Jump to content


Photo

Ron Paul


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#21 Jason

Jason

    Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:24 AM

While I don't agree with him on many things, I will be going all in for Ron Paul. In order to have a nation, it must have a sound monetary system, and respect the rule of law. Absent these, the defensive function of the state will fail (which, as JRN as points out, is exactly what Russia and China want.) If the economy collapses, everything else -- overseas wars, social programs, et. al will very quickly become secondary concerns.

Liberal Democracy as it exists in the U.S. and Europe is in very serious danger of failing (and being replaced with God knows what). The only one of these candidates who understands this is RP. I am in the process of writing a few articles (LOAC & Just War Theory, On Liberal Democracy) in support of Paul. Hopefully I can get them published.

If we can save the monetary system and restore the rule of law, then we can talk about everything else. I am not optimistic.

#22 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

While I don't agree with him on many things, I will be going all in for Ron Paul. In order to have a nation, it must have a sound monetary system, and respect the rule of law. Absent these, the defensive function of the state will fail (which, as JRN as points out, is exactly what Russia and China want.) If the economy collapses, everything else -- overseas wars, social programs, et. al will very quickly become secondary concerns.

Liberal Democracy as it exists in the U.S. and Europe is in very serious danger of failing (and being replaced with God knows what). The only one of these candidates who understands this is RP. I am in the process of writing a few articles (LOAC & Just War Theory, On Liberal Democracy) in support of Paul. Hopefully I can get them published.

If we can save the monetary system and restore the rule of law, then we can talk about everything else. I am not optimistic.


I cannot support Ron Paul. If he was at least reasonable with his foreign policy, I would vote for him. But he is not. He is the same typical NWO bigot who sees Israel as a "Zionist" influence on American politics. He does not support Israel, and he is not an enemy to our enemies. He cannot be trusted.

#23 pizzaman

pizzaman

    Member

  • Members
  • 527 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:29 PM

Russian network host boasts of 'money bomb' for Ron Paul


I am not at all surprised that the Russians like his proposed foreign policies.
My fear is that Ron Paul will pull a Ross Perot and usher in a second term for Dear Leader.
BTW......those who think that Obama will be run out on a rail in 2012 may be in for a big surprise.
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson
You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge. Rush 'Show Don't Tell'
"The best is yet to come..." Barack Obama, re-election victory speech, 11-6-2012

#24 Engineer

Engineer

    Member

  • Members
  • 193 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 06:27 PM

......those who think that Obama will be run out on a rail in 2012 may be in for a big surprise.


I think the Obummer may be re-elected. The GOP field is not strong, and every one of them have serious problems.

I think many of you miss a not so subtle difference in two terms - Isolationism and Interventionism.

Neocons are of teh persuasion that any foreign policy that does not have running around trying to put out the world's brush fires is isolationism. That's the wrong term to use. That would be non-interventionism. Interventionism is also known as Wilsonism, and that is the idea that got us into WW1, a family spat between crowned heads in Europe. The Lusitania junk was just that, Junk (the Lusitania was an auxiliary cruiser carrying war material in addition to passengers and the Germans took out newspaper ads warning people that she was liable to be sunk). We came in and tipped teh balance against the central powers when the war was already at a stalemate which was on the verge of being solved by negotiation. Our involvement led directly to Hitler and WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Although i am a Christian Zionist, I have admit there is a lot of truth about the Israelis tail wagging the US dog. A goodly bit of our ME foreign policy before the Arabist ascendancy in the Bush I, and Clinton administrations, has been in support of Israel and conditioned mainly by the interest and influence of Israel, not by what is best for the US. I have nothing at all against selling Israel what she needs to defend herself, but I do not want us fighting wars where we have little national interest. The current mess in Libya is a good example of that, and I still hold (along with many other cold warriors) that we should not have gone into Iraq, and we should simply have stayed in the AFG long enough to break anyone and anything that anything to do with harboring our enemies. If that meant paving the place with radioactive glass, then so be it. The half-hearted trash that's been done in both Iraq and AFG is simply a death by a million cuts which is sapping our economic and, thereby, military strength.

Guys, we have a huge mess in DC, and our military strength is about to implode as a result. Many of you are going to be astonished just how quick it happens. What happened in the Soviet Union was not fake. The Soviet Union did collapse because of its contradictions. That there have been people in the background that have been working to restore the strength of the Russian Empire (which is what the Soviet Union really was) is also just as real. Putin and his old KGB faction are all working quite hard to do exactly that.

If Ron Paul really were an isolationist I could understand much of the hatred shown him by the establishment. But, he is not. Many in Iran hate us because of what happened back in teh early 50s when the Shah was placed back on the throne after a popular uprising removed him. That has not been forgotten either. That hatred gave us Kohmeinist regime that is in power now, and the drive for nukes. Like it or not, there is a great deal more blowback that is still out there waiting to bite us on the rear.

If the next president were Ron Paul, it wouldn't matter from a foreign policy standpoint. We are in an economic hole that could have been prevented back in teh 70s and 80s, but was not. In the very near term we will not have the ability to maintain even a significant fraction of teh defense establishment we had 30 years ago. Combine that with teh PC trash that has sucked teh moral strength of the services, and you will see a military that is going to make teh hollow force of teh Carter years look like an overwhelming force. Hatred of the man is, at this point, not a good use of your emotion of brain capacity as the foreign policy slide is just beginning and 5 years from now, this will seem like the good old days.

Those would like to do away with the Fed have the argument, however, without question. The Gold Standard could not keep us out of teh great depression (nor would keep us out of teh one approaching) because the Fed did not, and would not, manage the system properly.

In 1929 our Gold reserves were increasing, and the new York branch of teh Fed wanted to increase the money supply. Traditionally, the NY Fed led on these things. However, the very influential NY president (as each branch head was called then) had died and the Fed board prevented the increase in money supply to match the gold reserves. Instead, they tightened the supply. The Credit Anstalt of Austria lost a large slug of money and started calling loans, many of which were held by US banks, and teh cascading defaults began which took down a sizable chunk of money center banks, as well as other banks in "flyover country." Tighter money destroyed teh liquidity of teh monetary system, and took our economy down. "Helicopter Ben" claims to know what caused the Great Depression and supposedly knows how to prevent it, but he is about to bring on another evil, rampant inflation, which is just as destructive.

It really won't matter who the next president is. There's going to be very little he can do other than quit spending, and the economy is going to force that regardless. I have long held that we were going to fall because of economic stupidity, rather than some other country stepping in and taking us over. As Yamamoto said when asked if the Japs could invade the US, "there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass." A bit hyperbolic, but the sentiment was accurate.

Our country, however, is no longer so strong. We have allowed our moral strength to be sapped, and have, instead, acquired an attitude of entitlement and have thrown responsibility aside. There is enough strength left among a sizeable group to make us an indigestible lump for any invader. But, we will not have the power to prevent those who will attack our global interests from doing so. The power has been frittered away by the Neocon interventionists, who also wanted to maintain the welfare state.

#25 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 10:48 PM

I think the Obummer may be re-elected. The GOP field is not strong, and every one of them have serious problems.

I think many of you miss a not so subtle difference in two terms - Isolationism and Interventionism.

Neocons are of teh persuasion that any foreign policy that does not have running around trying to put out the world's brush fires is isolationism. That's the wrong term to use. That would be non-interventionism. Interventionism is also known as Wilsonism, and that is the idea that got us into WW1, a family spat between crowned heads in Europe. The Lusitania junk was just that, Junk (the Lusitania was an auxiliary cruiser carrying war material in addition to passengers and the Germans took out newspaper ads warning people that she was liable to be sunk). We came in and tipped teh balance against the central powers when the war was already at a stalemate which was on the verge of being solved by negotiation. Our involvement led directly to Hitler and WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

Although i am a Christian Zionist, I have admit there is a lot of truth about the Israelis tail wagging the US dog. A goodly bit of our ME foreign policy before the Arabist ascendancy in the Bush I, and Clinton administrations, has been in support of Israel and conditioned mainly by the interest and influence of Israel, not by what is best for the US. I have nothing at all against selling Israel what she needs to defend herself, but I do not want us fighting wars where we have little national interest. The current mess in Libya is a good example of that, and I still hold (along with many other cold warriors) that we should not have gone into Iraq, and we should simply have stayed in the AFG long enough to break anyone and anything that anything to do with harboring our enemies. If that meant paving the place with radioactive glass, then so be it. The half-hearted trash that's been done in both Iraq and AFG is simply a death by a million cuts which is sapping our economic and, thereby, military strength.



The interests of Israel are the interests of the United States. She is a strong military power in the midst of a bunch of countries that are under the control of the Russians and Chinese. Therefore, anything that supports the defense of Israel is certainly a + for us. As for Iraq... I don't think it's going to implode imminently, and most of the violence is being imported from Iran. As for getting in there in the first place? I think we should have taken out Saddam when we had the chance the first time, rather than wasting more lives and money and finishing the job only recently. I see no negative in taking out Saddam and getting that whole area under our control. As for nation building, creating a Republic in a place like Iraq? Machiavelli has some very sad observations to make about the chances of that. But at this point, I don't think we have any other choice than to stay the course until Iran is out of the way. All the solutions Machiavelli would have for us we would never actually do.

the hatred shown him by the establishment. But, he is not. Many in Iran hate us because of what happened back in teh early 50s when the Shah was placed back on the throne after a popular uprising removed him. That has not been forgotten either. That hatred gave us Kohmeinist regime that is in power now, and the drive for nukes. Like it or not, there is a great deal more blowback that is still out there waiting to bite us on the rear.



That's the kind of politics we need to practice in the world. We need more Shahs to modernize these backward barbarians, bring them out of the dark ages of Islam, persecute the communists, and promote law and order. You think they have law and order now? They're a bunch of haughty midgits with missiles pointed at us and Israel. They stone their women in the streets and bend over for the bigger demons in Russia. We need to be as crafty as the commies are in promoting our own interests abroad. There's nothing wrong with that. We need to spend money on disinformation, propaganda, influencing other countries, building support networks and subverting our enemies at everything they do. Heck, we need a Missionary Corps on the sly to promote Christianity in areas controlled by Muslims and communists. They already accuse us of everything under the sun anyway. The sad thing is, we really don't, because half the "eeevil" conspiracies we supposedly enact bite us in the *** because our version of "interventionism" benefits everyone except ourselves.

Of course, I'm dreaming here. We aren't the evil imperialist power I wish we were. If ONLY Cheney really was Darth Vader, maybe we'd be getting somewhere. We need a Darth Vader to lead us out of this mess we're in. We need a General Patton, slapping sissies around and marching soldiers through the blood and guts of the enemy. We need the fervor of the American revolution, the reemergence of noble ideals and the embrace of true religion and philosophy.

#26 Ipcress

Ipcress

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 28 August 2011 - 02:50 AM

Ron Paul is actively promoted by both Alex Jones and Russia Today.

That's all I need to know about him.

#27 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 28 August 2011 - 02:59 AM

Ron Paul is actively promoted by both Alex Jones and Russia Today.

That's all I need to know about him.


Yes, and it's incredibly disturbing to discover that Paul's greatest supporters are all NWOists. I was reading a forum not too long ago where a gang of them were talking about the Zionist, Illuminati Luciferian conspiracy. Paul's anti-Israel votes and fantasies about Iran are no coincidence. I suspect he's the biggest believer in NWO crock of them all. They are not too far removed from the Aleksandr Dugins of the world, and they will not shed any tears for our country when it falls, except for maybe their own lost lives. It's fascinating to see how these people ignore something very obvious with Russia and China, these thugs strutting around like they own the place already, and yet they believe in shadow Jews ruling the world. Putin is no shadow. Their victims are not a shadow. I just don't understand it.

#28 Hiltop

Hiltop

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Location:West Michigan
  • Interests:Survival ,Music

Posted 28 August 2011 - 08:07 AM

Yes, and it's incredibly disturbing to discover that Paul's greatest supporters are all NWOists. I was reading a forum not too long ago where a gang of them were talking about the Zionist, Illuminati Luciferian conspiracy. Paul's anti-Israel votes and fantasies about Iran are no coincidence. I suspect he's the biggest believer in NWO crock of them all. They are not too far removed from the Aleksandr Dugins of the world, and they will not shed any tears for our country when it falls, except for maybe their own lost lives. It's fascinating to see how these people ignore something very obvious with Russia and China, these thugs strutting around like they own the place already, and yet they believe in shadow Jews ruling the world. Putin is no shadow. Their victims are not a shadow. I just don't understand it.


I was not aware of an anti Israel position by Paul... that clouds any support from me significantly.

#29 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,314 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:00 AM

Yes, and it's incredibly disturbing to discover that Paul's greatest supporters are all NWOists. I was reading a forum not too long ago where a gang of them were talking about the Zionist, Illuminati Luciferian conspiracy. Paul's anti-Israel votes and fantasies about Iran are no coincidence. I suspect he's the biggest believer in NWO crock of them all. They are not too far removed from the Aleksandr Dugins of the world, and they will not shed any tears for our country when it falls, except for maybe their own lost lives. It's fascinating to see how these people ignore something very obvious with Russia and China, these thugs strutting around like they own the place already, and yet they believe in shadow Jews ruling the world. Putin is no shadow. Their victims are not a shadow. I just don't understand it.

During Perestroika, the left in Western Europe and elsewhere did not want us to intervene when the Romanians and what not had their little revolutions. We should have monitored directly the transition, how the voting and vetting were done etc... They did not want "Reagan" out there. There was a blending in instead and now they are fully comfortable with each other, because the left secular in Europe is easily fooled into thinking it is the same as the left secular in Eastern Europe. They make deals and what not but this is a sham progressism of acceptance of one downgrade after another in a continuous increase, imperceptible, from one generation to the next, clueless of what the previous one knew.

And this is why now we are astonished to see that the leaders in China have PhDs in physics while ours have gay law degrees instead, so to speak.

It's like those who see cannot organize and have the time to teach those who do not and do not care for now... It's been done before on a natural basis. Just looking at how young teens these days become very arrogant and how their parents view them as idols or as betters is ridiculous in terms of how the power struggle is plaid out.

There also is a stokholm syndrome and projection of shadows in this. Folkes invent evil capitalist shadows but all the while are in denial when shown valid evidence to them being persecuted by close relatives or friends. They just do not believe the "obvious" but must fulfill some explanation of the persecution elsewhere, and they will invent stuff like UFOs, global warming or capitalist mafyas, and they will keep talking with family and friends about those, all the while they are being persecuted and exploited by them. The Chinese pink elephant is so obvious, indeed, as well as Obama. It's easier to attack some fuzzy circumstances or anonymous corporate entity with no name on it.

#30 Engineer

Engineer

    Member

  • Members
  • 193 posts

Posted 28 August 2011 - 06:58 PM

The interests of Israel are the interests of the United States. She is a strong military power in the midst of a bunch of countries that are under the control of the Russians and Chinese.


Such an idea is breathtaking. There are some coincidences in interests, but they are not the same. Also, Arab countries and Iran have never been controlled by either Ivan or Joe Chink. They were certainly supported by Ivan, who used them to test their military technology and to get some basing rights in the Med so they could keep an eye on us, but not even close to being controlled.

...because our version of "interventionism" benefits everyone except ourselves.


At least you got one thing partially right. We have spent blood and treasure intervening where we had few, if any, interests at risk. Yeah, we've played the great game, and what has it gotten anyone. In most cases, where we have intervened we have accomplished little because we pay little attention either to history or culture. Normally, unless we stayed, the old culture overwhelmed the work we did, or native corruption prevented anything from coming from the work we did in the first place (Pakistan anyone?).


Of course, I'm dreaming here. We aren't the evil imperialist power I wish we were. If ONLY Cheney really was Darth Vader, maybe we'd be getting somewhere. We need a Darth Vader to lead us out of this mess we're in. We need a General Patton, slapping sissies around and marching soldiers through the blood and guts of the enemy. We need the fervor of the American revolution, the reemergence of noble ideals and the embrace of true religion and philosophy.


Cheney isn't Darth Vader, or anything close to it. Cheney has feet of clay that I know about, but won't bring up here. Suffice it to say, he was no where near the competent man the neocons wished he were. There were things confided to me by friends who were in among the spooks at the time we were intially going into Iraq and AFG, that would curl your hair about the man. Frankly, Cheney was an idiot and liar, and failed to bring up the issues of WMDs that had been taken into Syria just before we went in and during the early part of the first week. Cheney didn't bring it up and allowed the lie to fester into the leftist screed "Bush lied, people died."

Going in was a big mistake, and staying an even bigger one. If we were going in, we should broke the regime, handed the keys to another strongman, and told not to make us come back because then we'd break him too. We wouldn't have the dead and maimed we now have, and saved billions of dollars that we now need badly.

I have no trouble with the fervor of the American Revolution, but I'll guarantee, from your rhetoric, you really have no understanding of what it really was. The founders would be appalled at your language. The fervor of the founders was summed up later by John Quincy Adams when he spoke "and the guardians only of our own."

Liberty can not be forced on anyone who is not ready for it. The US, at the time of the founding was the end result of 2500 years of western civilization which has often been sidetracked by the meanderings of morons and tyrants. Christianity, more than any other factor, as mediated through the protestant reformation, did more to allow the founding of the US than any other thing in that 2500 years. Iraq may not implode immediately, but it won't be long after we leave, and AFG is not even close to where Iraq was 5 years ago. AFG will implode as soon as we leave, and return to the cesspool it was before we got there.

And, I will point out, jst as we are imploding here because we have declined in character below what is required to maintain liberty.

The only way the AFG problem will be solved completely is to pave the place with radioactive glass. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to turn Tehran, Karachi, Islamabad, Mecca, and Medina into smoking heffalump pits either. We may have to do the same to Ankara the way things seem to be swinging these days.

As for "Russia Today," many are going on as talking heads because they are dealing with things the US media has slunk away from. That does not mean I like them, but if we dealt with the stuff they are dealing with, there would be no room for the Russkis to use them as sticks to beat us with. That Russia Today is able to use those issues is a strong indication of the rot in our own society.

You may wish the US were an imperialistic power, but I do not. My attitude is quite common among those who have served because we know the costs that would be required to bear such burdens. Empire is expensive, and that is the least of the costs that must be born.

Suffice it to say, we can't afford empire in material, money or manpower. Modern empire is simply too expensive, and that's why the British Empire fell, and why we can't maintain one either. Your dream in that regard doesn't even rise to the level of a pipe dream.

The NWO business, like it or not, is a coming fact. There is a lot of silly stuff out there from people like Alex Jones and others, but that does not render it false by any means. Frankly, I think most the people trying to bring it about would screw up a one car funeral procession. But the direction of the flow of history is towards a one world order that will, for a very short period, be controlled by a very few people, with one man at the front. Anyone that reads scripture and has their finger on the pulse of world events sees what's coming.

#31 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:07 PM

Such an idea is breathtaking. There are some coincidences in interests, but they are not the same. Also, Arab countries and Iran have never been controlled by either Ivan or Joe Chink. They were certainly supported by Ivan, who used them to test their military technology and to get some basing rights in the Med so they could keep an eye on us, but not even close to being controlled.



They're in their pocket, which is good enough for me.


At least you got one thing partially right. We have spent blood and treasure intervening where we had few, if any, interests at risk. Yeah, we've played the great game, and what has it gotten anyone. In most cases, where we have intervened we have accomplished little because we pay little attention either to history or culture. Normally, unless we stayed, the old culture overwhelmed the work we did, or native corruption prevented anything from coming from the work we did in the first place (Pakistan anyone?).



We've played the great game? Like in Vietnam when we surrendered? Like with the cold war we never saw to completion? Like with WW2 when we, through inaction and stupidity, let Stalin take all the profit from the victory? Like with all the warnings we've received and ignored because it was politically inconvenient? You act like we've been competent or something. There has never been any long range, grand American strategy. All I see are a bunch of problems that people keep rolling down the hill throughout the decades. Soon, if not already, these problems won't be solvable. Look at all the victims who have suffered because we didn't have the backbone to do what is coming to us without our permission later? Imagine if we nuked the Russians when we had the chance? Imagine if we had, during the Korean war, pushed our way into China and nuked the SOBs after they murdered our men? Was what would have happened be as bad as what is going to happen? How many times are we going to turn around and appease these killers and thieves? Sure, we already had a lot of dead already in WW2, but letting it end the way we did guaranteed WW3.

I like to look at the differences of Western strategic thought and Eastern thought by comparing Chess and Wei Chi (aka Go, Baduk). We have, on the one hand, a single confrontation between two Kings and their army. It's one battle, one war. With Go, there are many individual battles all across the board, with each conflict changing the balance of power in ways far more complex than Chess could ever be capable of. To allow one area of the board go unworked, or to let the opponent win too many battles in key areas, it doesn't matter if you win a few battles here and there - let them undermine your territories, gain too much influence over the world, and it's over. The West does not think in terms of "grand" strategy. It isn't fighting for some long range goal or planning for the future. It lives and dies by whatever is fashionable at that current time. It's like the average American these days who can see nothing beyond sex, drugs and rock & roll. They have no vision to see beyond tomorrow. It's for that reason why we always push our problems off, or spend our money now so we can save it later, or practice all these dangerous economic policies. We have no long term vision or depth of spirit. Out of sight, out of mind.

I have no trouble with the fervor of the American Revolution, but I'll guarantee, from your rhetoric, you really have no understanding of what it really was. The founders would be appalled at your language. The fervor of the founders was summed up later by John Quincy Adams when he spoke "and the guardians only of our own."



There's the great contradiction there. If we follow Paul's advice, we won't be "guardians only of our own" in any sense at all. I'm sure you might mean it in a better way, but he certainly does not. If we let the enemy isolate Israel, we will lose her. If we let them go unchecked in the world, we'll only be increasingly isolated ourselves. What we should be doing is maintaining our military strength, maintaining our best allies and undermining theirs. How much money do we waste on weapons systems designed to handle "future" police like action to handle terrorists across the world instead of money for meaner-badder missiles, jets that can delivery bombs faster than the other guy, and preparations for handling the results of a nuclear conflict? How much money do we spent that could be better redirected in preparing us for what is inevitable? Ronny doesn't care about any of that. He's too busy moaning about how the media ignores him, and then refusing interviews with Bill O'Reilly because he knows he'd be challenged.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about Iraq at all. It's just the problem is that Ron Paul wouldn't do anything to fix it either. He'd simply surrender, which would do more to harm us than anything else I can think of. Perry is the lesser of two evils since, at least, I know he understands the necessity of shooting something from time to time.

You may wish the US were an imperialistic power, but I do not. My attitude is quite common among those who have served because we know the costs that would be required to bear such burdens. Empire is expensive, and that is the least of the costs that must be born.



I was thinking more on the terms of a strong nation that is fully cognizant of the fact that we are under attack.

As for the NWO, it is utterly ridiculous on every level. Those so called "Elites" are hardly competent in maintaining what power you allege they want. There may be a lot of rich commies out there, but there is no "Illuminati" conspiracy. There may be a movement for world government, but it's a joke. So many of these people are mere useful idiots. These "banksters" as they call them, or whoever else, are not a product of a bunch of people out to control everything. They're a product of a degenerate fallen nature that no longer knows how to run business, run a country, or maintain their own survival. What they want is a socialist utopia, which they think a "world government" could realize, since they could parasite off the United States and all the productive countries in the world to fund their drug habits and brothels. They are pimps who want to prostitute us, and, in their own turn, they are prostitutes for the Russians.

#32 watchman92

watchman92

    Member

  • Members
  • 718 posts

Posted 29 August 2011 - 11:37 PM

Such an idea is breathtaking. There are some coincidences in interests, but they are not the same. Also, Arab countries and Iran have never been controlled by either Ivan or Joe Chink. They were certainly supported by Ivan, who used them to test their military technology and to get some basing rights in the Med so they could keep an eye on us, but not even close to being controlled.

At least you got one thing partially right. We have spent blood and treasure intervening where we had few, if any, interests at risk. Yeah, we've played the great game, and what has it gotten anyone. In most cases, where we have intervened we have accomplished little because we pay little attention either to history or culture. Normally, unless we stayed, the old culture overwhelmed the work we did, or native corruption prevented anything from coming from the work we did in the first place (Pakistan anyone?).

Cheney isn't Darth Vader, or anything close to it. Cheney has feet of clay that I know about, but won't bring up here. Suffice it to say, he was no where near the competent man the neocons wished he were. There were things confided to me by friends who were in among the spooks at the time we were intially going into Iraq and AFG, that would curl your hair about the man. Frankly, Cheney was an idiot and liar, and failed to bring up the issues of WMDs that had been taken into Syria just before we went in and during the early part of the first week. Cheney didn't bring it up and allowed the lie to fester into the leftist screed "Bush lied, people died."

Going in was a big mistake, and staying an even bigger one. If we were going in, we should broke the regime, handed the keys to another strongman, and told not to make us come back because then we'd break him too. We wouldn't have the dead and maimed we now have, and saved billions of dollars that we now need badly.

I have no trouble with the fervor of the American Revolution, but I'll guarantee, from your rhetoric, you really have no understanding of what it really was. The founders would be appalled at your language. The fervor of the founders was summed up later by John Quincy Adams when he spoke "and the guardians only of our own."

Liberty can not be forced on anyone who is not ready for it. The US, at the time of the founding was the end result of 2500 years of western civilization which has often been sidetracked by the meanderings of morons and tyrants. Christianity, more than any other factor, as mediated through the protestant reformation, did more to allow the founding of the US than any other thing in that 2500 years. Iraq may not implode immediately, but it won't be long after we leave, and AFG is not even close to where Iraq was 5 years ago. AFG will implode as soon as we leave, and return to the cesspool it was before we got there.

And, I will point out, jst as we are imploding here because we have declined in character below what is required to maintain liberty.

The only way the AFG problem will be solved completely is to pave the place with radioactive glass. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to turn Tehran, Karachi, Islamabad, Mecca, and Medina into smoking heffalump pits either. We may have to do the same to Ankara the way things seem to be swinging these days.

As for "Russia Today," many are going on as talking heads because they are dealing with things the US media has slunk away from. That does not mean I like them, but if we dealt with the stuff they are dealing with, there would be no room for the Russkis to use them as sticks to beat us with. That Russia Today is able to use those issues is a strong indication of the rot in our own society.

You may wish the US were an imperialistic power, but I do not. My attitude is quite common among those who have served because we know the costs that would be required to bear such burdens. Empire is expensive, and that is the least of the costs that must be born.

Suffice it to say, we can't afford empire in material, money or manpower. Modern empire is simply too expensive, and that's why the British Empire fell, and why we can't maintain one either. Your dream in that regard doesn't even rise to the level of a pipe dream.

The NWO business, like it or not, is a coming fact. There is a lot of silly stuff out there from people like Alex Jones and others, but that does not render it false by any means. Frankly, I think most the people trying to bring it about would screw up a one car funeral procession. But the direction of the flow of history is towards a one world order that will, for a very short period, be controlled by a very few people, with one man at the front. Anyone that reads scripture and has their finger on the pulse of world events sees what's coming.


Amazing and very accurate post. It is so true that America as an ideal, as an accomplishment, was the "end result" - ever since then, the corruption began, we've been going backwards, and we're about to head into another Dark Age. You are also correct about the "very short period", but I believe that short period will be one of the bloodiest the world has ever seen.

The only place I would differ with you is on your "isolationism vs interventionism" argument, I have often struggled with this thinking that if we do not intervene in certain places, the fight will inevitable come to our shores. Could not this argument be said about Russia at the end of WWII? I suppose your response would be that WWII would never have happened if not for our prior intervention, but I do believe that there are simply countries ruled by people who wish to rule the world, or ruled by those types of ideologies. If somebody is actively plotting against you, are you supposed to wait until they attack? And what if that attack is successful? If not, how do you deal with the casualties you could have prevented with a pre-emptive strike?

This is why I find myself on neither side, because I don't really accept the false choice. I think it is best to intervene as little as possible, but that in extreme situations it becomes absolutely necessary to. The wars of the past 50-60 years were virtually all bad choices, in my opinion, as communism should have been fought on a much more comprehensive level.

I also think "nation-building" is definitely not made for certain regions and certain people are certainly not equipped for it, however if we do engage in it, it is imperative that we write the economic and political laws for whichever "nation" we are trying to build, making it in our own mold.

Ultimately, it comes down to the moral, cultural, and social laws that guide us, as they guide the people who create the systems. And how can one mandate righteousness? The closest you can get is creating a government that is as limited as possible, and allows for the best in citizenry to shine, thereby hopefully creating some type of "culture of meritocracy". Japan and Germany were rebuilt and are now both allies that are not dictatorships. Perfect? Hardly, but they are not plotting our demise and their people live in (relative) freedom. I suppose what I am saying might sound confusing, but in the end I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the U.S. has no right to depose dictatorships and install in their place a free society. The feasibility of doing it should absolutely be debated and calculated, but I not only think the U.S. has the right, but in some cases the obligation(such as in China) to USE the freedom we possess(WHILE WE STILL HAVE IT) to break their chains and give them freedom. There is something distinctly sickening about an American who lives in complete freedom who says that it "is not our right" to "push our values" on, say, a Chinese Christian or Falun Gong member who is tortured for years on end until he dies. If I lived in China, I would be begging for the U.S. to "liberate" me. The same for Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, the list goes on and on and on...

#33 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:33 AM

RASMUSSEN: Obama 39%, Paul 38%

Recent poll data does not support the "can't win" argument.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...bama_39_paul_38

#34 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:18 PM

RASMUSSEN: Obama 39%, Paul 38%

Recent poll data does not support the "can't win" argument.

http://www.rasmussen...bama_39_paul_38


Polls are like buttholes, everyone has one. Trust me, no one will vote for this loser when it comes time to pull the actual trigger. He has his little cult with these weird, degenerate "young people" who think he's cool because they want to smoke marijuana, but there aren't enough of them to win the nomination.

#35 Ipcress

Ipcress

    Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 19 September 2011 - 10:36 PM

There was a good if polarizing piece on American Thinker this past week about Ron Paul and the shadier elements of his entourage. Definitely worth reading from a TFP perspective.

Ron Paul's Poisonous Partisans
by Larry Bailey

I wonder if the author is a member here. If not, perhaps he should be. :)

#36 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 20 September 2011 - 02:22 PM

There was a good – if polarizing – piece on American Thinker this past week about Ron Paul and the shadier elements of his entourage. Definitely worth reading from a TFP perspective.

Ron Paul's Poisonous Partisans
by Larry Bailey

I wonder if the author is a member here. If not, perhaps he should be. :)


What I find most disturbing about the "Paulistas" is their hatred of Israel and their own government. It's hard to understand the mindset of people who openly accuse Israel of murdering Americans or of "owning" the United States. They use the most odious of accusations, repeating old and bankrupt accusations that have been parroted by Muslims and communists for ages. They are shortsighted and do not understand what their "policies" would actually do to the country they claim to be patriots of. It is this movement which scares me the most, as I have had many friends who were formerly conservative turn into this rabid, anti-israel, NWO, Prison planet Alex Jones disciples. Their beliefs are simply so incredibly irrational that I can't understand how these perfectly normal people could fall into it. This movement is poison, and Ron Paul can't be trusted.

There has been a sort of political revival thanks to Obama. The only problem is that this revival is often mixed with this Liberaltarianism, and I wonder just how big this ideology is becoming among the political "right" in this country.

#37 Jason

Jason

    Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted 20 September 2011 - 10:18 PM

There is no denying that RP is a signifigant departure from the norm - i.e., "radical". This late in the game, what is more radical than simply following the Constitution as it was written -- by those founders whom we so deeply admire? The other-worldly genius of Adams, Jefferson.... and Madison? Only the Congress can legally declare war.. only the Congress can make (but not enforce) laws (not agencies created by the Executive Branch).. only gold and silver are "money". There is no constitutional authority for a department of education, or a department of energy... what is so "radical" about any of what RP is saying? He is a strict constructionist. Are we here at TFP champions of the Constitution and individual liberties, or are we not?

No, RP is not perfect and we must reject those who deify him, as well as those who vilify our own country.. but to simply paint RP with the brush of these groups is simply not reasonable, nor intellectual.

Live free or die.






What I find most disturbing about the "Paulistas" is their hatred of Israel and their own government. It's hard to understand the mindset of people who openly accuse Israel of murdering Americans or of "owning" the United States. They use the most odious of accusations, repeating old and bankrupt accusations that have been parroted by Muslims and communists for ages. They are shortsighted and do not understand what their "policies" would actually do to the country they claim to be patriots of. It is this movement which scares me the most, as I have had many friends who were formerly conservative turn into this rabid, anti-israel, NWO, Prison planet Alex Jones disciples. Their beliefs are simply so incredibly irrational that I can't understand how these perfectly normal people could fall into it. This movement is poison, and Ron Paul can't be trusted.

There has been a sort of political revival thanks to Obama. The only problem is that this revival is often mixed with this Liberaltarianism, and I wonder just how big this ideology is becoming among the political "right" in this country.



#38 Brutus

Brutus

    Member

  • Admin
  • 690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi

Posted 21 September 2011 - 12:59 PM

There is no denying that RP is a signifigant departure from the norm - i.e., "radical". This late in the game, what is more radical than simply following the Constitution as it was written -- by those founders whom we so deeply admire? The other-worldly genius of Adams, Jefferson.... and Madison? Only the Congress can legally declare war.. only the Congress can make (but not enforce) laws (not agencies created by the Executive Branch).. only gold and silver are "money". There is no constitutional authority for a department of education, or a department of energy... what is so "radical" about any of what RP is saying? He is a strict constructionist. Are we here at TFP champions of the Constitution and individual liberties, or are we not?

No, RP is not perfect and we must reject those who deify him, as well as those who vilify our own country.. but to simply paint RP with the brush of these groups is simply not reasonable, nor intellectual.

Live free or die.

I must've missed the part in the Constitution that stated that "only gold and silver are 'money'....".

:)
Yes Virginia, the Russians are STILL the bad guys.

#39 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 21 September 2011 - 04:54 PM

There is no denying that RP is a signifigant departure from the norm - i.e., "radical". This late in the game, what is more radical than simply following the Constitution as it was written -- by those founders whom we so deeply admire? The other-worldly genius of Adams, Jefferson.... and Madison? Only the Congress can legally declare war.. only the Congress can make (but not enforce) laws (not agencies created by the Executive Branch).. only gold and silver are "money". There is no constitutional authority for a department of education, or a department of energy... what is so "radical" about any of what RP is saying? He is a strict constructionist. Are we here at TFP champions of the Constitution and individual liberties, or are we not?

No, RP is not perfect and we must reject those who deify him, as well as those who vilify our own country.. but to simply paint RP with the brush of these groups is simply not reasonable, nor intellectual.

Live free or die.


His stance on these things are almost completely meaningless to me. Even legalized Marijuana is meaningless to me when compared to his foreign policy.
When you have a "Republican" candidate saying things like this, we have problems:

"WINTERSET, Ia. – Two weeks away from the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, presidential candidate and Texas Rep. Ron Paul says that U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a main motivation behind terrorist hostilities toward America, and that Islam is not a threat to the nation.

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”"

http://atlasshrugs20...11-attacks.html

Exactly where do these talking-points usually come from? And how clueless do you have to be to think that running from the M.E. or abandoning Israel would make the Muslims stop hating us? He is a traitor and an enemy to his own country. He cannot be trusted to see us through a war with the Russians and Chinese.

#40 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 05:08 AM

He cannot be trusted to see us through a war with the Russians and Chinese.

Perhaps the question should be: Who CAN be trusted to see us through a war with the Russians and Chinese?

Personally, I only trust in The One whom was nailed to a cross approximately 2000 years ago. (edited - final thought added)