Avalon
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2001
- 7,565
- 150
- 106
Because Ron Paul wants to basically stick his head in the sand when it come to some of these countries.
Good, I don't give a shit about some of those countries either.
Because Ron Paul wants to basically stick his head in the sand when it come to some of these countries.
He isn't an isolationist, it seems you want the US to kill more people
Getting out of the ME is a great idea, my issue with it is that it goes to the point of being isolationist.
Being isolationist in an increasing global world will only hurt America in the long run.
...he just played one in his newsletters!Ron Paul is not a racist...
Because Ron Paul wants to basically stick his head in the sand when it come to some of these countries.
That about sums up freedom and liberty.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that libertarians, who supposedly worship freedom and liberty as their core tenants, have no idea what those concepts even mean. Psst: the state is not the only thing that can take away a person's liberty. Libertarians may claim to understand this, but their so-called doctrine suggests otherwise.
Care to give examples where they would start taking away a persons liberty?
Care to give examples where they would start taking away a persons liberty?
Well, common sense in the real world shows, if you have a problem as a average man with a corporate dominated industry, you have no legal recourse (unless you are rich enough to afford fancy lawyers) Letting the "free market" run amok is the fast track to serfdom.
"personal liberty" is the most ironically stupid thing to come from so called libertarians mouths.
Yes because we need to go get them thar terrorists! We should invade the entire fucking middle east to prevent them from taking us over!
Quick question, how do you win a war on terror by winning the hearts and minds of the people whose families are killed by you? How do you win a war against a tactic? What are the measurements of victory? Are you willing to go over there and kill them to protect the McDonalds down the street?
Paul talked about washing our hands of the bullshit and if anyone fucked with us on our soil get a declaration of war, go fuck them up and come home. He talked about blowback which apparently dumb asses like you think was something made up by people who blame America for 9/11.
Uh, the 'average man' can always seek violence when the "systems" of justice are being used against him.
And when the capitalists overreach this always happens, violence and redistribution of wealth. But I reject the Leninist notion that violent revolution is the path to socialism.
Maybe not even voting or working within the system works either.
But violent revolution? We always get screwed.
Heres how it works, capitalist screw up, people starve, and riot. A reformist group arises in the chaos and sooner or later compromise with the leaders of industry and capital who own most land/wealth anyhow in the name of ending chaos. Reformers get their bellys scratched and the capitalists are in control again.
The problem with the endless revolution is that we have not socially caught up to our science. This will take personal change and a lot of old discrimination be weeded out in a world society. I think the internet is speeding this aspect up. I hope. Because endless war and pitting one against one another is very dangerous in times where our technology has things like nuke missiles. We are damn lucky to still be on this planet imo still. But at the same time it is encouraging.
After a few million years of social evolution on this planet since we were apes I do have hope for the species. But then I can be labeled an idealist if you wish. It to me is a matter of seeing the old glass half full or not by default. Pessimism really never got me anywhere in the long run irl.
If elections were won by campaigns and debates this man would have won in a landslide. His campaigns were pure gold. His agenda was to keep the government out of individual lives, end affirmative action (thank god), and voted against the Patriot act! Just to name a few.
Now, yes he wanted to cut departments like Education, Social Security, the CIA, etc. But when you read deeper. He doesn't want to eliminate those services, but the cabinets and departments that govern them because they are out of control.
Just looking for everyone's 2 cents. Please don't flame me, I'm merely trying to educate myself on why America wouldn't side with this guy.
Why no love for Paul?
While I agree that we should get the hell out of a lot of those countries, as it sits there are no US embassies in Iran so there is no pulling out to do there. You and every other Ron Paul asshat can have your little circle jerk but the whole "As long as it isn't on US soil" is bullshit and is what let Hitler and Germany become what it did.
you really can`t be serious....I love Ron Paul, but unfortunately [mostly] honest politicians don't get elected.
LOL no rebuttals other than omg Hitler!
Tell me which middle Eastern country will be the next Hitler? Also please enlighten us on how exactly Hitler came to power?
The Iran comment (or what ever it was you were trying to point out) is whole heartedly irrelevant and why you even mentioned them in this context is baffling.
Did the US shoot a Iranian civilian airliner out of the sky? See? Completely sidetracked but still relevant to the discussion and on point while being true.
Don't get me wrong, having a different perspective was a good thing, bu his domestic and foreign policy were pure lunacy and simply wouldn't work in the modern world.
But then again when your competition is Bachmann, Gingrich, and Perry it is easy to appear like a genius.
This is just a bunch of nonsense.
Ron Paul would have allowed for:
The return of school prayer
The overturning of Roe V Wade
The return of segreation
The elimination of jury trials
In Ron Pauls mind if states wanted to do these things they should have a right to, he pushed for the eliminations of the people protection of these things.
Steeplerot, I'm not asking for an organized violent revolution. I'm not even suggesting one be undertook by those that feel wronged. I'm simply stating the option is there and it is always there. Not to mention why does one need to be organized or have a group behind him in order to have his own revolution? I believe I'm my own revolution unto myself and if I felt required to act I would do so without organizing others to my cause. If my death is the result, oh well at least I lived true to myself.
Human interaction is political in itself, and asserting yourself in a society doubly so. Thus if you are revolutionary it must start at each individual.
Lest we get fooled again by power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwnZYY-CDXo
^good stuff
We could always try communism. What could go wrong?
Oh ya…..