For the isolationist accusers...

[video=youtube;UNOMmUQYlC4] [/video]

WebFire;1015525 wrote:For the isolationist accusers...

Y'all heard Obama lately talking like he's a tax-cutter and believes in limited government? I get the same feelings listening to an Isolationist describe how he isn't one.

He tries to swerve the discussion into economic trading-partner linkage, and how isolationists don't believe in free-trade. OK, that's part of it, but not the basis. I believe he is correct about free trade with Cuba, China, etc.

He later goes on and says he wants to bring ALL of the troops home. THIS is an isolationist's view. While I could be convinced that closing a significant amount of bases in other countries would be beneficial unless the socialist nations want to pay for their protection, we can't isolate our foreign policy to the point where we don't even have a presence anywhere by closing ALL of the bases. This is a dangerous policy and it's been tried before with horrible outcomes.

If he thinks abandoning the world to do as it pleases means we will never be involved again is folly, if not outright naive. Last I checked, the world includes the Western Hemisphere and he can't advocate an ostrich-like philosophy and hope that the world will love us and leave us alone. If we follow his isolationist lead, we will be drawn back into a much more dangerous world when it happens and it will definitely happen.

I honestly don't see him pulling everyone home. I think he wants to end the meaningless wars, and pull troops out of places we don't need to be. He doesn't want to police the world.

Cleveland Buck;1015214 wrote:Ron Paul said there was glee that the administration had their excuse to invade Iraq, which is true. He said obviously no one was gleeful about the attack on 9/11, and never said that the government wanted the attack to happen.

Does he have hard evidence that that's true? That's pretty strong language for a presidential candidate who already has a history of controversial statements.

You consistently say Paul blamed the US for 9/11, but I've never seen him say that anywhere. Why don't you share your source? Saying that our meddling in the affairs of other countries creates and motivates our enemies is not blaming anyone for anything, it is just the simple truth.

This is where I smh with Ron Paul. So if the US had a complete isolationist foreign policy for the past 100 years we would have absolutely no enemies who want to destroy us? I sort of get the "motivates" thing, but whose land were we "occupying" before 9/11, or better yet, before the WTC attacks of 1993, which very easily could have been a 9/11 style tragedy? Saudi Arabia? Really? I thought we were there at the blessing of the Saudi government to protect their oil fields from Saddam during the Gulf War. I guess I was wrong- we were there to occupy.

And I don't know what conservatism has to do with blaming someone for 9/11. Actually, I do. Nothing. Now what isn't conservative is borrowing and printing money endlessly so that we can spread our troops all around the world and leave us weaker than we have ever been if a major threat were to come up. If the Chinese invaded California we would be completely bankrupt and ****ed with our military overseas telling others how to behave.

You can support whoever you want. If you like government solutions to problems, endless money printing, endless wars, and the end of your civil liberties, then Ron Paul is not for you. Newt Romney Obama will do you just fine. You just won't have much credibility if you try to call yourself a conservative.

What are the other choices? Third party? I suppose, though many of them support the same things

I agree we're bankrupt. But I rarely see or hear libertarian types rail against the welfare state and the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare, which are now in the $50-$60 trillion dollar range, at least not as much as they rail against military spending, which makes up something like 17% of the total federal budget.

I think when you guys say "endless wars" you really mean "endless nation-building in places where the population hates us and because of their ideology will never appreciate one positive thing done by US troops on Muslim lands". The Iraq "war" was actually pretty short- we took Baghdad in a matter of weeks, and Saddam was caught before a year was up. Afghanistan- not so much. I support dealing with hostile regimes who in fact declare war on us, but the nation-building thing is what Americans are tired of. As a result, we blow off real threats to our national security because we think of "war" as endless nation-building among ungrateful (and often hostile) civilians.

Ron Paul chose to give the president authority to wage war after 9/11; I wonder what he would do as president if another attack of that magnitute occurred. Seriously. That's what worries people. We want someone to deal with federal spending, but not at the cost of making ourselves vulnerable.

BGFalcons82;1015661 wrote:Y'all heard Obama lately talking like he's a tax-cutter and believes in limited government? I get the same feelings listening to an Isolationist describe how he isn't one.

He tries to swerve the discussion into economic trading-partner linkage, and how isolationists don't believe in free-trade. OK, that's part of it, but not the basis. I believe he is correct about free trade with Cuba, China, etc.

He later goes on and says he wants to bring ALL of the troops home. THIS is an isolationist's view. While I could be convinced that closing a significant amount of bases in other countries would be beneficial unless the socialist nations want to pay for their protection, we can't isolate our foreign policy to the point where we don't even have a presence anywhere by closing ALL of the bases. This is a dangerous policy and it's been tried before with horrible outcomes.

If he thinks abandoning the world to do as it pleases means we will never be involved again is folly, if not outright naive. Last I checked, the world includes the Western Hemisphere and he can't advocate an ostrich-like philosophy and hope that the world will love us and leave us alone. If we follow his isolationist lead, we will be drawn back into a much more dangerous world when it happens and it will definitely happen.

No, he believes in using our military for defense which is what it is intended for and not using it as a permanent occupying force.

Isolationism is what North Korea does. Not what Ron Paul would do.

I Wear Pants;1016070 wrote:No, he believes in using our military for defense which is what it is intended for and not using it as a permanent occupying force.

Isolationism is what North Korea does. Not what Ron Paul would do.

Hiding from the world and embarking on a laissez faire foreign policy will NOT make the world safer, as much as you wish it would be so. Try reading up on a German chancellor, an Italian dictator, and a Japanese emperor in the 30's and see how that policy worked out for the world. Those that fail to remember history will repeat it.

BGFalcons82;1016102 wrote:Hiding from the world and embarking on a laissez faire foreign policy will NOT make the world safer, as much as you wish it would be so. Try reading up on a German chancellor, an Italian dictator, and a Japanese emperor in the 30's and see how that policy worked out for the world. Those that fail to remember history will repeat it.

Those people didn't hide from the world or have a laissez faire foreign policy. They sort of you know, invaded a fuck ton of places and occupied them.

I Wear Pants;1016108 wrote:Those people didn't hide from the world or have a laissez faire foreign policy. They sort of you know, invaded a fuck ton of places and occupied them.

Well well well. You didn't read what I wrote. The world looked the other way (laissez faire attitudes) as these three built empires virtually unchecked and were appeased along the way in hopes that they'd stop what they were planning. Read up on Neville Chamberlain. I'll venture that Dr. Paul has books about him in his collection.

The point is that withdrawing from the world...for whatever reasons...will not lead to the world being safer. For the most obvious example, without US protection, the Muslim countries will feel empowered to bulldoze Israel into the Mediterranean. Guess what...they won't want to go peacefully. What would President Paul do? I'd love for someone to quiz Dr. Paul about how much effort he wants to use in order to help defend Israel from their sworn enemies.

BGFalcons82;1016196 wrote: What would President Paul do? I'd love for someone to quiz Dr. Paul about how much effort he wants to use in order to help defend Israel from their sworn enemies.

Is Ron Paul running for dictator? Why don't you ask what Congress would do, since they are the only ones allowed to wage war. Ron Paul has consistently said that if Congress declares war he would fight it, win it, and come home. That is all the president can do by law.

Why do we have to act as Israel's military?
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

Those of you that believe in Wilsonian global progressivism, that is your right. That doesn't mean we can afford it though. Maybe when we pay our bills we can go nation hopping and empire building again.

And whoever it was that said the libertarians don't argue about the welfare state as much as the warfare state, that is because we agree with you on the welfare state, so what is there to argue about. The thing is, this debt and currency problem is much bigger than people give it credit for, and there is no way we can afford either one, and you will certainly never get the support of the people to cut their entitlements while continuing to police the world.

I Wear Pants;1016208 wrote:Why do we have to act as Israel's military?
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

Ugh...sometimes I wonder, Pants...

The point is that we have been their ally since DAY ONE. Dr. Paul believes we can no longer afford to be their ally, so he would tell them to have a nice day and good luck with Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, and countless other Muslim countries that want to eradicate Judaism from the planet. Yourself, ClevelandBuck, O Trap, and all of the other Ronulans believe this leads to a safer planet and we would be able to watch the probability of nuclear destruction without raising a finger. This is ridiculous and the question needs put to Dr. Paul and followed up until he says that Israel has the right to self determine their future. Argue with me all you want, but Americans are not ready to turn our backs on Israel, as much as it would please y'all. Thusly, he won't be getting elected anytime soon.

Cleveland Buck;1016204 wrote:Is Ron Paul running for dictator? Why don't you ask what Congress would do, since they are the only ones allowed to wage war. Ron Paul has consistently said that if Congress declares war he would fight it, win it, and come home. That is all the president can do by law.

Huh...Ron Paul would lead from behind, like our current occupier has perfected. Nice. I thought we'd be electing the leader of the free world and not just a caretaker.

BGFalcons82;1016232 wrote:Huh...Ron Paul would lead from behind, like our current occupier has perfected. Nice. I thought we'd be electing the leader of the free world and not just a caretaker.

What country is this? We are electing the executive branch of the federal government. We aren't electing the leader of anything.

BGFalcons82;1016231[B wrote:]This is ridiculous and the question needs put to Dr. Paul and followed up until he says that Israel has the right to self determine their future.[/B] Argue with me all you want, but Americans are not ready to turn our backs on Israel, as much as it would please y'all. Thusly, he won't be getting elected anytime soon.

Is this a real question? Ron Paul is the only one of the bunch that respects Israel's right to self determination. When they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facilities in the early 80s he is the only member of the government who did not condemn them for the attack, saying Israel has the right to defend themselves as they see fit without our obstruction. He is the only candidate who wants to let Israel decide how to handle their borders, their treaties, and their defense. We buy their cooperation with billions of dollars of aid that props up their welfare state, so therefore if they want to wipe their own asses they have to come to us for permission. Ron Paul is the only pro-Israel candidate.

Cleveland Buck;1016234 wrote:What country is this? We are electing the executive branch of the federal government. We aren't electing the leader of anything.

Thank you. Our foreign policy, regardless of how much or little you feel we should be involved, starts and ends considering the best interest of the United States of America. At least it should.

You're making my point about a less-safe world -

When they bombed the Iraqi nuclear facilities in the early 80s he is the only member of the government who did not condemn them for the attack, saying Israel has the right to defend themselves as they see fit without our obstruction.

Do you believe the United States' current main objective is protecting Israel from harm or keeping Israel from harming others? I would argue that both are necessary in the Middle East. With Dr. Paul in charge, who's going to keep Israel from harming others? Who stopped them from lobbing nuclear weaponry upon Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War? Do you remember Saddam lobbed dozens of Scud missiles towards Israel in an attempt to start a regional war wherein the Muslim countries would immediately jump in on Saddam's side and gleefully rid the world of the Jews? That wasn't by accident.

It is not in our best interests to leave Israel to fend for itself. I want Dr. Paul to announce that he is for it so as to effectively end his candidacy.

Cleveland Buck;1016234 wrote:What country is this? We are electing the executive branch of the federal government. We aren't electing the leader of anything.

Huh...the President is not considered the leader of the country. Who is it then...Pelosi? Reid? Sotomayor? Oh wait...it's gotta be George Soros. I knew it!!

BGFalcons82;1016263 wrote:Do you believe the United States' current main objective is protecting Israel from harm or keeping Israel from harming others?

I believe the federal government's main objective is to protect the life, liberty, and property of U.S. citizens as set forth in the Constitution. You'll notice the word "Israel" is not in that sentence.

Cleveland Buck;1016277 wrote:I believe the federal government's main objective is to protect the life, liberty, and property of U.S. citizens as set forth in the Constitution. You'll notice the word "Israel" is not in that sentence.

OK. We're done. I would argue that keeping the world from going nuclear is indeed protecting American's lives and liberties, but neither one of us is going to convince the other. I'll move on.

On another subject, nobody's candidate reflects all of their views on all subjects. It's a virtual mathematical improbability. Therefore, can you name 3 policies/proposals of Dr. Paul's in which you DISAGREE with him?

BGFalcons82;1016287 wrote:OK. We're done. I would argue that keeping the world from going nuclear is indeed protecting American's lives and liberties, but neither one of us is going to convince the other. I'll move on.

It would cost endless trillions of dollars to keep the world from going Nuclear. I envision an America that understands that you can't police the world and the best thing you can do is strengthen your own country. Israel can take care of themselves.

sleeper;1016298 wrote:It would cost endless trillions of dollars to keep the world from going Nuclear. I envision an America that understands that you can't police the world and the best thing you can do is strengthen your own country. Israel can take care of themselves.

I originally used Israel as their cause is the most obvious. Mr. Paul wants to pull out of South Korea as well. OK...is North Korea suddenly going to turn into a democracy overnight and give praise to President Paul for allowing them the ability to invade South Korea? In other words, is North Korea just misunderstood and they really like their relationship with their Southern brothers as it is? If Mr. Paul has his way, what will happen to the Suez canal? What about the Panama canal? How about the island of Taiwan? BTW - did you notice the Chinese have an aircraft carrier now? I'm going to take a flying leap and guess they have more than one of them.

By leaving all of these areas, is America safer? If people believe it is so, then he'll win. If people think the world will be more dangerous with him in charge, then he will lose.

BGFalcons82;1016308 wrote:
By leaving all of these areas, is America safer? If people believe it is so, then he'll win. If people think the world will be more dangerous with him in charge, then he will lose.

Yes. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. There isn't anything else to debate, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. Do I need to say it again? It's so simple, but people like to pretend America just has endless amounts of money to police the world.

BGFalcons82;1016196 wrote:Well well well. You didn't read what I wrote. The world looked the other way (laissez faire attitudes) as these three built empires virtually unchecked and were appeased along the way in hopes that they'd stop what they were planning. Read up on Neville Chamberlain. I'll venture that Dr. Paul has books about him in his collection.

The point is that withdrawing from the world...for whatever reasons...will not lead to the world being safer.

Great point. When you let these types go unchecked, they gain momentum and eventually they're on your doorstep and you have a bigger mess to clean up. When Paul mentions certain causes for 9/11 (I call it blaming the US, you can call it whatever you want), he conveniently ignores any hint of possibility that a radical hateful ideology might have something to do with their tactics. Instead, it comes across as "We understand how you feel", because after all these enemies wouldn't exist but for America.

For the most obvious example, without US protection, the Muslim countries will feel empowered to bulldoze Israel into the Mediterranean. Guess what...they won't want to go peacefully. What would President Paul do? I'd love for someone to quiz Dr. Paul about how much effort he wants to use in order to help defend Israel from their sworn enemies

Not sure I agree with that part. In 1967, we left Israel to handle their own business, because LBJ was too busy in Vietnam, and they tripled their territory in 6 days. They set back Egypt, Jordan, and Syria's militaries about a decade or so in the process.