Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on November 05, 2007, 06:48:50 pm
-
http://www.thisnovember5th.com/
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
Yarr. :)
-
You would pimp out Ron Paul too. :p
Happy Guy Fawkes Day to all!
-
I disagree with the opinions of Ron Paul and refuse to respect him.
-
Were it not for his pro-life and pro-family values (which read to me as "50s America meets Evangelical Christians), I'd hope you guys voted him in.
Under the circumstances, why not give the African American lad a shout? Be interesting to see how long he would last.
Just don't vote in Hillary - she'd have too much to prove.
-
I disagree with the opinions of Barack Obama and refuse to respect him.
I disagree with the opinions of Hillary Clinton and refuse to respect he... him.
-
I will give the African American lad a shot; he's better than the feasible alternatives.
None of the Republicans have a snowballs chance in hell this election, so it's a choice (basically) between Obama and Hilary
-
Meh, Colbert FTW!
-
Pleh. I'd vote Hillary in just to get Bill back in office.
-
Meh, Colbert FTW!
He's out.
Ron Paul is too religious for me though, so no go.
At this point, I'd be voting for whichever Democratic candidate that got it.
-
None of the Republicans have a snowballs chance in hell this election, so it's a choice (basically) between Obama and Hilary
very dangerous assumption to make.
-
Damn, I was totally going to make this thread, but I thought it would be too spammy. Then Goob makes it. How ironic.
very dangerous assumption to make.
How do you figure? If Mars assumes wrong the planet'll blow up!?
-
How do you figure? If Mars assumes wrong the planet'll blow up!?
In Neil Kinnock's last election for UK prime minister everyone assumed that after 11 years of conservative rule they didn't have a hope in hell too. As a result not that many people went to the polls to vote for him and John Major won very narrowly.
I'd classify 4 more years of republican rule as very dangerous. I might even classify it as "the planet'll blow up" :p
Don't get complacent about the Republicans losing. The last election had a very high turn out because lots of democrats hated Bush and lots of republicans didn't want that to be used to put a democrat in. 2008 won't have the same turn out most likely so don't assume polls will tell you who will win. Polls don't measure who will actually get off their arses and vote.
-
I wouldn't see 4 more years of Republican rule as dooming the country, so long as we get a moderate Republican. And a moderate Democratic Congress he can work with.
(Damn the fact we can't elect Arnie president.)
-
I wouldn't see 4 more years of Republican rule as dooming the country, so long as we get a moderate Republican.
Remember the last time we elected a self proclaimed "moderate republican" president? That's how we got into this mess to begin with. :p
But really, I'm not convinced that it matters which party gets elected, what matters is will we have someone who is actually willing to push the country to make serious changes? I don't see that happening, that kind of change is political suicide. But if we get more of what we have now, from either party, it will really hurt and make it even harder to pull ourselves back from the edge.
-
Sometimes I wish politicians were more like race cars and had to wear the logos of the companies that bought- er, I mean, "sponsored" them.
-
Vote for Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, porn star and champion wrestler. Either he wins or he kicks your asses, it's up to you!
-
Pleh. I'd vote Hillary in just to get Bill back in office.
QTF!
(Damn the fact we can't elect Arnie president.)
You'd need to change the Constitution for that. I'm all for it.
Then the Demolition Man's predictions would come true!
-
Fred Thompson FTW.
-
Sometimes I wish politicians were more like race cars and had to wear the logos of the companies that bought- er, I mean, "sponsored" them.
Agreed.
Of course with the way the election funding law works we'd have to translate what "special interest group" (i.e. "The American Freedom Foundation" type nonsense) translates into the boss saying 'donate to my group or you're fired... ermm oops did I say that you only get a bad review... then fired later...' at Wal Mart.
-
Mike Gravel ftw! :D
-
I wouldn't see 4 more years of Republican rule as dooming the country, so long as we get a moderate Republican.
Remember the last time we elected a self proclaimed "moderate republican" president? That's how we got into this mess to begin with. :p
Key phrase: self-proclaimed.
-
On the other hand while being governer of texas he actually was a moderate by many people's accounts.
-
On the other hand while being governer of texas he actually was a moderate by many people's accounts.
Yes, but most of those people were Texans.
-
Even people outside of Texas looked at what he was doing and thought he was a moderate. There were many complaints that he was not "conservative enough" for the Republican party to be president.
-
Let me just go on record and say that Ron Paul is as of now the only politician I have ever liked. It's usually a contest between the best of the worst, the one I least dislike, but the good doctor is something else. For privacy, free speech and civil liberties, against interventionism and empire (at a time when the only real debate between the parties is how to run the empire) and torture, for guns, against taxes and for extreme decentralization. What's not to like?
Viva la Revolution!
-
The only politician? What about Kucinich?
-
Kucinich?! What about Colbert!
-
OK fine: Kucinich and Gravel too. But much as I'd like to believe otherwise, they're not as viable as Ron Paul. Which says quite a bit about the state of the Democratic party, when they're shunning their anti-war candidates more than the GOP. Also, I don't jive with Kucinich on a few issues, though he's clearly miles better than any other Democratic candidate and a decent man to boot.
Next up: the Tea Party '07 on December the 16th. Another huge money-bomb is the Paulites have anything to say about it. I can't donate because I'm not American, but I hope it goes well.
-
Hear hear!
-
Too bad Ron gets dramatically less air time than Guliani, Clinton, Obama, etc.
Too bad he stands in a position against true separation of church and state.
-
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/5/59/Cthulhu-elections.gif)
That's all I say.
-
What's Mr.Cthulhu's stance on abortion? And the 2nd Amendment? What about allegations of gay bathroom toe-tapping? I simply can't vote for a candidate I don't trust to protect real conservative values.
-
Can I point out that while Ron Paul's stance on the Middle East is fantastic, he also has some kooky views on globalization and international relations?
The man is one of the first candidates for the US Presidency in the past 100 years to actually have a brain when it comes to foreign policy (and the first person who brings up Reagan to try to counteract this point is going to get beaten over the head with a little twentieth-century history :P), but he's also rather odd.
That said, not a single one of the current candidates can be worse than the current moron in the White House, Mr. Let's-encourage-stability-in-the-Middle-East-by-invading-a-"country"-(Iraq was never a country, it's 3 regions of three separate countries that were excluded when the borders got drawn up)-that-is-already-poised-for-massive-civil-war. *head shaking*
-
Ron Paul was also on the Alex Jones show (who is a major conspiracy theorist, you know the new world order is out to get you kind of stuff) once, and it sounded like they agreed on a lot of things. I'm not sure, but I think it's still on youtube.
-
I, myself, support a North American Union.
-
That would be one way to deal with illegal immigrants: legalize them. :p
-
Ron Paul was also on the Alex Jones show (who is a major conspiracy theorist, you know the new world order is out to get you kind of stuff) once, and it sounded like they agreed on a lot of things. I'm not sure, but I think it's still on youtube.
Yea except Jones didnt bring up a lot of his more contraversial beliefs.
-
That would be one way to deal with illegal immigrants: legalize them. :p
I'd rather see taxpayer money go to that over seeing it go to pitiful attempts at securing hundreds of miles of desert.
-
Ron Paul was also on the Alex Jones show (who is a major conspiracy theorist, you know the new world order is out to get you kind of stuff) once, and it sounded like they agreed on a lot of things. I'm not sure, but I think it's still on youtube.
Him appearing on Alex Jones does not imply that he agrees with all of the interviewer's positions, any more than Jon Stewart interviewing Musharraf can be taken as proof of Stewart's support for military dictatorship. Guilty by association, eh?
I'm happy to debate any specific points, but "Ron Paul is a crazy racist 9/11 NWO conspiracy theorist" ain't gonna cut it. Leave my boy alone ;);)
-
Ron Paul opposes separation of Church and State.
Debate that one with me.
-
Sure thing:
Wikipedia sez:
Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. For instance, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level.
As far as I know, on this issue (as in all others) he's for local legislation to suit local needs. And also for giving individuals the ultimate freedom to decide for themselves. To make an analogy, he would allow states to repeal Roe vs Wade if their citizens wanted it, which does not mean that he opposes abortion in principal (which he does). His view is that the federal government should have no position on most issues, including the seperation of Church and State. If one state wants to allow prayer in school and another does not, so be it. I think this is a much more sensible (not to mention moral and effective) view to take than to trying to impose either his own views of that of his party through the power of the federal government or indeed any government. Think of it as political neutrality.
Now as for his personal views, let's first of all acknowledge that they are almost completely irrelevant. Being a libertarian means not imposing your view on others, and I have no reason to believe that he would stray for a long history of libertarianism on this particular issue. Secondly, I don't think it's incorrect to claim that the Founding Fathers were generally pretty religious folks, as was almost everyone else at the time, and that the Church has played a significant part in America's history. Given that the US, despite it's many, many flaws, has been one of the most religiously tolerant countries in the world for many years, I don't see this changing under a man who is far less authoritarian than any other current candidate.
-
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers were Deists. How devoted they were is up to interpretation. They really try to stay as neutral as they could in The Declaration of Independence and Constitution without angering the very religious people of the day. Using words like "Creator" instead of "God" in many cases. They actually pushed for a separation of Church and State themselves.
No government, at any level, should be allowed to mandate or prohibit prayer in public schools. Setting aside time for "self reflection" is acceptable, but saying "YOU (DON'T) PRAY NOW" is not. This should be up to the individual, not the school, the Community, the State, or the Federal Government.
-
No government, at any level, should be allowed to mandate or prohibit prayer in public schools. Setting aside time for "self reflection" is acceptable, but saying "YOU (DON'T) PRAY NOW" is not. This should be up to the individual, not the school, the Community, the State, or the Federal Government.
...so you agree almost completely with RP's views? Because AFAIK, that's what he's saying. I think if he's in favour of eliminating the Dept of Education altogether, not forcing people to (not)pray in school (surely that's never done, right?) ought to be assumed.
-
Well you said it was down to local governments. I don't think they should be allowed to mandate anything regarding prayer in schools either.
-
* Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy. This would include, among other things, markedly reduced taxation, privatization of Social Security and welfare (for individuals, as well as elimination of "corporate welfare"), markedly reduced regulation of business, rollbacks of labor regulations, and reduction of government interference in foreign trade.
* Protection of property rights.
* Minimal government bureaucracy. The Libertarian Party states that the government's responsibilities should be limited to the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud.
* Strong civil liberties positions, including privacy protections, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and sexual freedom.
* No government interference in reproductive rights, including access to abortion. (Right-libertarians and Libertarians for Life usually do not support abortion, but they believe that the federal government has no say in regulating the procedure).
* Support for the unrestricted right to the means of self-defense (such as gun rights, the right to carry mace or pepper spray, etc).
* Abolition of laws against what are called victimless crimes: (prostitution, driving without a seatbelt, use of controlled substances, fraternization, etc.).
* Opposition to regulations on how businesses should run themselves (i.e., smoking bans).
* Opposition to military conscription ("the draft").
* A foreign policy of free trade and non-interventionism.
* Support for a fiscally responsible government including a hard currency (commodity-based money supply as opposed to fiat currency).
* Abolition of all forms of public assistance (welfare, food stamps, and public housing).
If Ron Paul can stick to even 75% of those positions, I'll vote for him.
-
Those positions don't mean squat.
Any man who's elected president, right after being inaugurated, goes into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-****s who got him in there. And when he's in there, this little film screen comes down, and a big guy with a cigar goes; "Roll the film." It's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle he's never seen before, that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. Then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and big guy goes to the new president; "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is."
-
hahahah you would vote for Ron Paul
seriously
do you hate sudanese or what's this HR180
The bill authorized state and local governments to divest from contracts and investments that would send money to the Janjaweed militia in Darfur which is currently conducting ethnic cleansing, and would prohibit Congress from awarding contracts to businesses which are funding the genocide in Darfur, which would result in US tax dollars going to fund genocide.
This passed through the house with only one "nay" vote, which was Ron Paul.
that's some good old school liberalism right there, see, right there, no more to the right, oh you cannot see it. or then it's something completely else, something i dare not to name
or do you think gold standard could be a good idea in any way, I mean tying the dollar to a METAL which's value fluctuates wildyl (30% in the last 8 months iirc) is a good idea because of WHAT
or do you think there is a war on religion going on in america?
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
or maybe you think Ron Paul Survival Report was stellar and definitely not racist literature OH YEAH CERTAINLY GHOSTWRITTEN weird that the ghostwritten thing only came up like 12 years after the man had marketed the thing
or maybe a presidential candidate who attends scientology meetings is ok i mean sure thing
stem cells? NO
While I sympathize with those who see embryonic stem cell research as a path to cures for dreadful diseases that have stricken so many Americans, I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars. (5/24/05)
separation of church and state NO
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
if ron paul loves free trade why does he opposed free trade treaties and wto?
oh i remember
any laws regulating international free trade must be wrong because of [reason]
yeah but ron paul would keep his personal morals outside politics, as evidenced by We the People -Bill which has things like
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
allright
ron paul also hates illegal immigrants and would have them deported
this is, of course, liberal if not even libertarian and morally just
and wouldn't have any sort of ramification, i mean deporting about 10 million people is easy and peaceful
Essentially, if you don't like people calling Ron Paul a bat**** insane racist conservative who tries to masquerade as something completely different it would help if he weren't one. I don't see how anyone, except other bat**** insane racist conservatives, could vote for him, unless you think PRAYER KILL EVERYONE NO TO EVERYTHING YOU WILL KNOW USA BY THE TRAIL OF DEAD
And people who say his, or any other candidate's, personal views are completely irrelevant, how's that entire Bush presidency been going? I mean, his policies should be rather irrelevant, right?
And now I will end this with a story which is not mine
The young couple nervously followed in the wake of the confident Dr Ron Paul. To the untrained eye, they were walking in an ordinary preschool, with colorful animals adorning the walls, little tables with lumps of play-doh, and - of course - the sounds and smells of playful little children. But this place was special, and the Conan-Doyles wanted to make a good impression. Not everyone could get into the Ron Paul Preschool.
Hoping to make conversation, Mr Conan-Doyle cleared his throat and brought up a subject that had been in the news the past few weeks. He prayed it wouldn't bore the indomitable Dr Paul.
"So, I hear that child molester confessed to raping over fifty children?"
"Yes, sir," confirmed Dr Paul, 'Fortunately none of those children went to our school."
"I suppose you must be outraged. I mean, he was snatching children just across the street..."
"No, no sir, I am not. As long as the sovereignty of this school is untouched, we take no interest in what other people do. For far too long community leaders have meddled in matters beyond their own affairs, and I can tell you it's done more harm than good." Dr Paul's countenance seemed to darken. Mr Conan-Doyle decided to let it go.
-
do you hate sudanese or what's this HR180
My belief is that "live and let live", aside from being morally consistent, is the most practical solution. Long term, letting inevitable conflicts (Darfur, Palestinian conflict, Kosovo, Iraq, FARC...just about anything) sort themselves out has a much better chance of success than by sticking your nose in. Besides, sanctions against Sudan would mean ****, since China is playing sugar daddy and Khartoum is perfectly happy to let its citizens face the brunt of sanctions, which, by the way, is exactly who would be hardest hit.
or do you think gold standard could be a good idea in any way, I mean tying the dollar to a METAL which's value fluctuates wildyl (30% in the last 8 months iirc) is a good idea because of WHAT
I admit I'm not an economist and that this is a wee bit out of my depth. But limiting the amount of dollars which can be in circulation at any one time, and therefore their safeguarding their value, doesn't seem that unreasonable. And yes, I realize that all other currencies in the world are fiat currencies, just like the dollar, and that the $s ****ty performance isn't due to this fact.
or do you think there is a war on religion going on in america?
Nah. But I do think that if a country is majority Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian/ the culture can by all means reflect that. As long as it's not the government pushing it, the US can be Christianistan for all I care.
or maybe a presidential candidate who attends scientology meetings is ok i mean sure thing
Source? I also find it hard to believe that a old man from Texas who looks like he ****s apple pie and American flags is a Scientologist.
stem cells? NO
Yeah, but this guy is against using taxpayer money for just about everything, including giving a medal to Rosa Parks. It has nothing to do with stem cells specifically and is an overall position.
separation of church and state NO
See my previous post above. In what way does he oppose the seperation of Church and State?
if ron paul loves free trade why does he opposed free trade treaties and wto?
oh i remember
any laws regulating international free trade must be wrong because of [reason]
Should I mention the fact that free trade treaties quite often tend to be exactly the opposite, and serve to legitimize the economic rape of Country X, X being some small nation which the US has strong-armed into accepting a treaty written up in Washington? Care to explain why "free trade" is now a dirty word in most of Latin America, after more than a decade of "free trade" with the US? The operative word in this equation is "free", as in "free" from regulations.
yeah but ron paul would keep his personal morals outside politics, as evidenced by We the People -Bill which has things like
Which part of this doesn't sit well with you? As far as I can see, it's an effort to keep politics at the local and state level. Something wrong with that?
ron paul also hates illegal immigrants and would have them deported
this is, of course, liberal if not even libertarian and morally just
and wouldn't have any sort of ramification, i mean deporting about 10 million people is easy and peaceful
Do you deny that an immigration problem exists? Not because they're scary terrorists like FOX says or something like that, but because its a demographic issue. Having tens of millions of unassimilated immigrants pouring freely in a country can not possibly be a good thing. Before it can even begin to formulate a policy, the US must actually exercise control of its border, which at present it doesn't. Are nations not entitled to decide who comes in to their country? I also really doubt his plan is "deport 'em all". Source?
And people who say his, or any other candidate's, personal views are completely irrelevant, how's that entire Bush presidency been going? I mean, his policies should be rather irrelevant, right?
Except Bush (or anyone else) deosn't have 20-year record of voting based strictly on Constitutional principles, being utterly
incorruptible and opposing nearly all laws that restrict people's freedom. That about as opposite from Bush as it's possible to be.
-
Those positions don't mean squat.
Any man who's elected president, right after being inaugurated, goes into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-****s who got him in there. And when he's in there, this little film screen comes down, and a big guy with a cigar goes; "Roll the film." It's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle he's never seen before, that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. Then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and big guy goes to the new president; "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is."
Seriously wish Bill was around today. I'd have loved to have heard his point of view on the current state of the world.
-
Seriously wish Bill was around today. I'd have loved to have heard his point of view on the current state of the world.
Amen to that, mate. :(
-
My belief is that "live and let live", aside from being morally consistent, is the most practical solution. Long term, letting inevitable conflicts (Darfur, Palestinian conflict, Kosovo, Iraq, FARC...just about anything) sort themselves out has a much better chance of success than by sticking your nose in. Besides, sanctions against Sudan would mean ****, since China is playing sugar daddy and Khartoum is perfectly happy to let its citizens face the brunt of sanctions, which, by the way, is exactly who would be hardest hit.
So basically you don't care, ok.
I admit I'm not an economist and that this is a wee bit out of my depth. But limiting the amount of dollars which can be in circulation at any one time, and therefore their safeguarding their value, doesn't seem that unreasonable. And yes, I realize that all other currencies in the world are fiat currencies, just like the dollar, and that the $s ****ty performance isn't due to this fact.
That's what central banks do. It's what everyone does. It's nothing new. No one raises an issue, because no one raises an issue about central banks fighting inflation and deflation either.
The gold standard is a very bad way in this, since gold's value fluctuations are huge, you can always dig more gold, you can buy and sell gold, and gold is also nowadays used as an electronics component. It made some weird sense in 1800s, though only because GOLD ==== PRECIOUS
Nah. But I do think that if a country is majority Christian/Muslim/Zoroastrian/ the culture can by all means reflect that. As long as it's not the government pushing it, the US can be Christianistan for all I care.
That's what the part dealing with separation of church deals with. Government does not ban the use of religion, but it cannot endorse it either. If following US constitution means War on Christianity to some, then wherein lies the problem, wherein...
You are also perfectly aware of the fact that the entire War on Religion is a huge strawman and only used to fuse religion more prominently into public life? Right to live without religional harassment is actually guarded by US constitution, so "what the people want" should not infringe upon the rights of those who actually do not want "what the people want".
Source? I also find it hard to believe that a old man from Texas who looks like he ****s apple pie and American flags is a Scientologist.
He's not a scientologist, he just attended one of their meets
(i have no source)
Yeah, but this guy is against using taxpayer money for just about everything, including giving a medal to Rosa Parks. It has nothing to do with stem cells specifically and is an overall position.
He certainly phrased it weirdly then, huh? Well, if he's such a huge libertarian then why do some of his position look so goddamn weird. But since he wants no gubmint then I guess it makes sense.
See my previous post above. In what way does he oppose the seperation of Church and State?
The entire We the People pretty much tries to remove the USSC the authority to deal with these kinds of things. If that's not opposition (I mean, USSC is only the highest actor in these questions), then I don't see what is, except flatly stating
"I OPPOSE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"
Should I mention the fact that free trade treaties quite often tend to be exactly the opposite, and serve to legitimize the economic rape of Country X, X being some small nation which the US has strong-armed into accepting a treaty written up in Washington? Care to explain why "free trade" is now a dirty word in most of Latin America, after more than a decade of "free trade" with the US? The operative word in this equation is "free", as in "free" from regulations.
So to hell with them? That's a bad apples statement as well, vast majority of international trade treaties actually deal with important things such as transporter containers or countries being forbidden to put random tariffs in place. You really believe things would become better if US just relaxed all of those? Do things get better when lawbooks are thrown in the garbage because there are bad laws?
Which part of this doesn't sit well with you? As far as I can see, it's an effort to keep politics at the local and state level. Something wrong with that?
Reproductional rights? Gay marriage? Separation of church and state? This would leave all those things to states to decide, if I understand my US law correctly. For a citizen it's completely and totally the same whether it's the Evil Federal Government or Lovely State Government which forbids abortion or gay marriage, only that if Fed is removed from the equation, there is jack **** said citizen can do, except to ***** and moan.
Oh yeah, and also, I found a new one! What does Ron Paul - or you - say about 14th amendment, since they're so keen on upkeeping the constitution :usa: :usa:
Do you deny that an immigration problem exists? Not because they're scary terrorists like FOX says or something like that, but because its a demographic issue. Having tens of millions of unassimilated immigrants pouring freely in a country can not possibly be a good thing. Before it can even begin to formulate a policy, the US must actually exercise control of its border, which at present it doesn't. Are nations not entitled to decide who comes in to their country? I also really doubt his plan is "deport 'em all". Source?
USA is a result of vast, uncontrolled immigration. Those illegal immigrants of yours play a very key part in the economy. Those issues aside, certainly violently deporting them - and I mean deporting people who work here and who have lived here for who knows how long - is a morally just decision?
Except Bush (or anyone else) deosn't have 20-year record of voting based strictly on Constitutional principles, being utterly
incorruptible and opposing nearly all laws that restrict people's freedom. That about as opposite from Bush as it's possible to be.
Now as for his personal views, let's first of all acknowledge that they are almost completely irrelevant.
But if candidate's personal opinions play no role, then those things are completely invalid in determining his value as a candidate, because his voting record is based on his (and his party's) choices, and by saying what you just said you contradicted yourself
Are candidate's personal opinions important Y/N?
-
So basically you don't care, ok.
Au contraire. For every intervention that has actually benefited the poor benighted people of Wherever, I can name five that did exactly the opposite. More often than not, "humanitarian intervention" is a cheap excuse for other, far less altruistic, ends. In the long run, letting people sort out their own affairs saves lives and lessen hardship.
That's what central banks do. It's what everyone does. It's nothing new. No one raises an issue, because no one raises an issue about central banks fighting inflation and deflation either.
Like I said, this is not my strong point. But I would like to hear other suggestions for fighting rampant overspending and a balooning public debt, taking into account that politicians will virtually never choose to lessen spending of their own volition.
That's what the part dealing with separation of church deals with. Government does not ban the use of religion, but it cannot endorse it either. If following US constitution means War on Christianity to some, then wherein lies the problem, wherein...
You are also perfectly aware of the fact that the entire War on Religion is a huge strawman and only used to fuse religion more prominently into public life? Right to live without religional harassment is actually guarded by US constitution, so "what the people want" should not infringe upon the rights of those who actually do not want "what the people want".
Am I missing something? At what point has he even remotely hinted at eroding this separation?
He's not a scientologist, he just attended one of their meets
(i have no source)
And I visited both the Stormfront and FARC websites. Does that make me a racist Marxist? The whole point is moot.
He certainly phrased it weirdly then, huh? Well, if he's such a huge libertarian then why do some of his position look so goddamn weird. But since he wants no gubmint then I guess it makes sense.
Not at all. Did you read the part where he said "I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars". That's individual rights right there. If you like something, pay for it. If not, don't. At what point did government money become the only option for advancing medical science?
The entire We the People pretty much tries to remove the USSC the authority to deal with these kinds of things. If that's not opposition (I mean, USSC is only the highest actor in these questions), then I don't see what is, except flatly stating
"I OPPOSE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"
Nope. For example, I support legalizing marijuana, but I don't think that the federal government should be the one that does. If individual states (or provinces here in Canada) want to do it or not do it, that's the proper channel. Again, it's a stand against federal power in areas where it should have no authority, not against this specific thing.
So to hell with them? That's a bad apples statement as well, vast majority of international trade treaties actually deal with important things such as transporter containers or countries being forbidden to put random tariffs in place. You really believe things would become better if US just relaxed all of those? Do things get better when lawbooks are thrown in the garbage because there are bad laws?
Except that he has time and again stated that the position of the government should be "trade with all, entangling alliances with none". He's probably the biggest proponent of free and universal trade out there. How do you manage to interpret that as being anti-free trade? The only exception being when trade agreements infringe on the sovereignty of a country, which they have no business doing in the first place.
Reproductional rights? Gay marriage? Separation of church and state? This would leave all those things to states to decide, if I understand my US law correctly. For a citizen it's completely and totally the same whether it's the Evil Federal Government or Lovely State Government which forbids abortion or gay marriage, only that if Fed is removed from the equation, there is jack **** said citizen can do, except to ***** and moan.
Which is easier: move to a different that has laws more to your liking or move to a different country? Ideally, it would be even more local than he state level, but that's not presently feasible. If conservative Austin wants to ban abortion and liberal San Francisco wants to allow it, why do you consider the right to do this a bad thing?
Oh yeah, and also, I found a new one! What does Ron Paul - or you - say about 14th amendment, since they're so keen on upkeeping the constitution :usa: :usa:
I have no idea. As far I know nothing. But come up with something to argue and I'll gladly indulge.
USA is a result of vast, uncontrolled immigration. Those illegal immigrants of yours play a very key part in the economy. Those issues aside, certainly violently deporting them - and I mean deporting people who work here and who have lived here for who knows how long - is a morally just decision?
Using strawmans again? Who ever mentioned anything about violently deporting them? Find me an actual quote or something and then we'll talk. While every country has an immigration policy, most have the capacity to enforce it. The US does not. We can argue for more immigration or less immigration but not over the fact that the government has a legitimate right to control its borders.
But if candidate's personal opinions play no role, then those things are completely invalid in determining his value as a candidate, because his voting record is based on his (and his party's) choices, and by saying what you just said you contradicted yourself
Not a candidates. This candidates. And believe me, I know how strange that sounds coming out of my e-mouth. I am just as jaded as the next guy, probably much more so, but this specific person in this specific situation has convinced me of his integrity because he has managed to maintain it despite being in politics for several decades.
-
USA is a result of vast, uncontrolled immigration.
Eh, no. Immigration into the USA was pretty strongly controlled even up until the 1960s.
While every country has an immigration policy, most have the capacity to enforce it. The US does not.
Not sure what you meant here, but I bet the US could enforce its immigration policies if it tried. It certainly did a decent job evacuating everyone from the California wildfires recently.
Also, it's not necessary to deport every single illegal immigrant. That would, of course, be ideal, but we could put a good dent in the problem by just searching for people who look Mexican, don't speak English, and don't have documentation. And, once the government actually starts doing something substantial, the threat of deportation would be enough incentive to get many to voluntarily self-deport themselves. That would put another good dent in it.
-
Eh, no. Immigration into the USA was pretty strongly controlled even up until the 1960s.
:wtf: So Ellis Island was tight control? You know, the place where immigrants would just line up, someone would write down their names (no documentation required) and then they could go wherever the hell they wanted?
-
Strongly controlled as in they only let a certain number of immigrants enter the country, and only from a certain set of countries (mostly the UK and western Europe). You're confusing freedom of movement with freedom of entry -- they're not the same thing.
-
Not sure what you meant here, but I bet the US could enforce its immigration policies if it tried. It certainly did a decent job evacuating everyone from the California wildfires recently.
Certainly it could. But then it would be called fascist and racist. Let it be known that the number of cases in which I think the US behaves like a militarist bully could fill an encyclopedia, but controlling its borders is not one of them. It is the sovereign right of every nation to do so. And for the record, deporting illegal immigrants already within the country is neither moral nor feasible. Preventing new ones from coming in, or slowing the rate at which they do, is.
Mexico is hardly that bad off. Its per-capita GDP is listed as 55th, between Russia and Chile. Developing the economy, improving social services and steadily improving quality of life seems like a much better solution than trying to get several million people across the border to the non-existant land of wine and roses.
-
Strongly controlled as in they only let a certain number of immigrants enter the country, and only from a certain set of countries (mostly the UK and western Europe). You're confusing freedom of movement with freedom of entry -- they're not the same thing.
Um, last I recall the only ones that were limited were the asian immigrants........
-
Au contraire. For every intervention that has actually benefited the poor benighted people of Wherever, I can name five that did exactly the opposite. More often than not, "humanitarian intervention" is a cheap excuse for other, far less altruistic, ends. In the long run, letting people sort out their own affairs saves lives and lessen hardship.
So when the government decides to stop bussiness with another state that is - arguably - commiting atrocities, even war crimes, against its own citizens, it is not the right thing to do? What do you propose people do - no humanistic intervention, no governmental intervention in bussines - just what?
I know where you are coming - sanctions hurt ordinary people way more than they hurt the ruling class. But these weren't economic sanctions. These didn't even bind independent organizations who can, right now, make bussines with Sudan if they see it fit - although at the risk of losing often quite... lucrative contracts with the US central government. It's arguably the most libertarian way a government can deal with such a thing.
Like I said, this is not my strong point. But I would like to hear other suggestions for fighting rampant overspending and a balooning public debt, taking into account that politicians will virtually never choose to lessen spending of their own volition.
That's a spending issue. In US terms, what you are looking at is fiscal conservatism, not weird gold-standard currencies. It wouldn't impact spending at all, except when fluctuations in dollar value would cause widespread economic repercussions.
Nope. For example, I support legalizing marijuana, but I don't think that the federal government should be the one that does. If individual states (or provinces here in Canada) want to do it or not do it, that's the proper channel. Again, it's a stand against federal power in areas where it should have no authority, not against this specific thing.
But that's not what the big thing about We the People is. It's against reproductive rights as protected by state, as well as the separation of church and state.
Am I missing something? At what point has he even remotely hinted at eroding this separation?
We the People -proposal! It's almost adamant of "USSC should not deal with religious questions", even though USSC is the highest institution that guards the separation of church and state!
Come on:
If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the Act itself.
This. This right here. It's not about marijuana. If you think that USSC should not deal with those religious issues that are stated in the US constitution, then whatever. It would give states all rights to decide about sexual rights and religious issues, effectively ending any constitutional protection of citizens over those things. It's not about individual right, because if a state decides then to ban for example a religious way, abortion or any kind of same-sex relations, then what about individual rights - practicing them would throw you in the jail, and Fed couldn't do anything about it.
Yeah, and also this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)
And I visited both the Stormfront and FARC websites. Does that make me a racist Marxist? The whole point is moot.
Yeah, it was just another dig at Ron Paul's personal values.
Not at all. Did you read the part where he said "I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars". That's individual rights right there. If you like something, pay for it. If not, don't. At what point did government money become the only option for advancing medical science?
Then what does the "immoral" part do there? Is it political speak, or is it there just because? If you believe tax is theft, then go ahead and say it. Otherwise government has any right to use its money - not citizens' money, it government's money once it taxed to the government - just as it sees fit. Neutral way to say this would be "I strongle object to forcing Americans to subsidize government with tax dollars", especially when Ron Paul's hard-to-defend immigration policies would just result in higher taxes and are in strict contradiction with libertarian ideals, some of which are free flow of workforce and currencies and banishing unnecessary nation-states where they hamper the progress of libertarian economic system.
Except that he has time and again stated that the position of the government should be "trade with all, entangling alliances with none". He's probably the biggest proponent of free and universal trade out there. How do you manage to interpret that as being anti-free trade? The only exception being when trade agreements infringe on the sovereignty of a country, which they have no business doing in the first place.
Does free trade mean that government MUST deal with everyone they want to? See Sudan for example. Shouldn't government have every right to say no to contracts?
Which is easier: move to a different that has laws more to your liking or move to a different country? Ideally, it would be even more local than he state level, but that's not presently feasible. If conservative Austin wants to ban abortion and liberal San Francisco wants to allow it, why do you consider the right to do this a bad thing?
That's idiotic. People can not move freely as they wish and you know it - economic reasons are first, but there are other, more subtle reasons for people rather wanting to keep the government as good as they can instead of just moving around.
People are bound to where they live by countless factors, and you grossly underestimate how much it takes to move a new state - which could just put up new regulations against uncontrolled immigration, so this would leave pretty much everyone who is not middle-class or above and/or wanted workforce ****ed. It's easy to say just to "move to another country", but I seriously suggest you start to consider moving right now because the government decided to piss you in the eye. It's not good. It's not possible for everyone. "LOVE IT OR MOVE ALONG" is a stupid sentiment, and very unfair.
Also, do you believe in democracy or mob rule? A or B.
I have no idea. As far I know nothing. But come up with something to argue and I'll gladly indulge.
14th amendment has a lot of stuff which is pretty damn relevant to this discussion, such as
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and
Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill of Rights was generally, though not universally, thought to act only as a restraint on federal governments, not those of the state, and a state's relations with its citizens and those of other states was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws and those provisions of the Constitution that limited the powers of the states.
and
After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgement by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
which are pretty damn relevant to the entire "states rights" discussion!
Using strawmans again? Who ever mentioned anything about violently deporting them? Find me an actual quote or something and then we'll talk. While every country has an immigration policy, most have the capacity to enforce it. The US does not. We can argue for more immigration or less immigration but not over the fact that the government has a legitimate right to control its borders.
Ron Paul:
Congressman Ron Paul: While I realize that mass deportation is unrealistic, I’m opposed to amnesty, because I believe strongly in the rule of law. I see this matter chiefly as a problem of the welfare state. The majority of illegal immigrants in this country are exceptionally hard workers, but there is a small minority receiving housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other kinds of welfare from the federal government. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of illegal immigrants, which in turn causes citizens to form vigilante groups to deal with the issue while Congress does nothing. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard; with one, however, you can’t avoid a small element of criminals and freeloaders being attracted into the country. This is why I’m in favor of securing the borders immediately. Federal entitlement programs such as Social Security are also threatened by the influx of illegal immigrants into the country. Successive administrations have supported the so-called “totalization” agreements, by which illegal immigrants would be allowed to qualify for programs like Social Security, programs that are already in dire shape and threatening financial ruin for the United States. Sending benefits abroad to immigrants who once worked here will cost the United States millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars. Anyone who hopes to receive Social Security someday should oppose amnesty and totalization proposals. The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address the issue until we take the difficult steps of securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reaffirming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology.
[/i]
There's his stance on the illegal immigration. There's a line about mass deportation right at the beginning (which is basically "it's practically impossible BUT blaa blaa blaa") and then there's the entire "reject amnesty" thing.
Not a candidates. This candidates. And believe me, I know how strange that sounds coming out of my e-mouth. I am just as jaded as the next guy, probably much more so, but this specific person in this specific situation has convinced me of his integrity because he has managed to maintain it despite being in politics for several decades.
Such as
They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves
set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class
blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly
different from the Crips and the Bloods.
[...]
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
?
Oh yeah, and your integrate candidate also said that
- Kyoto sucks
- opposes abortion but would leave it to the states to decide
edit: Let's be fair here. It wasn't, perhaps, Ron Paul in 1992, it might have been someone else in his report which is obviously OK.
-
So when the government decides to stop bussiness with another state that is - arguably - commiting atrocities, even war crimes, against its own citizens, it is not the right thing to do? What do you propose people do - no humanistic intervention, no governmental intervention in bussines - just what?
I know where you are coming - sanctions hurt ordinary people way more than they hurt the ruling class. But these weren't economic sanctions. These didn't even bind independent organizations who can, right now, make bussines with Sudan if they see it fit - although at the risk of losing often quite... lucrative contracts with the US central government. It's arguably the most libertarian way a government can deal with such a thing.
The government is entitled to deal/not deal with anyone it wants. It's when they start restricting the actions of private businesses, as with Iran, Cuba etc, that I get annoyed. Aside from what they're entitled to do, there's also the question of what they should do, which in my opinion that is: trade with everyone, interfere politically with no one.
I would also argue that if your aim is to end tyranny, the best solution is trade and development. The most repressive countries are also the poorest and vice versa. The quickest root to democracy, civil society and all that good stuff is simply wealth. It is very hard for any sort of freedom or peace to blossom from poverty and the close-mindedness than comes with it. That's the best way to change the behaviour of governments who you may consider to be bad.
That's a spending issue. In US terms, what you are looking at is fiscal conservatism, not weird gold-standard currencies. It wouldn't impact spending at all, except when fluctuations in dollar value would cause widespread economic repercussions.
So why focus on the gold standard? He's also the only fiscal conservative in either party, because no one opposes the $500b/year military spending and other programs. The GOP has long since abandonded even the pretence of fiscal conservativism, which is exactly what the US needs if it hopes to buy itself out from the pocket of China, the UAE, Japan and others.
This. This right here. It's not about marijuana. If you think that USSC should not deal with those religious issues that are stated in the US constitution, then whatever. It would give states all rights to decide about sexual rights and religious issues, effectively ending any constitutional protection of citizens over those things. It's not about individual right, because if a state decides then to ban for example a religious way, abortion or any kind of same-sex relations, then what about individual rights - practicing them would throw you in the jail, and Fed couldn't do anything about it.
The Constitution doesn't magically stop applying at the state level. And since the Constitution doesn't mention modern specificities such as abortion, gay marriage and a million other things, those fall to individual states. But basic rights can not be infringed. Since people take a divergent view of whether, say, gay marriage constitutes a basic right, is it not better to decide locally (like I said, the county/city level would be even more preferable) than to guarantee pissing off 50% of the population?
You can't claim that he's forcing his beliefs on anyone, because moving authority downward is an ideologically neutral move. For all he knows, all 50 states could choose the exact opposite of what he believes, or they could not. It favours no one side.
Yeah, and also this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html)
Then what does the "immoral" part do there? Is it political speak, or is it there just because? If you believe tax is theft, then go ahead and say it. Otherwise government has any right to use its money - not citizens' money, it government's money once it taxed to the government - just as it sees fit. Neutral way to say this would be "I strongle object to forcing Americans to subsidize government with tax dollars", especially when Ron Paul's hard-to-defend immigration policies would just result in higher taxes and are in strict contradiction with libertarian ideals, some of which are free flow of workforce and currencies and banishing unnecessary nation-states where they hamper the progress of libertarian economic system.
Sure, I believe that tax is theft and so does Paul. But a certain amount of theft is needed to keep the government, a necessary evil but necessary nevertheless, functioning, so some degree of taxes are necessary. I still don't understand the argument for involving the government in medical research, and area where its presence is simply not needed. If a government derives its legitimacy from the people, I don't see how it could spend everyone's money on a program only some people endorse.
Also, do you believe in democracy or mob rule? A or B.
I may be being anal here, but I consider them to be the same thing. Democracy is defined as the implementation of the will of the majority. The US is not, and in my opinion should not be, a democracy. It is a Republic, which means that the majority can not infringe on the rights of the minority, including the smallest minority unit which is the individual, as it sees fit.
There's his stance on the illegal immigration. There's a line about mass deportation right at the beginning (which is basically "it's practically impossible BUT blaa blaa blaa") and then there's the entire "reject amnesty" thing.
So he says that he's against deportation. What more do you want. You can morally justify not kicking out the existing illegal immigrants, but not allowing more to come in. A law has been broken, so now the question is whether to allow it to keep being broken. Those who originally broke it are already not going to get punished, since no person in their right mind would even think about deporting 10 million men, women and children. Nothing is going to happen to them. The real question is whether one's policies are going to encourage more illegal immigrants or less.
And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against immigration. I'm an immigrant myself and am friends with tons of other immigrants. But breaking into a country illegally is not OK, no matter how much of a right you believe you have to be there.
edit: Let's be fair here. It wasn't, perhaps, Ron Paul in 1992, it might have been someone else in his report which is obviously OK.
I don't know whether he said it or someone else. But from what I know of the man, I personally find it extremely unlikely. Also, he's mentioned this guy (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/vita.html) as a possible running mate, and if you would notice the colour of the gentleman's skin you may deduce that RP is no racist.
-
So why focus on the gold standard? He's also the only fiscal conservative in either party, because no one opposes the $500b/year military spending and other programs. The GOP has long since abandonded even the pretence of fiscal conservativism, which is exactly what the US needs if it hopes to buy itself out from the pocket of China, the UAE, Japan and others.
Getting rid of the federal reserve (so the government doesn't have to borrow its own money) would do a lot more to alleviate the debt than anything else.
-
The government is entitled to deal/not deal with anyone it wants. It's when they start restricting the actions of private businesses, as with Iran, Cuba etc, that I get annoyed. Aside from what they're entitled to do, there's also the question of what they should do, which in my opinion that is: trade with everyone, interfere politically with no one.
If only trade and politics were completely separate issues. If only!
edit: Basically you don't want the government to do anything about Sudanese crisis. I'd like to ask you why you are so dense and cold and hate other people and seem completely impervious to human suffering, but I won't. I'd like to ask you what you would do, just smile and say "TRADE SOLVES ALL THESE PROBLEMS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS MURDERING PEOPLE, TRADE AND INACTION THAT IS", but I won't. I'd like to ask you why the **** do you think "do nothing and hope the problem goes away" is a good way to deal with a crisis that arguably borders on genocide, but I won't.
Instead I am only going to ask you, what good is a free market, if it cannot even guard for morality, like Some People say it would.
edit: Oh dear, this is a neverending road I have taken! Said bill only said that "government should not use it's funds to deal with companies that do bussiness in Sudan". Mother of God, how can anyone defend this?
TAXPAYER MONEY MUST GO TO SUPPORT COMPANIES THAT ARE COMPLICIT IN GENOCIDE BECAUSE RON PAUL
I would also argue that if your aim is to end tyranny, the best solution is trade and development. The most repressive countries are also the poorest and vice versa. The quickest root to democracy, civil society and all that good stuff is simply wealth. It is very hard for any sort of freedom or peace to blossom from poverty and the close-mindedness than comes with it. That's the best way to change the behaviour of governments who you may consider to be bad.
Such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, China (getting better) and Russia (getting worse)? That's not even mentioning the older dictatories of East Asia, which usually combined repressive - at least to some extent, but for a libertarian it would be too much anyways - government with wildly successful economics - South Korea, Taiwan for example. Or Chile, the country where the GDP skyrocketed after Pinochet was installed, but where inequalities grew and opposition was hunted down?
So why focus on the gold standard? He's also the only fiscal conservative in either party, because no one opposes the $500b/year military spending and other programs. The GOP has long since abandonded even the pretence of fiscal conservativism, which is exactly what the US needs if it hopes to buy itself out from the pocket of China, the UAE, Japan and others.
I don't know, ask your precious Ron Paul - he's the one harping about it! You know, he brought up the entire gold standard thing. Without him, no one would even discuss it. It's not my fault that he talks about it.
The Constitution doesn't magically stop applying at the state level. And since the Constitution doesn't mention modern specificities such as abortion, gay marriage and a million other things, those fall to individual states. But basic rights can not be infringed. Since people take a divergent view of whether, say, gay marriage constitutes a basic right, is it not better to decide locally (like I said, the county/city level would be even more preferable) than to guarantee pissing off 50% of the population?
The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is a basic right. The Supreme court is the highest authority in constitutional matters. If USSC decides that abortion, for example, is a constitutional right, then it is - until Congress decides to amend the constitution, to one way or another. So that's about abortion issue. Although considered by many as a weird revere artifact, the Constitution is alive and constantly changing, because it has a built in method for both amending and correcting.
You are pretty much arguing for majoritarianism, but in the same sentence harp on about basic rights - you don't see any contradiction here? Is state government a government or not? So government A cannot say things about issue A because UGH EVIL GUBMINT but government B can limit rights just as they see fit because somehow it is not UGH EVIL GUBMINT? Jesus Christ, you harp on about how people should have rights, but are still completely OK with someone limiting them just as long as it is not the UGH EVIL GUBMINT but something that is, by all accounts, completely the same, only lower on the ladder.
Instead of trying to secure rights, you are only removing the elements that secure them and try to replace them with a mechanism that gives someone else all the cards to remove those rights, as well as more.
You can't claim that he's forcing his beliefs on anyone, because moving authority downward is an ideologically neutral move. For all he knows, all 50 states could choose the exact opposite of what he believes, or they could not. It favours no one side.
It favours no side, and hurts ordinary people. How low should authority go, and what are the limits?
Sure, I believe that tax is theft and so does Paul. But a certain amount of theft is needed to keep the government, a necessary evil but necessary nevertheless, functioning, so some degree of taxes are necessary. I still don't understand the argument for involving the government in medical research, and area where its presence is simply not needed. If a government derives its legitimacy from the people, I don't see how it could spend everyone's money on a program only some people endorse.
I don't know what you have against state-funded medical research, because, you see, quite a lot medical research is done by state but the marketing and distribution is then done by private actors. These state-funded useless institutions are, by the way, responsible for whopping 5 out of 5 important AIDS meds, for example. Well, of course this is a complete side issue, first because medical companies are so big and well-entreched that the existence of pitiful governmental study groups - which the companies then proceed to use to milk money - does not threaten them at all, and many universities are actually forbidden to do for-profit research and marketing, which keeps those two things very separate.
I may be being anal here, but I consider them to be the same thing. Democracy is defined as the implementation of the will of the majority. The US is not, and in my opinion should not be, a democracy. It is a Republic, which means that the majority can not infringe on the rights of the minority, including the smallest minority unit which is the individual, as it sees fit.
If you say that in democracies people do THIS and in republic THIS, then you truly at a loss. Do all those nice Western European countries fall to mob rule? Is DPRK a democracy because it has that D in its name?
Democracy != mob rule. At least not what we know of democracy. Yes, you are being anal for the sake of being anal, and trying to be clever, and it doesn't really work.
And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against immigration. I'm an immigrant myself and am friends with tons of other immigrants. But breaking into a country illegally is not OK, no matter how much of a right you believe you have to be there.
Very well, I concede the point. However, if US would instead... make illegal immigration magically disappear by allowing everyone right to access?
I don't know whether he said it or someone else. But from what I know of the man, I personally find it extremely unlikely. Also, he's mentioned this guy (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/vita.html) as a possible running mate, and if you would notice the colour of the gentleman's skin you may deduce that RP is no racist.
Ohhh yessss, the classic "not racist best friend is black BUT"-defence! Gee!
It was Ron Paul's letter. Is he responsible for his own paper or not? Why did he only come out and say it was ghostwritten (!) about 9 years after the fact? I mean, yeah, sure, his integrity came into play. He just couldn't keep up the lie! Certainly it shouldn't matter that even if it was ghostwritten, he put his name on a racist writing. Of course, it shouldn't matter. Ron Paul, the Integrate Candidate.
You know, the funny thing about Ron Paul is not Ron Paul, but his supporters who, although trying to be so high and mighty about individual liberty, bend over backwards to desperately support things like destroying the separation of church and state, and majoritarian mob rule and removal of certain processes that guard those precious rights - all of which are pretty much against libertarian ideals! - while hand-waving stuff like Ron Paul Survival Report. It truly is fascinating.
-
North American Union cough
-
North American Union cough
Isn't every candidate from both parties except RP behind that?
-
Which makes it a good thing...how?
-
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.
Just my (well, Georgie's) thoughts on the matter.
-
Which makes it a good thing...how?
I never said it was, but more like it doesn't really matter who we vote for (maybe except RP, but I seriously doubt the banking interests would let him win :p) because this is going to go through.
-
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.
Just my (well, Georgie's) thoughts on the matter.
When was that, 1750s?
-
Still makes sense, doesn't it?
-
Still makes sense, doesn't it?
No.
North American Union cough
What makes it so terrible?
-
Still makes sense, doesn't it?
No it really doesn't
You see, countries exist in a thing known as a world
and import and export stuff
and protect their interests
-
What makes it so terrible?
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA&feature=related
NAFTA Super Highway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsvZys5hF4Y&feature=related
Ron Paul CNN youtube answer to NAU question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl9peWPdtUU
-
What makes it so terrible?
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
It's good conspiracy theory matter!
-
What makes it so terrible?
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
It's good conspiracy theory matter!
Nail. Head.
A political North American Union is not a possibility anytime in the near future due to political polarization and a host of culture issues (namely, US anxiety over being flooded by Mexicans and Canadian anxiety over disappearing into the gigantic political mess that is the US). Good idea? Sure, when the three populace's are closer on the ideological positions that matter.
That said, improved trade prospects over and above NAFTA and closer relationships among security agencies are certainly a possibility, and a logical one at that. Right now, NAFTA is one of those free trade on papers deals, but there are no harsh measures for countries engaging in trade protectionism, a flaw which has been exploited a few times by the US alone. As for security... a comprehensive, logical border security plan would be a marvelous thing. I know the conspiracy nuts think that would be the US vision of insanity at the borders, but Canada and Mexico both have much more logical security plans.
-
What makes it so terrible?
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
It's good conspiracy theory matter!
I guess you'd be saying the Patriot Act is just a conspiracy theory as well, if they hadent just come right out and admitted it. Whatever the reason, the government's up to a lot of weird ****.
-
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
The EU started out as a purely economic union, the European Steel and Coal Community. It then progressed as a way of facilitating trade and easing border restrictions, again, for the economic benefit that it would yield. And at some point it became a political union and just kept expanding. There is now hardly any government duty where the EU does not play a part, from trade to law enforcement, education, health, transportation etc. And every day new powers are given to this supranational organization, without citizens wanting or even endorsing them. The French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution simply slowed the process; they have by no means ended it.
-
Hey Janos: check this, dawg.
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/?p=455
Specifically around the middle. Deals with separation of Church and State and gay marriage.
"Q: Is there any country that you admire, other than the United States?"
"A: Yeah, Switzerland. Because no one knows the President's name"
Yeah, sounds like a regular Bible-thumping fascist to me. God, Switzerland, what a terrible role-model.
-
Hey Janos: check this, dawg.
http://www.ronpaulnation.com/?p=455
Specifically around the middle. Deals with separation of Church and State and gay marriage.
"Q: Is there any country that you admire, other than the United States?"
"A: Yeah, Switzerland. Because no one knows the President's name"
Yeah, sounds like a regular Bible-thumping fascist to me. God, Switzerland, what a terrible role-model.
I'll pull out his legislation to answer something.
Yes, he sounds very liberal indeed, seeing that after he has stated that abortion would be a states issue is still willing to vote yes on a limited federal abortion ban. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/ and http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
Also he has voted - nay, proposed legislation! - for banning the burning of American flag (which happens to be in contradiction with 1st Amendment) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:) which doesn't either sound very liberal.
Also he has proposed this http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)
And voted "no" on granting Rosa Parks a a medal.
And of course, about the entire separation of powers - if, in R.Paul's proposed legislation, USSC has no powers to address issues such as discrimination based on sexual preference, abortion and religion, then yes - Ron Paul actually seeks to dismantle the separation of church and state and constitutional protection for minorities, no matter what he says in an interview.
-
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
The EU started out as a purely economic union, the European Steel and Coal Community. It then progressed as a way of facilitating trade and easing border restrictions, again, for the economic benefit that it would yield. And at some point it became a political union and just kept expanding. There is now hardly any government duty where the EU does not play a part, from trade to law enforcement, education, health, transportation etc. And every day new powers are given to this supranational organization, without citizens wanting or even endorsing them. The French and Dutch rejections of the EU Constitution simply slowed the process; they have by no means ended it.
EU is comprised of sovereign states, which have their own national legislation, and which vote on their own representatives in the EU institutions, and which have own foreign policy, and militaries, and which are not obliged to join things such as EMU, and by the way the process in transforming EEC to EU was open and took decades, and to get into EU you have to have support (most countries have arranged elections about this), and damn right one country can block the entire EU from doing anything. Remember, that EU is, right now, nothing more than a combination of sovereign states, which decide democratically what to do. It is no shadow government.
If, in 40 years, there is a choice for USA, Mexico and Canada to democratically decide whether they want closer co-operation and some common legislation, so what? Oh, but it wouldn't work, because the power balance in North America is bad, and USA would either have way too much power over other states or way too little power compared to USA's size. :(
-
Yes, he sounds very liberal indeed, seeing that after he has stated that abortion would be a states issue is still willing to vote yes on a limited federal abortion ban. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/ and http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
"The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. "
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Let's say that, if elected, he would use the power of the federal government to completely ban all abortion. That's one issue he's wrong on, compared to other Republicans who are wrong on all issues, including that one. 95% of his policies are still awesome.
Also he has voted - nay, proposed legislation! - for banning the burning of American flag (which happens to be in contradiction with 1st Amendment) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:) which doesn't either sound very liberal.
Voted against http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00004: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00004:)
Also he has proposed this http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:)
I think this is a tiny part of the much bigger "against student loans from the federal gov't" deal. He's prohibited his own kids from getting federal student loans. So...he wants to treat those hated Iranians as badly as his own children. Terrible, I know.
And voted "no" on granting Rosa Parks a a medal.
Not granting Rosa Parks a medal using government money. He suggested that if Congress wanted to give her a medal, which he believes she deserves, they would each put up $100 of their own money for it, just as he was prepared to do.
And of course, about the entire separation of powers - if, in R.Paul's proposed legislation, USSC has no powers to address issues such as discrimination based on sexual preference, abortion and religion, then yes - Ron Paul actually seeks to dismantle the separation of church and state and constitutional protection for minorities, no matter what he says in an interview.
At what point will you realize that the main thing on this man's agenda, above any individual policy, is extreme, fundamental, far-reaching decentralization of power. Full stop. Anything that filters power downward is good, anything that does the opposite is bad. In a modern, civilized, peaceful country such as the US, this is a hell of a lot better than the opposite.
Also, if you fault RP for not sticking to the Constitution (seperation of Church and State, individual rights) throughly enough, who, may I ask, is better? Not which candidate, but which US politician in general? It's equivalent to saying that Bush isn't Christian enough or that Al Sharpton isn't Black enough.
-
What makes it so terrible?
Because you can take the idea of proposed North American Union, which is essentially to ease trade and mobility of people between Canada, USA and Mexico (and which isn't popular and is pretty much laughed off everywhere), and then simply splat all kinds of weird unprovable or completely illogical conspiracy theories on it, preferably about bad world government, and then post editorial youtube links which do not prove anything.
It's good conspiracy theory matter!
You are right, so the only way to make this work would be to bring the US to its knees. I'm not saying I believe any of this, but if it were true I wouldn't be surprised. Either way I suspect the next 20 years will be very interesting for America......
-
"The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. "
Which would remove protection of rights as now recognized in Constitution. Of course, if you want states to become completely autonomous - in fact, independent states - and able to pass laws that directly hamper basic rights - by removing USSC the ability to rule on these things - then I have nothing to say.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Let's say that, if elected, he would use the power of the federal government to completely ban all abortion. That's one issue he's wrong on, compared to other Republicans who are wrong on all issues, including that one. 95% of his policies are still awesome.
I don't need benefit of doubt - I can point to legislation he sponsors and votes for.
He's also wrong on gold standard - it would cause an economic disaster, and after that tie US economy to mining activities of, for example, Australia and South Africa.
And state-certified basic education is a good thing, because it makes grades comparable between different states and, for example, gives a student in state A a good idea whether or not he can try to get into a college in state B. Ron Paul, however, does not agree.
Subjectively stuff like government subsidizing companies that profit from Darfur crisis is also quite bad, and I don't know about legislation which would remove certain inbuilt protections against segregation (see: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D&summ2=m& (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D&summ2=m&).
Again, I disagree with Ron Paul.
And, of course, I can always point to the fact that Ron Paul has written this gem:
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.
Voted against http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00004: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.00004:)
He SPONSORED that very same legislation in 1997. Of course, he might have had a change of heart.
I think this is a tiny part of the much bigger "against student loans from the federal gov't" deal. He's prohibited his own kids from getting federal student loans. So...he wants to treat those hated Iranians as badly as his own children. Terrible, I know.
The damn bill says: "A bill to make all Iranian Students in the United States ineligible for any form of federal aid."
It says nothing about other students. It says that about Iranian students. Point me to legislation where Ron Paul has proposed all students to become ineligible for ANY FORM federal aid. You are assuming he wanted something completely different. Prove this. I can only point to him saying "no let's cut all funding from Iranian students".
Not granting Rosa Parks a medal using government money. He suggested that if Congress wanted to give her a medal, which he believes she deserves, they would each put up $100 of their own money for it, just as he was prepared to do.
Strangely, Ron Paul has actually requested federal money for all kinds of stuff. http://www.brokenlibrarian.org/ronpaul/misc.html
However, a mere 30 000 dollars for an important civil rights figure - need I to remind people that Ron Paul is big on liberty, except when he wants to remove safeguards for them - is a huge deal.
edit: it was 30 000, not 300 000.
At what point will you realize that the main thing on this man's agenda, above any individual policy, is extreme, fundamental, far-reaching decentralization of power. Full stop. Anything that filters power downward is good, anything that does the opposite is bad. In a modern, civilized, peaceful country such as the US, this is a hell of a lot better than the opposite.
Fundamental, far-reaching decentralization of power is not an end in itself. It is a means to get something better. Arguably, Ron Paul's politics do not lead into better outcome - they lead into 50 separate states, each able to pass legislation as they see fit - shortly put, dividing the entirety people know as the United States of America. It would devastate the economy, both USA's and world's. It would require long and tedious process to reinstate the same basic rights as now recognized in the constitution in these states, unless you don't give a flying **** about them. It would remove all federal capability to protect enviroment, civil rights, equality and freedom of choice and religion. Ron Paul does not like FDA and would dissolve it.
I fully realize what Ron Paul's goals are. I do not agree with them at all.
Also, if you fault RP for not sticking to the Constitution (seperation of Church and State, individual rights) throughly enough, who, may I ask, is better? Not which candidate, but which US politician in general? It's equivalent to saying that Bush isn't Christian enough or that Al Sharpton isn't Black enough.
I have not endorsed anyone. Why should I? I can just tell people who'd vote for Ron Paul that "if you look at this, this, this, hell, this, then Ron Paul is not a good candidate." I am not arguing for someone's superiority, I am arguing against Ron Paul. I don't need bad equivalence arguments or ad hominen tu quoques.
Seriously, if Ron Paul tries to remove constitutional safeguards for liberty and minority rights, which are pretty clear in constitution and supreme court rulings, then how is he upkeeping constitution? "Ron Paul will end birthright citizenship", for example. What about that?
Honest question: Does Bill of Rights apply to states or just the federation?
edit:
Mother of God, I just found this and I don't know whether to laugh or cry:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m& (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&)
Included gems:
Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act. Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to provide for the orderly termination of the affairs of such Department.
Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.
Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.
Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.
Defines "child abuse" as physical maltreatment, and psychological or emotional neglect. Excludes from such definition discipline or corporal punishment applied by a responsible parent or an individual authorized to act in the place of such parent.
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.
It's like a celebration of insanity. If these are Ron Paul's methods of reducing the scale of government and bringing authority closer to citizens, then jesus should I laugh or cry. Ok, it's old, but...
edit 2: Oh god, the pile keeps growing - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll931.xml
"LET'S NOT DEMAND BURMA TO RELEASE AUNG SAN SUU KYI"
-
"The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. "
:wtf: When did I say that?
Besides, 10 years ago anyone saying that there would eventually be an American Union was laughed at for being a conspiracy theorist, but now here we are. Our dear leaders haven't kept this a secret and have had at least one conference about it. Now there's even a website. www.spp.gov
edit 2: Oh god, the pile keeps growing - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll931.xml
"LET'S NOT DEMAND BURMA TO RELEASE AUNG SAN SUU KYI"
Haven't we been demanding that for years? Yes. Has it worked? No.
-
:wtf: When did I say that?
Whops. Wrong quote v:]v
Besides, 10 years ago anyone saying that there would eventually be an American Union was laughed at for being a conspiracy theorist, but now here we are. Our dear leaders haven't kept this a secret and have had at least one conference about it. Now there's even a website. www.spp.gov
What is this NAO you are talking about? Is it simpler mobility of goods and people and common regulation on some areas, or full union?
Haven't we been demanding that for years? Yes. Has it worked? No.
...and?
-
:wtf: When did I say that?
Whops. Wrong quote v:]v
Besides, 10 years ago anyone saying that there would eventually be an American Union was laughed at for being a conspiracy theorist, but now here we are. Our dear leaders haven't kept this a secret and have had at least one conference about it. Now there's even a website. www.spp.gov
What is this NAO you are talking about? Is it simpler mobility of goods and people and common regulation on some areas, or full union?
Haven't we been demanding that for years? Yes. Has it worked? No.
...and?
At this point how far the NAU goes remains to be seen. It could be just what it says it is, or it could be much more.
......and if one method doesn't work, how about trying another?
-
At this point how far the NAU goes remains to be seen. It could be just what it says it is, or it could be much more.
Yup.
......and if one method doesn't work, how about trying another?
Strangely enough, Dr. Paul did not propose any other legislation to replace that.
You see, diplomatic disapproval is a very common tool in international diplomacy. Seriously:
"We do not approve that you Myanmar junta guys hold opposition leader in custody. Naughty you." and then Ronppa votes "NO this shall not pass!"
-
Besides, 10 years ago anyone saying that there would eventually be an American Union was laughed at for being a conspiracy theorist, but now here we are. Our dear leaders haven't kept this a secret and have had at least one conference about it. Now there's even a website. www.spp.gov
What is this NAO you are talking about? Is it simpler mobility of goods and people and common regulation on some areas, or full union
I dont get it, you just said its conspiracy theory and now you ask if the NAO even exists?
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA&feature=related
NAFTA Super Highway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsvZys5hF4Y&feature=related
And that website is funny. It says it isnt planning to get a common currency, but they are already planning the Amero! It also says they arent planing the superhighway either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98
Ed
-
A centralized currency sounds like a good idea in my opinion. The NAFTA superhighway sounds good too.
-
A centralized currency sounds like a good idea in my opinion. The NAFTA superhighway sounds good too.
How about ID chip implants?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-PIyL3ke24
(Im using this video because of all the news clips)
Yours will be the kind of attitude the welcomes all these things because of the claimed positive effects and maybe not even notice what society turns into and its too late. When they make it so you have to have an implanted chip in order to function in society you will be able to be tracked at all times no matter where you go. And you will welcome it because you think it is protecting you somehow. If you think this is far fetched just look at ID cards being ushered in, that RFID chips are already in many passports and in order to do many things in todays society you NEED a credit card. The US already has the Patriot Act where they can do whatever they like to you without any reason or evidence at all, if this isnt stopped it can get even worse.
If we dont resist this we will all be controlled like the plot in some SCI-FI distopian vision of the future, and its really not looking so unrealistic anymore.A plot to create a world government may be just a conspiracy theory, but I get the feeling that if that also turned out to be true you would also welcome it just like you did here.
-
You see, diplomatic disapproval is a very common tool in international diplomacy. Seriously:
"We do not approve that you Myanmar junta guys hold opposition leader in custody. Naughty you." and then Ronppa votes "NO this shall not pass!"
Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?
No. Because it's none of their business.
-
A centralized currency sounds like a good idea in my opinion. The NAFTA superhighway sounds good too.
Here's the issue with the NAFTA superhighway. There would be no customs checks until they get to the middle of Kansas City which will be a MEXICAN customs port, staffed with mexican customs officials, and it would be mexican soil.
-
Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?
No. Because it's none of their business.
Apples and oranges.
-
How about ID chip implants?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-PIyL3ke24
(Im using this video because of all the news clips)
Yours will be the kind of attitude the welcomes all these things because of the claimed positive effects and maybe not even notice what society turns into and its too late. When they make it so you have to have an implanted chip in order to function in society you will be able to be tracked at all times no matter where you go. And you will welcome it because you think it is protecting you somehow. If you think this is far fetched just look at ID cards being ushered in, that RFID chips are already in many passports and in order to do many things in todays society you NEED a credit card. The US already has the Patriot Act where they can do whatever they like to you without any reason or evidence at all, if this isnt stopped it can get even worse.
If we dont resist this we will all be controlled like the plot in some SCI-FI distopian vision of the future, and its really not looking so unrealistic anymore.A plot to create a world government may be just a conspiracy theory, but I get the feeling that if that also turned out to be true you would also welcome it just like you did here.
I never said I supported stuff like RealID, Verichip and RFID chips. Quite the contrary, I'm very against them.
I do support a stronger North American trade union though.
Here's the issue with the NAFTA superhighway. There would be no customs checks until they get to the middle of Kansas City which will be a MEXICAN customs port, staffed with mexican customs officials, and it would be mexican soil.
Give me some sources.
-
How about a resolution by the city of kansas city.......
Section 1. That the inland Mexican customs facility to be constructed on the Liberty Site is hereby named the Kansas City Customs Port.
http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Documents/Document.aspx?q=%2BSOiLiH6CV0JIMnyTK6Jav6tMSRgrBqP1uJ3dfIFWX3kFlAN%2Bx9mJ7AQvJb3w%2BBs
'nuff said.
-
Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?
No. Because it's none of their business.
Apples and oranges.
No it's not.
-
How about a resolution by the city of kansas city.......
Section 1. That the inland Mexican customs facility to be constructed on the Liberty Site is hereby named the Kansas City Customs Port.
http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Documents/Document.aspx?q=%2BSOiLiH6CV0JIMnyTK6Jav6tMSRgrBqP1uJ3dfIFWX3kFlAN%2Bx9mJ7AQvJb3w%2BBs
'nuff said.
That doesn't say the port will be Mexican soil, nor that it will be staffed by Mexican customs officials. It doesn't say there won't be customs checks until it reaches that point either.
-
Here's the issue with the NAFTA superhighway. There would be no customs checks until they get to the middle of Kansas City which will be a MEXICAN customs port, staffed with mexican customs officials, and it would be mexican soil.
That's called preclearance, and it already happens all the time. It's also quite successful.
There are Canadian Customs and Immigration officers based in offices in the US which are considered canadian soil, and vice versa. This is nothing new or ominous.
-
So why call it a "Mexican customs facility" if it isn't involved with Mexico? I have yet to see an American customs facility not staffed by americans and not considered to be american soil.
-
So why call it a "Mexican customs facility" if it isn't involved with Mexico? I have yet to see an American customs facility not staffed by americans and not considered to be american soil.
Ok, what's so bad about that? Wouldn't a Mexican Embassy be considered Mexican soil? Are those so bad?
-
Last time I checked embassy's didn't control what can and cannot come in.
-
Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?
No. Because it's none of their business.
Apples and oranges.
No it's not.
Yes it is, because those are not developing countries which arrest opposition leaders and violently crack down on peaceful protests, and of course that's also "THOSE GUYS DO IT TOO" -argument which does not in any way invalidate the original argument, even if the two were directly comparable.
-
So why call it a "Mexican customs facility" if it isn't involved with Mexico? I have yet to see an American customs facility not staffed by americans and not considered to be american soil.
You don't get it.
It's called pre-clearance. That Customs office would process people entering Mexico; it would be staffed by Mexican Customs and it would be Mexican territory; just like the various airport pre-clearance areas in both the US and Canada are already.
In my city, there is an American customs office, staffed by Americans, which is considered American soil. I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
That would be a Mexican customs facility doing pre-clearance into Mexico. Chances are there'd be a US customs facility eithe right next to it, or across the border in Mexico doing pre-clearance for US entry.
-
Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?
No. Because it's none of their business.
Apples and oranges.
No it's not.
Yes it is, because those are not developing countries which arrest opposition leaders and violently crack down on peaceful protests, and of course that's also "THOSE GUYS DO IT TOO" -argument which does not in any way invalidate the original argument, even if the two were directly comparable.
No it isn't.
The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process. The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.
It's the same concept. Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.
-
No it isn't.
The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process. The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.
It's the same concept. Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.
But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?
-
No it isn't.
The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process. The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.
It's the same concept. Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.
But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?
Given the situations I listed, yes. Some critique may not be necessary or valid, as in who a people elect as leader or minor nitpicky issues; condemning an administration for gassing its own people, causing a civil war, or blatantly violating human rights, on the other hand, is very valid.
-
No it isn't.
The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process. The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.
It's the same concept. Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.
But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?
Given the situations I listed, yes. Some critique may not be necessary or valid, as in who a people elect as leader or minor nitpicky issues; condemning an administration for gassing its own people, causing a civil war, or blatantly violating human rights, on the other hand, is very valid.
So, where does arresting opposition leaders, keeping them in custody for... 17 years, by now, and also violently cracking down on peaceful protest fall?
-
The valid and necessary international condemnation.
So why are we arguing this point? We seem to agree on it anyway.
-
See, I'm against the notion that any government which isn't a prosperous, peaceful, liberal democracy is the devil incarnate. In other words: if you ain't Sweden, you're evil.
Europe's love affair with human rights has lasted for all of about fifty years. Maybe a hundred, if you're generous. For the other two thousand, they were busy butchering each other and executing dissidents left, right and center. And now suddenly, because they decree it to be so, anyone who wants to run their country differently should be sanctioned and/or bombed into compliance. It's all a bit hypocritical, y'know? If modern standards were applied, every European statesman of the past millennium would be brought up on charges that would make Milosevic seem like a choir boy.
And then there's the little matter of diplomatic condemnation being so damn selective. I don't hear too many tough words about Saudi Arabia coming from Brussels or Washington. Maybe it's all that oil money the princes keep giving away, eh? Or Egypt, Jordan, Georgia, Haiti, Pakistan (until recently), Iraq (death squads, what? torture, what?) or the aforementioned US and UK. If you (meaning the government) are going to be a self-righteous prick, it might help to apply that standard equally.
-
The valid and necessary international condemnation.
So why are we arguing this point? We seem to agree on it anyway.
I don't know.
It most likely started with the entire "Ron Paul voted 'no' on condemning Myanmar's leaders" thing, which I found somewhat weird.
-
See, I'm against the notion that any government which isn't a prosperous, peaceful, liberal democracy is the devil incarnate. In other words: if you ain't Sweden, you're evil.
Europe's love affair with human rights has lasted for all of about fifty years. Maybe a hundred, if you're generous. For the other two thousand, they were busy butchering each other and executing dissidents left, right and center. And now suddenly, because they decree it to be so, anyone who wants to run their country differently should be sanctioned and/or bombed into compliance. It's all a bit hypocritical, y'know? If modern standards were applied, every European statesman of the past millennium would be brought up on charges that would make Milosevic seem like a choir boy.
And then there's the little matter of diplomatic condemnation being so damn selective. I don't hear too many tough words about Saudi Arabia coming from Brussels or Washington. Maybe it's all that oil money the princes keep giving away, eh? Or Egypt, Jordan, Georgia, Haiti, Pakistan (until recently), Iraq (death squads, what? torture, what?) or the aforementioned US and UK. If you (meaning the government) are going to be a self-righteous prick, it might help to apply that standard equally.
That's still a bad equivalency argument and does not make any critique invalid. Mugabe condemning UAE's insane policies might look insane, and it is, but his argument would still be equally valid. You are not attacking the argument. You are attacking the potential arguers. Actually, you are knocking down huge a strawman, since nowhere in this thread have I talked about European leaders.
-
Woohoo! (http://paulcash.slact.net/)
$5.7m in a single day!
Overall Q4 contributions are over $18m.
How d'ya like dem apples!? "Not a top-tier candidate" my ass. Things are starting to look very, very promising.
-
Yay!
Now, the question remains, did he break John Kerry's 2004 record. By the looks of things, he did. :)
EDIT: Awesome. Over $6 million. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TJ04TG0&show_article=1) Beat it by $300k. :)
EDIT2: There's a new campaign slogan for you. Ron Paul, the six million dollar man. :D
-
But remember that was when Kerry had already won the primary. He had the entire Democratic Party behind him.
In this case, not only is it merely a primary campaign but people are emptying out their wallets and literally asking family members to donate whatever money they would have gotten for Christmas presents. It's quite amazing. And the fascinating thing is that Paul's official campaign had nothing at all to do with the fundraising drive. He accomplished more by doing nothing than any other candidate has with the aid of savvy pollsters and media people and PR firms.
edit: any idea of how much the other candidates raised in Q4 so far? Do they even publish the data? I remember RP's Q3 take of $5.2m put him 3rd or 4th, but this time he may actually come out on top.
-
But remember that was when Kerry had already won the primary. He had the entire Democratic Party behind him.
In this case, not only is it merely a primary campaign but people are emptying out their wallets and literally asking family members to donate whatever money they would have gotten for Christmas presents. It's quite amazing. And the fascinating thing is that Paul's official campaign had nothing at all to do with the fundraising drive. He accomplished more by doing nothing than any other candidate has with the aid of savvy pollsters and media people and PR firms.
They aimed for 10m and got ~6m. That's a pretty good fundraising rush though! Although, sadly for Paul... http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php (http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php)
edit: any idea of how much the other candidates raised in Q4 so far? Do they even publish the data? I remember RP's Q3 take of $5.2m put him 3rd or 4th, but this time he may actually come out on top.
Official numbers for Q4 come out in January, but here are confirmed numbers so far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_presidential_election
-
They aimed for 10m and got ~6m. That's a pretty good fundraising rush though! Although, sadly for Paul... http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php (http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php)
They aimed for $12m and got $18m. So far. It'll probably hit $20m. Thanks for the donations info, though.
Also; F**k you Frank! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4&eurl=http://psychsurvivor.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/****-you-frank/).
-
They aimed for $12m and got $18m. So far. It'll probably hit $20m. Thanks for the donations info, though.
Also; F**k you Frank! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4&eurl=http://psychsurvivor.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/****-you-frank/).
Are we talking about the Tea Party thing from just a couple of days ago? That's the one that netted 6m, 4m short of intended amount but still pretty impressive.
As for the Q4, I'm struggling to find good info about current estimations of funds raised.
-
For other candidates' Q4 donations, I have no idea. For Ron Paul, you can check a live donation ticker on his website. Right now it's saying $18,270,000 and the goal for Q4 was $12,000,000. That's what I meant.
Traditionally, candidates see a drop-off in Q4 donations, but assuming that Q3 numbers are repeated across the board RP is coming out on top.
-
For other candidates' Q4 donations, I have no idea. For Ron Paul, you can check a live donation ticker on his website. Right now it's saying $18,270,000 and the goal for Q4 was $12,000,000. That's what I meant.
Traditionally, candidates see a drop-off in Q4 donations, but assuming that Q3 numbers are repeated across the board RP is coming out on top.
He's still polling at roughly 4% nationwide, with double digit polls in New Hampshire (big surprise).
Hey Rictor what do you think of slavery
or what do you think of iranian labour right activists
-
It's bad and they're probably OK guys, respectively.
-
Allright! Thank you for your answers! May I ask some more?
What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"
Ok! Yet one more: What would you think about a presidential candidate who, after receiving Stormfront money does not give it back but instead announces to give a speech in a right wing extremist meeting?
-
What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"
I don't much care what people personally believe, as long as it doesn't affect their policies. And if there's one man who I can trust to not impose his personal opinions on others its the most libertarian guy in US politics. But just to cover my bases, I'm not aware of Ron Paul disbelieving evolution. AFAIK he's not an Evangelical and was born well before the current wave of anti-evolutionist insanity.
Ok! Yet one more: What would you think about a presidential candidate who, after receiving Stormfront money does not give it back but instead announces to give a speech in a right wing extremist meeting?
I can only address the first part, since I don't know what right-wing extremist meeting he has attended.
First of all, let's establish that we're talking about $500 out of around $25m donated so far. Secondly, let's establish that anyone who wants to throw their money away is perfectly entitled to do so. Since we know that a) Ron Paul has never been bought, for any sum, to the point where lobbyists don't even bother going to his office, and b) even if he were for sale, $500 ain't gonna cut it, we can safely conclude that the support of a single white supremacist (or even a thousand of them) has no bearing whatsoever on his policies.
I will also ask you a rhetorical question: even if Ron Paul was receiving massive amounts of money from the likes of Stormfront, which he's not, is that worse than when all the other candidates receive money from the military-industrial complex? Remember that Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, CACI, Blackwater etc don't talk about killing people, they actually make products which are designed specifically for that purpose. Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year. The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands. And every major candidate is taking money from them, except one.
-
What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"
I don't much care what people personally believe, as long as it doesn't affect their policies. And if there's one man who I can trust to not impose his personal opinions on others its the most libertarian guy in US politics. But just to cover my bases, I'm not aware of Ron Paul disbelieving evolution. AFAIK he's not an Evangelical and was born well before the current wave of anti-evolutionist insanity.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011573.php
I can only address the first part, since I don't know what right-wing extremist meeting he has attended.
First of all, let's establish that we're talking about $500 out of around $25m donated so far. Secondly, let's establish that anyone who wants to throw their money away is perfectly entitled to do so. Since we know that a) Ron Paul has never been bought, for any sum, to the point where lobbyists don't even bother going to his office, and b) even if he were for sale, $500 ain't gonna cut it, we can safely conclude that the support of a single white supremacist (or even a thousand of them) has no bearing whatsoever on his policies.
They don't have to affect them, he has already written racist texts :)
If a candidate funds his campaign with money from white supremacists and has written racist texts and attends Robert A. Taft Group's meeting and gives a speech there..
I will also ask you a rhetorical question: even if Ron Paul was receiving massive amounts of money from the likes of Stormfront, which he's not, is that worse than when all the other candidates receive money from the military-industrial complex? Remember that Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, CACI, Blackwater etc don't talk about killing people, they actually make products which are designed specifically for that purpose. Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year. The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands. And every major candidate is taking money from them, except one.
Yes it is.
Racist organizations are different from large companies.
Another is a company that tries to make money.
Another one is an organization that has core values of "people with different skin color are worse than people with THIS skin color".
Large companies do profit a lot from wars. Large companies don't firebomb synagogas or kebab kiosks because they dislike the owner's religion.
If you draw an equivalence argument between white nationalists and Boeing, then you should seek professional help.
-
They don't have to affect them, he has already written racist texts :)
If a candidate funds his campaign with money from white supremacists and has written racist texts and attends Robert A. Taft Group's meeting and gives a speech there..
"Funds his campaign" is vastly, vastly overstating it and you know it. The money given is of no practical importance - it's less than a drop in the bucket. He also has a policy of accepting any donation from anyone for any reason. If the Communist Party USA decided to donate money to him, he'd gladly take it and use it for his campaign.
And though I don't pretend to know the inner workings of the Robert Taft Club, as you surely do, they don't seem to be racist in nature. Not unless you consider Pat Buchanan and his kind to be racists. By your logic, anyone who admires Jefferson or Washington is a racist, since they were slave-owners.
If you draw an equivalence argument between white nationalists and Boeing, then you should seek professional help.
The difference between a corporation and a political party (or whatever Stormfront is) is what a piece of paper legally calls you. It does not allow you operate under different rules of morality.
For someone as seemingly well informed as yourself, you sure are ignorant of the true extent of the suffering caused by a few of these corporations. No, they don't bomb synagogues and kebab-stands - they simply enable others to bomb entire neighborhoods. And it's not even as if they're providing a service which is already needed - they create the need by lobbying endlessly for more wars so that business will never run dry. Are you familiar with the many, many cases of Blackwater personnel firing indiscriminately into crowds of civilians? Are you telling me that their legal status as a corporation magically excuses that? The number of people killed by all neo-Nazi groups combined in any single year is probably in the single digits. One JDAM dropped on a residential neighborhood can top that in an instant.
-
The difference between a corporation and a political party (or whatever Stormfront is) is what a piece of paper legally calls you. It does not allow you operate under different rules of morality.
For someone as seemingly well informed as yourself, you sure are ignorant of the true extent of the suffering caused by a few of these corporations. No, they don't bomb synagogues and kebab-stands - they simply enable others to bomb entire neighborhoods. And it's not even as if they're providing a service which is already needed - they create the need by lobbying endlessly for more wars so that business will never run dry. Are you familiar with the many, many cases of Blackwater personnel firing indiscriminately into crowds of civilians? Are you telling me that their legal status as a corporation magically excuses that? The number of people killed by all neo-Nazi groups combined in any single year is probably in the single digits. One JDAM dropped on a residential neighborhood can top that in an instant.
Rictor.
Boeing does not announce that blacks are an inferior race.
Blackwater does not deny holocaust.
White supremacists do.
EADS does not go around and shoot illegal immigrants.
Seriously.
-
I submit, for your approval, an analogy:
There are two organizations - The National Kill-All-Asians Society (NKAAS) and the Wonderful Old Ladies Bridge Club (WOLBC). The stated goal of NKAAS is to wipe all people of Asian heritage from the face of the Earth, but they're remarkably ineffective at it. They mostly just get drunk and ***** about "dem lousy immigrants". They are the object of hatred and ridicule for most of society, so their options for actually killing people are rather limited. On the other hand, the WOLBC just wants to bake apple pies and read stories to little children, but somehow they end up killing many thousands of people (with the best intentions, of course!) and rampaging through cities, and do so with complete impunity.
Which is worse? Do you measure intent or practical results?
-
Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year.
That's hatred.
The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands.
That's war.
They're not the same thing.
Kthxbai.
-
Gunning down civilians at a busy intersection is not war, it's murder. Just because it happens to be in a different country does not make their behaviour any less acceptable.
-
EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.
Blackwater, Boeing, and the US Army aren't solely responsible for all the death and destruction in Iraq.
Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.
The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.
In other words: Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.
I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq. If they had their heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division. Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.
Protest something that deserves to be protested, like the blatant violation of our civil rights back here in the states by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation. Leave attempting to protect innocent people in the crossfire of a bull**** religious war to the US military, mk?
Kthxbai.
-
I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq. If they had their heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division. Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.
But then, these "enlightened" people are just looking at the situation in its most basic form: Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty but stable. Post-invasion, Iraq is now very ****ty and unstable. Who invaded? The United States. Hmmm. Nah, just ignore me, i've got my head up my ass apparently. Simple logic be damned, nuclear1 knows what he's talking about! :rolleyes:
Seriously, rather than going ape**** for no good reason, just take a step back and realize that you're one of the 'enlightened' who thinks they know what the **** is going on whereas nobody else seems to. It's a complex situation, and it can't be pinned down to a single cause or precipitating factor. Yes, people who say the US military is to blame are morons who have no idea what they're talking about, but don't honestly try to act like you do and expect us to buy your ****.
@Rictor: There's a pretty big divide between the military-industrial complex and radical hate-groups like Stormfront. It'd be nice if you could acknowledge that rather large distinction instead of acting like a cliche, 60's-era hippie who thinks only in absolutes.
-
EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.
-snip-
Woah, no offense intended man. I only brought up the military-industrial complex (not the military, mind you) as a tangential issue. The point I was trying to make is that the undue influence of the military-industrial complex on US politics is a far greater threat, both to freedom and peace, than the deluded schemes of a few powerless bigots.
But it's a moot point, since Ron Paul ain't a racist, ain't being financed by racists, has no connection to racists and has never implemented a single racist policy. My comparison was therefore a rhetorical one.
@Rictor: There's a pretty big divide between the military-industrial complex and radical hate-groups like Stormfront. It'd be nice if you could acknowledge that rather large distinction instead of acting like a cliche, 60's-era hippie who thinks only in absolutes.
For the last time, I look at results. Intentions exist in one's head, they are not a quantifiable unit. Stormfront is, to my mind, a bunch of powerless loonies. They have no impact on the lives of anyone. They have relevance only within their own circles. They can believe in Lord Cthulhu for all the difference it makes - their position is marginal, their support is non-existent and their potential for violence is slim-to-none.
Now CACI, on the other hand, has enormous influence. They invest millions into lobbying efforts and recieve billions in return from the government. These are facts, what are we even disputing?
-
I submit, for your approval, an analogy:
There are two organizations - The National Kill-All-Asians Society (NKAAS) and the Wonderful Old Ladies Bridge Club (WOLBC). The stated goal of NKAAS is to wipe all people of Asian heritage from the face of the Earth, but they're remarkably ineffective at it. They mostly just get drunk and ***** about "dem lousy immigrants". They are the object of hatred and ridicule for most of society, so their options for actually killing people are rather limited. On the other hand, the WOLBC just wants to bake apple pies and read stories to little children, but somehow they end up killing many thousands of people (with the best intentions, of course!) and rampaging through cities, and do so with complete impunity.
Which is worse? Do you measure intent or practical results?
And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!
Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.
I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with. You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.
-
But then, these "enlightened" people are just looking at the situation in its most basic form: Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty but stable. Post-invasion, Iraq is now very ****ty and unstable. Who invaded? The United States. Hmmm. Nah, just ignore me, i've got my head up my ass apparently. Simple logic be damned, nuclear1 knows what he's talking about!
Pre-invasion, Iraq was ****ty and somewhat stable. I'll give you that much. Now I give you two situations:
Post-invasion: the US military knocks Saddam and the ruling Sunnis out of power, leaving to power struggle and religious tension between the two groups in Iraq.
Post-Saddam's-inevitable-death: with Saddam out of power, the Shi'ites finally go absolutely ape**** on the ruling Sunnis, and you get almost the exact same thing going on in Iraq right now. Only difference is the US military isn't involved.
I'm just saying what's going in Iraq was inevitable, US invasion or not. The military accelerated events, not initiated them.
But yes, you're right in that my post was somewhat uncalled for, but I flip **** for a reason. As part of the US military stationed in California, I see more than my fair share of anti-military demonstrations sometimes less than a mile from the front gate. I suppose I just finally snapped.
-
I'm just saying what's going in Iraq was inevitable, US invasion or not. The military accelerated events, not initiated them.
Perhaps it was, but in that situation at least we wouldn't have the blood of tens of thousands of civilians on our hands at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.
-
And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!
Yes, specific companies (large or small) play a part in perpetuating and starting wars. War is their business, so they have a vested interest in more war. This ain't new, it's been going on in its present form for half a century. I can't imagine you being naive enough to believe that Raytheon is the same as your neighborhood hardware store, just bigger. Have you heard nothing about the massive collusion between certain private companies and public officials, the corruption, the criminal behaviour and so on?
Let's put it this way: I have a company who's primary revenue comes from selling tooth-paste to the military. Do I, as a sane business owner, want there to be more brushing of teeth, or less? Now replace "tooth-paste" with "C-130s" and you have the idea.
Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.
I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with. You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.
How many Congressmen does the White Nationalist movement have? How many Senators? Governors? Judges? Mayors? School-board trustees? They're a joke to everyone but themselves. Racism, as a way of thought and way of life, is virtually dead in the Western world. We are not living in the 1930s, with the KKK going around lynching people. I live in the most multicultural city in the world, and I see no oppressed masses, no racial riots, no dirty looks. Ron Paul's "long association" with White Nationlism is composed entirely of a single man donating $500.
And for the record, I support dishing out government money to virtually no one, which would include anyone associated with genocide. But I don't think that it's the government's job to tell private businesses who they can and can't do business with.
-
And pray tell me, what common does this hypothetical WOLBC has to do with large companies? Did these large companies start a war? Where? What sources do you have? It's almost as if you were trying to draw a false analogy in an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that a certain person has been associating with white nationalists a bit too much to just ignore it!
Yes, specific companies (large or small) play a part in perpetuating and starting wars. War is their business, so they have a vested interest in more war. This ain't new, it's been going on in its present form for half a century. I can't imagine you being naive enough to believe that Raytheon is the same as your neighborhood hardware store, just bigger. Have you heard nothing about the massive collusion between certain private companies and public officials, the corruption, the criminal behaviour and so on?
Let's put it this way: I have a company who's primary revenue comes from selling tooth-paste to the military. Do I, as a sane business owner, want there to be more brushing of teeth, or less? Now replace "tooth-paste" with "C-130s" and you have the idea.
1. Cause and effect. For a completely amoral actor it is completely irrelevant why some organization decides to buy their product, only the money means.
US government started Iraq war. Not private companies. US government. Now US government is giving money to private companies because of war. These guys profit from war. So do many other people, but they still are not responsible for this.
2. This is still a goddamn stupid red herring: Ron Paul took money from white supremacists, has associated with white supremacists, has written racist text and, pay attention, this has nothing to do at all with "big companies war for blood for oil".
Stormfront.org is pretty much an international discussion forum for white nationalists. That discussion forum has about 130 000 posting members. It is about as irrelevant to white nationalists than Reuters is for newspapers, IF YOU EXCUSE MY ANALOGY.
I don't even know why I should answer your false dilemma, because it is not what we are discussing. You are seriously saying hat large companies that produce fighter-bombers or guided bombs (which are then used by governments) are worse than violent neo-nazi groups because their products are used in warfare, whereas neo-nazis "just" kill people they have a beef with. You have also been supporting legislation to allow religious persecution, discrimination based on sexual preferences and legislation to bring back segregation on this very same thread. You have also pretty much supported just dishing out governmental money to organizations participating in genocide.
How many Congressmen does the White Nationalist movement have? How many Senators? Governors? Judges? Mayors? School-board trustees? They're a joke to everyone but themselves. Racism, as a way of thought and way of life, is virtually dead in the Western world. We are not living in the 1930s, with the KKK going around lynching people. I live in the most multicultural city in the world, and I see no oppressed masses, no racial riots, no dirty looks. Ron Paul's "long association" with White Nationlism is composed entirely of a single man donating $500.
[/quote]
THEM BEING A JOKE DOES NOT MAKE PEOPLE THEY HAVE KILLED ANY MORE ALIVE
THESE GUYS KILL PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HATE THOSE PEOPLE FOR WHAT THEY WERE BORN FOR
I don't know why you would consider a roof organization for neo-nazis, from Eastern Europe for example, a joke. Well, of course since you were only speaking of USA you have little idea how ****ing dangerous and violent these people are. Thankfully they cannot donate for Ron Paul's campaign.
Oh, and before we start with that I hope you can seriously explain this picture:
http://texasfred.net/archives/866 (http://texasfred.net/archives/866)
That's Don Black, the guy who donated 500 bucks to Ron Paul. He's the top dog of Stormfront. Does Ron Paul either
A) not check who he meets with - which speaks volumes about his abilities,
B) not care about who he meets - which speaks volumes about his integrity, or
C) not just care or actively meet white supremacists - which speaks volumes about his values?
I also hope how you will explain away the "fleet-footed negroes" thing.
And for the record, I support dishing out government money to virtually no one, which would include anyone associated with genocide. But I don't think that it's the government's job to tell private businesses who they can and can't do business with.
Wait a minute.
Government should not make deal out money to people? But Ron Paul voted for actually continuing it! Ok, so he votes for continuing to give money to a private company - but it is not what he is for, he is actually against that kind of thing, but THIS is the thing where he votes for continuing it because...
So when you think that government should not intervene, it means that government should continue to give money to companies which profit from Darfur crisis?
Private companies do this all the time - they check out who they make contracts with. But a government shouldn't abide by the same rules? They shouldn't give money to anyone, but if they refuse to make contracts with someone then NYAH IT IS NOT VALID BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T GIVE MONEY NO WAIT
Should government even follow free market methods? How do you propose government does anything at all? Oh, nothing - so let's just spend money on this? Government should not follow normal market procedures but just giving money to companies although it is bad?
Seriously, can't you see how ****ing contradictional this is?
-
EDIT: Maybe here's a little more graceful of saying what I've been trying to say.
Blackwater, Boeing, and the US Army aren't solely responsible for all the death and destruction in Iraq.
Definitely not, they all are there because US government decided to wage a war against Iraq.
Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'
And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION
The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.
You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.
In other words: Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.
You can well blame military for many things, but Military certainly did not start that entire goddamn spectacly of stupidity. Now that they are there - I think it's completely fair to, for example, blame soldiers for crimes they have commited. That is ultimately a burden and fault of USA as a state, but does not remove guilt from an individual or an organization lower in the hierarchy.
I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq. If they had their
heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division. Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.
That's a ridiculous strawman - not all, I'd dare say not nearly all people who are opposed to Iraq war are ideologically opposed to USA, and you are throwing that anti-americanism thing there just in a badly veiled attempt to remove credibility from them.
That talking point died in 2004, why do you regurgitate that still?
Protest something that deserves to be protested, like the blatant violation of our civil rights back here in the states by the Patriot Act and other similar legislation. Leave attempting to protect innocent people in the crossfire of a bull**** religious war to the US military, mk?
Kthxbai.
Hey dude. I am no American citizen, and I will sympathize with Iraqis who's lives reckelss US foreign policy has destroyed. Don't throw that **** at me.
-
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7100/ronpauldoesntlikeblackpsj3.gif)
-
Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'
And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION
I thought it existed because of a centuries-old theological argument over who should be the rightful successor to Mohamed.
Or maybe it exists because Europe drew borders in the Middle East without any sort of regard to ethnic and religious differences and expected everyone to get along. You know, kinda how they did it in Africa, and how it resulted in nearly 1,000,000 dead in Rwanda?
Oh, and I think the brutal rule under Saddam of the Shi'ites and Kurds may have also had something to do with why those two groups so hate their former Sunni masters.
As I said, it was inevitable. Yes, we in the US did take a sledgehammer to the leaky faucet and got ourselves all wet, but that doesn't mean the faucet wasn't going to blow anyway.
The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.
You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.
Of course it is, I'm not denying that. As cold and cruel as it sounds, I think the groups in Iraq just need to be allowed to slug it out and eventually just get tired of it if they're ever going to have a true national identity. Every major European country and the United States has had a civil war and sorted things out, why not just let Iraq go the same way?
In other words: Stop blaming the US military for something they didn't ****ing start.
You can well blame military for many things, but Military certainly did not start that entire goddamn spectacly of stupidity. Now that they are there - I think it's completely fair to, for example, blame soldiers for crimes they have commited. That is ultimately a burden and fault of USA as a state, but does not remove guilt from an individual or an organization lower in the hierarchy.
And the soldiers do get punished. We have the UCMJ for a reason--the military doesn't take criminal activity by its members lightly in the least bit.
I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq. If they had their
heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division. Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.
That's a ridiculous strawman - not all, I'd dare say not nearly all people who are opposed to Iraq war are ideologically opposed to USA, and you are throwing that anti-americanism thing there just in a badly veiled attempt to remove credibility from them.
That talking point died in 2004, why do you regurgitate that still?
Because I still see organizations like ANSWER, Not In Our Name, and people like Cindy Sheehan encouraging desertion and rebellion in the military and referring to America as an evil empire. As long as they keep encouraging criminal activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCMJ#Punitive_Articles), I'll keep attacking whatever "credibility" they have.
-
Religious war is destroying Iraq, not the US military.
The US military so far has been caught in the middle of said religious war.'
And why does this religious war exist? HMMMM
CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BE ANYTHING THAT LEAD TO COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF SECURITY WHICH IN TURN LEAD INTO THIS SITUATION
I thought it existed because of a centuries-old theological argument over who should be the rightful successor to Mohamed.
Surprisingly, this said religious conflict hasn't been ablaze for a long time, but somehow miraculously flamed up when US crushed Saddam and failed to provide necessary security. Miraculous, I know.
Or maybe it exists because Europe drew borders in the Middle East without any sort of regard to ethnic and religious differences and expected everyone to get along. You know, kinda how they did it in Africa, and how it resulted in nearly 1,000,000 dead in Rwanda?
And yet Saudi-Arabia and Jemen are not ethnically cleansing each other. Are you seriously trying to blame Iraq on Europeans? Are you really attempting that?
Oh, and I think the brutal rule under Saddam of the Shi'ites and Kurds may have also had something to do with why those two groups so hate their former Sunni masters.
Certainly. So what?
As I said, it was inevitable. Yes, we in the US did take a sledgehammer to the leaky faucet and got ourselves all wet, but that doesn't mean the faucet wasn't going to blow anyway.
Prove it was inevitable.
The only way Iraq is going to be fixed is if the two groups just shut the **** up and get the **** along.
You know quite well why they fight and that is easier said than done.
Of course it is, I'm not denying that. As cold and cruel as it sounds, I think the groups in Iraq just need to be allowed to slug it out and eventually just get tired of it if they're ever going to have a true national identity. Every major European country and the United States has had a civil war and sorted things out, why not just let Iraq go the same way?[/quote]
Oh yes, we should let them, after all it's great fun!
I think you forgot something:
What is the reason Iraq is in civil war right now?
And the soldiers do get punished. We have the UCMJ for a reason--the military doesn't take criminal activity by its members lightly in the least bit.
Yup.
Because I still see organizations like ANSWER, Not In Our Name, and people like Cindy Sheehan encouraging desertion and rebellion in the military and referring to America as an evil empire. As long as they keep encouraging criminal activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCMJ#Punitive_Articles), I'll keep attacking whatever "credibility" they have.
Hey, how many Iraq war critics you have bravely battled in the internet have been members of these organization, or have you battled the horrendous endboss Sheehan herself! Have you considered the possibility that because such sentiment is so widespread it's because there is something to it?
First you harped about how anti-americans hate US military, now you watered it down quite a bit. And that desertion thing is nowhere near the top when it comes to Iraq debacle.
-
(http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7100/ronpauldoesntlikeblackpsj3.gif)
"... or get rid of constitutional protection for birthright citizenship, or gut the 14th amendment, or get rid of establishment cause, or get abortion banned in fed level, or get rid of sexual freedom, or get rid of damn atheists having state positions in several states, or give more money for killing the inferiors in sudan, or get rid of food and drug administration, or get rid of federal requirements for education, or get rid of desegregation laws, or drive the us and world economy into the ****ter with gold standard... choices, choices, choices..."
Don Black would probably just say "ugh" thouh. And that fukken hat, that goddamn stupid hat, I want to shoot it.
-
Surprisingly, this said religious conflict hasn't been ablaze for a long time, but somehow miraculously flamed up when US crushed Saddam and failed to provide necessary security. Miraculous, I know.
Miraculous, yes, because of the peace forced on Iraq (and the entire region, for that matter) for several hundred years by the Ottomans, the British, and Saddam.
And yet Saudi-Arabia and Jemen are not ethnically cleansing each other. Are you seriously trying to blame Iraq on Europeans? Are you really attempting that?
Yes actually, I am. Thanks to the Mandate of Mesopotamia, Britain decided to make Iraq all one country, rather than divide into three as it should've for the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis. The only reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites have ever cooperated in Iraqi history is to oust the British from the country, and after that came years of Sunni oppression of the other two groups through one government.
Prove it was inevitable.
Look at Yugoslavia. Josef Tito barely held together a nation of ethnically- and religiously-divided groups until his death in 1980. None of his successors were anywhere near strong enough to hold the same peace. And that was without decades of one group repressing the others. IMO, Tito was one of the best rulers Europe had ever seen in terms of respecting human rights and unifying a country. Now look where the Balkans are.
Not enough? April 6, 1994, the plane carrying Juvénal Habyarimana, President of Rwanda is shot down. No succession leads to a power vacuum. In the chaos that follows, the extremist Hutus kill anywhere between 800,000 to 1,000,000 moderate Hutus and Tutsis.
So combine the two situations. Saddam couldn't have had a successor politician as strong as he was to keep the country unified, as per the Yugoslavia example. Ethnic tensions already existed between the Sunnis and Shi'ites due to their religious differences, and had a history of fighting. Once the one unifying force in the country was out of power or had died, each side, led by extremist demagogues, had at each other, as happened in both Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
Amazing how history repeats itself, eh?
Oh yes, we should let them, after all it's great fun!
I think you forgot something:
What is the reason Iraq is in civil war right now?
Because the US military started something that Iraq was going to face one way or the other thanks to decades of Sunni oppression?
Hey, how many Iraq war critics you have bravely battled in the internet have been members of these organization, or have you battled the horrendous endboss Sheehan herself! Have you considered the possibility that because such sentiment is so widespread it's because there is something to it?
First you harped about how anti-americans hate US military, now you watered it down quite a bit. And that desertion thing is nowhere near the top when it comes to Iraq debacle.
Would it have killed you to figure out by looking at my signature that I'm actually a part of the US military, who these organizations are directly attacking? Or did you just up and assume that I live in a nice cushioned basement somewhere and have no idea what I'm dealing with?
I'm actually referring more to the people that I see three or four times a year outside the gates at Presidio where I'm stationed. I have to deal with their nonsense on a regular basis, which is why I'm quite fed up with their ilk by now. When you have people constantly calling you and your friends agents of an "evil empire" and being repeatedly told that your work is only helping to expand "American aggression in the Middle East", then you start to not have the warmest feelings towards these groups.
And wonderful Miss Sheehan herself, IIRC, has more than once called for "moral and financial support" for US soldiers who may be court-martialed for desertion or otherwise opposing the war in uniform. That's supporting criminal behavior, as defined under the UCMJ. So really, when I say the anti-war movement is trying to destroy the military from within, I'm not joking or just being a raving-mad Bushfanatic.
-
Surprisingly, this said religious conflict hasn't been ablaze for a long time, but somehow miraculously flamed up when US crushed Saddam and failed to provide necessary security. Miraculous, I know.
Miraculous, yes, because of the peace forced on Iraq (and the entire region, for that matter) for several hundred years by the Ottomans, the British, and Saddam.
And somehow the peace lasted. It couldn't be... security?
And yet Saudi-Arabia and Jemen are not ethnically cleansing each other. Are you seriously trying to blame Iraq on Europeans? Are you really attempting that?
Yes actually, I am. Thanks to the Mandate of Mesopotamia, Britain decided to make Iraq all one country, rather than divide into three as it should've for the Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis. The only reason the Sunnis and Shi'ites have ever cooperated in Iraqi history is to oust the British from the country, and after that came years of Sunni oppression of the other two groups through one government.
[/quote]
Well that's a big and stupid mistake, because it was US-lead coalition that steamrolled into Iraq in 2004 and caused the complete crash of security and infrastructure. It wasn't "Europe". You could as well be blaming mongols. But their tanks do not patrol the streets of Baghdad now.
Seriously: the entire situation in Iraq is what it is because of the war.
Sunnis and Shiites also cooperated against Iran (which is a Shia country), which makes your entire "religious civil war is inevitable" argument sound very hollow, but let's just conveniently forget that ok.
Look at Yugoslavia. Josef Tito barely held together a nation of ethnically- and religiously-divided groups until his death in 1980. None of his successors were anywhere near strong enough to hold the same peace. And that was without decades of one group repressing the others. IMO, Tito was one of the best rulers Europe had ever seen in terms of respecting human rights and unifying a country. Now look where the Balkans are.
Not enough? April 6, 1994, the plane carrying Juvénal Habyarimana, President of Rwanda is shot down. No succession leads to a power vacuum. In the chaos that follows, the extremist Hutus kill anywhere between 800,000 to 1,000,000 moderate Hutus and Tutsis.
So combine the two situations. Saddam couldn't have had a successor politician as strong as he was to keep the country unified, as per the Yugoslavia example. Ethnic tensions already existed between the Sunnis and Shi'ites due to their religious differences, and had a history of fighting. Once the one unifying force in the country was out of power or had died, each side, led by extremist demagogues, had at each other, as happened in both Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
Amazing how history repeats itself, eh?
Because the US military started something that Iraq was going to face one way or the other thanks to decades of Sunni oppression?
Yes it is amazing, because it does not, because the situations and consequences are completely different!
You are falling in a pit. Iraq situation is not analogous to Rwanda or Yugoslavia, because it's Iraq, not Rwanda or Yugoslavia. Civil wars have been prevented all the time, they have started and died, and they have rarely been huge ethnic cleansings. And they always start out for some reason. If something is a catalyte for reaction, if something starts because actor A makes a choice which then leads to bad consequences, even though actor A has been warned that it is a possibility and they should prevent it, then yes, bad consequences are actor A's fault!
Many middle eastern countries have fared quite well without civil war even if they had significant ethnic and religious divides. Iraq survived without civil war for several centuries, and flared up after a botched invasion which destroyed everything and gave nothing. And you are now claiming it was inevitable, that it would have happened?
Would it have killed you to figure out by looking at my signature that I'm actually a part of the US military, who these organizations are directly attacking? Or did you just up and assume that I live in a nice cushioned basement somewhere and have no idea what I'm dealing with?
Are you certain you're in a right profession? Seeing you flip out at imaginary boogiemen in internet - ones you made up yourself, as a matter of fact! - does not really make us trust you, and yet you carry a gun. Maybe you shouldn't be out there, risking your fellows and civilians.
Seriously, I don't care if you were an admiral in Congo navy, it doesn't make your arguments any more sensible. If anything, you react far too emotionally to this.
I'm actually referring more to the people that I see three or four times a year outside the gates at Presidio where I'm stationed. I have to deal with their nonsense on a regular basis, which is why I'm quite fed up with their ilk by now. When you have people constantly calling you and your friends agents of an "evil empire" and being repeatedly told that your work is only helping to expand "American aggression in the Middle East", then you start to not have the warmest feelings towards these groups.
So you think everyone's like that? Hey dude, I am not, and I doubt Rictor is either, so what exactly are you raging against?
You started this entire argument! That's a strawman - no one has argued anything like that! Goddamnit, learn your fallacies and don't use them.
I think I'm just going to paraphrase you:
[/i]I'm really tired of hearing the ****ing "enlightened" blame the US and the coalition for destroying Iraq. If they had their
heads out of their ****ing anti-imperialist, anti-American asses for two seconds they would realize that this war has little-to-nothing to do with the US being in Iraq, but 100% more over the Sunni/Shi'a division. Religious ****ing zealots are destroying that country, not George Bush, General Petraeus, or Tony Blair.[/i]
For all this time you have consistently argued that even though USA-led coalition attacked Iraq war without justification and under false pretenses and even though the failed in the occupation state and even though this failure directly gave way for different extreme groups to take arms and rise agains whatever they rise against and even though USA has just jumped from one failure to other and even though USA was warned that this was a possibility before the invasion even began and even though generals wanted ~300 000 troops to secure post-invasion security it still is not USA's fault at the slightest!
That kind of cognitive dissonance really deserves some kind of metal.
And wonderful Miss Sheehan herself, IIRC, has more than once called for "moral and financial support" for US soldiers who may be court-martialed for desertion or otherwise opposing the war in uniform. That's supporting criminal behavior, as defined under the UCMJ. So really, when I say the anti-war movement is trying to destroy the military from within, I'm not joking or just being a raving-mad Bushfanatic.
who has supported that in this thread and what does it have to do with anything
edit: Now I know how all those German generals felt, facing a two-front war and all
I yell and call for help
-
hahhahaha this is just too good
Rictor, sorry to rail on you, but what do you think about sexual harassment? If a woman is harrassed on her workplace, is it her fault and she should quit, or is the harasser one to blame?