain old geezer.

 

[Shyatic]

There are people in both parties that could be good presidents.

Ron Paul isn't one of them. Republicans should look to some of their governors for candidates.

And Obama is a good president. No one could have done much better considering where we were. That's the real reason the good Republican candidates aren't running, they aren't stupid and know by the time of the election, Obama will be very hard to beat.

Economy is pretty strong, we are out of Iraq, more people have or will have healthcare, the rule of law is kind of being followed.

We are out of Iraq for reasons that Obama couldn't overcome. He wanted to stay there, but we got kicked out. There's a difference.

Healthcare is a joke, and continues to be a joke. Just covering pre-existing conditions isn't enough; I really like the idea of universal coverage, I think we have to take the time to implement it properly. The rule of law is NOT being followed by the top earners of the country, or at least, it's being skirted on a regular basis. This is how Wall Street manages to rake in the dough while the rest of America suffers, because they can do illegal things, pay a "fine" and still stay well ahead because the fine didn't encompass even CLOSE to what they made. So they do it over and over.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Sweden has troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo among other places.

Sweden deploys its troops as part of unilateral missions with its allies. Having allies itself is not against the core aspects of a non-interventionist foreign policy. In addition Sweden has for a long time been historically a neutral nation with a non-interventionist foreign policy during peace time. Thus they are non-interventionist nation, especially compared to the US. Again isolationism and non-interventionism are totally different views on foreign policies.

The foreign policy of Sweden is based on the premise that national security is best served by staying free of alliances in peacetime in order to remain a neutral country in the event of war. In 2002, Sweden revised its security doctrine. The security doctrine still states that "Sweden pursues a policy of non-participation in military alliances," but permits cooperation in response to threats against peace and security.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2880.htm#foreign

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So when a bully attacks you, do you go tell the teacher/principle, file a report, call his parents in and warn him to not do that again?

Or do you pull out the tried and true page from the book of schoolyard justice and beat his ass senseless so that he knows for sure never ever to fvck with you again...?

I prefer method #2 thank you.

Having a non-interventionist policy doesn't involve being a victim but neither does it involve preemptively punching people in the face or setting events in motion to put yourself in harms way due to your actions which create angst and hostility. Furthermore when we entered Afghanistan it was with the sole intent on getting Bin Laden and shutting down the Taliban. Now we are stuck nation in what amounts to a no one situation because eventually we'll have to pull out and the regroups remnants of the Taliban are just waiting us out while taking pot shots at our soldiers. How long do you believe that we should stay in Afghanistan?

 

[sportage]

Hey.... about iOwa..... FORGET IT!!!!
Whatever happens in iOwa, Paul, Perry, Bachmann, doesn't matter.
So after Paul or more likely Bachmann or maybe Perry wins the iOwa debaclelacaucus,
forget about it. Ignore it. Ignore the talk shows making a big deal about the outcome.
Ignore the retarded iOwa Governor playing up on how "important" iOwa is/was/can be/should be/could be/must be.
iOwa means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Remember, these are people that spend more quality time with their sheep, than with their wife...

 

[SilthDraeth]

Hey.... about iOwa..... FORGET IT!!!!
Whatever happens in iOwa, Paul, Perry, Bachmann, doesn't matter.
So after Paul or more likely Bachmann or maybe Perry wins the iOwa debaclelacaucus,
forget about it. Ignore it. Ignore the talk shows making a big deal about the outcome.
Ignore the retarded iOwa Governor playing up on how "important" iOwa is/was/can be/should be/could be/must be.
iOwa means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Remember, these are people that spend more quality time with their sheep, than with their wife...

Let me guess. Your husband left you for a sheep after you got fat off iOwa?

 

[lopri]

Dummy, "shall no be deprived" ... "without due process of law" so yes, they are guaranteed unless you do some stupid shit and the due process of law hammer has to be struck upon thy ass.

It depends. For example,

.. But there is no right to “liberty” under the Due Process Clause,.. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of “liberty,” so long as “due process of law” is provided:

“No state shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Amdt. 14 (emphasis added).

Take a guess whose words these are. (Hint: S/he is a currently sitting U.S. Supreme court justice)

 

[xj0hnx]

It depends. For example,

Take a guess whose words these are. (Hint: S/he is a currently sitting U.S. Supreme court justice)

Scalia, but, "The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows States to deprive their citizens of 'liberty,' so long as 'due process of law' is provided. . . ."

That doesn't contradict "shall no be deprived" ... "without due process of law".

 

[airdata]

Sweden has troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo among other places.

edit: also has anyone noticed that anarchist has said "Dr. Paul" 6 times in three posts, someone has a serious school girl crush on a certain old geezer.

Dr has such a better ring to it than " Former failed businessman" or "adulturing, bank bailout taking criminal"

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Dr has such a better ring to it than " Former failed businessman" or "adulturing, bank bailout taking criminal"

I call him Dr. Paul because, well, he's a doctor. I call President Obama that because he's President, and I extended the same courtesy to President Bush. That doesn't affect my opinion that Dr. Paul is a dishonest bigot - it's just being accurate. Dr. Mengele was also called that title despite his own misdeeds (and no, I am not implying that Dr. Paul is in any way comparable to Mengele, other than being doctors with some negative attributes), as is Dr. Conrad Murray.

 

[airdata]

So, you feel that a person's statements from 20-30 years ago accurately reflect their racial views of today?

Ron Paul has made statements showing that he clearly isn't a racist. If you ranked all of the GOP candidates I'd be surprised if Ron paul made the top 5.

 

[cybrsage]

Dummy, "shall no be deprived" ... "without due process of law" so yes, they are guaranteed unless you do some stupid shit and the due process of law hammer has to be struck upon thy ass.

So you agree with me that there is NO guarantee of life or liberty.

Why argue when you agree?

The original statement was about there beign a guarentee...when there actually ISN'T one. You need to follow along and not add in things which were not there at the start.

 

[Craig234]

If it was low paying, candidates wouldn't spend massive amounts of money on their campaigns. No one spends $1M to get a job where they truly believe they will only make $250k / yr.

You really don't understand what it's about. It's about power over the economy affecting trillions, not about the salary.

 

[Craig234]

So, you feel that a person's statements from 20-30 years ago accurately reflect their racial views of today?

With that record, absent evidence of change, yes, I presume there's an issue.

Ron Paul has made statements showing that he clearly isn't a racist.

No, he hasn't. In fact, the absence of a record of progress on the issue, is a problem.

The fact he and his son appear to still support the right of businesses to segregate is an issue.

The fact he appears to be lying today about the newsletter history is an issue.

 

[xj0hnx]

So you agree with me that there is NO guarantee of life or liberty.

Why argue when you agree?

The original statement was about there beign a guarentee...when there actually ISN'T one. You need to follow along and not add in things which were not there at the start.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? You probably think you're sly, but everyone here constantly sees through the grade school word games you try to play.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So, you feel that a person's statements from 20-30 years ago accurately reflect their racial views of today?

Ron Paul has made statements showing that he clearly isn't a racist. If you ranked all of the GOP candidates I'd be surprised if Ron paul made the top 5.

I think that a man saying bigoted things on a regular basis in his 40s and 50s is, at age 76, a racist, yes. I don't believe people have much of an ability to fundamentally change past a certain point. I also feel his unwillingness to take any responsibility for the newsletters represents a lack of character on his part.

 

[airdata]

bringing up 20-30 year old newsletters because of lack of any other dirt shows a very low charactor of people doing it or getting behind it.

Can't argue w\ him winning debates or his solid voting record, this is all people have got against paul. Some newsletters in which people who don't understand the word racist assert that they're racist because of a few select excerpts.

Newsletters:Ron Paul ::Birth Certificate:Barack Obama