dross on Ron Paul

[Cerberus]

Are you serious with this? We don't have the right to prevent the slaughter of a large number of people? Of course we do. You always have the right to prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

I can hear the argument that we shouldn't do it. To say we have no right, though, indicates someone who is very, very far off track in my view.

Can you please provide just where in our highest legal document, the very one that is supposed to bind our government, that says we have that right or responsibility?

We have no inherant right to protect others. That is a falsehood that gunbaot diplomacy pregressives have force fed us.

And since the whole Israel subject seems to be the whole focal point around the entire foreign policy argument against RP, then could someone please answer just how this country has been an asset to Israel since the Yom Kippur War, when in just about every single instance we have chastised and prevented them for trying to do what needed to be done for them to protect their own borders. They really would be better off if we minded our own affairs and let them kick some a**.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you serious with this? We don't have the right to prevent the slaughter of a large number of people? Of course we do. You always have the right to prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

I can hear the argument that we shouldn't do it. To say we have no right, though, indicates someone who is very, very far off track in my view.

You certainly have the right to go prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

You do not, however, have the right to force me to go prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

 

[dross]

Then we need to fix Americans, not politics. Get busy, mister.

I don't have much faith in solutions that require wide-scale change in behavior. Much of the time these changes in thinking and behavior lag real events driven by politics.

I think there is a great risk that the public will embrace his viewpoints and begin to think outside the Left-Right box.

That would be great, I just haven't seen much evidence that indicates to me this is a possibility.

They can try to slander him, the way Rush, Hannity, and Levin are currently doing. But luckily his consistency and integrity shine through for anyone who bothers to look.

The condition you yourself just set precludes most voters right off the bat.

Wouldn't he have to do something unlawful first? I think the chances of this are nil.

Nope, he doesn't have to do anything unlawful. Impeachment is a political process. All it requires is that Congress feels like they'll benefit from impeachment.

Why? What should the libertarian movement do then? Ron Paul is an stoic messenger of liberty; articulate and well-versed. His unwavering consistency and uncorruptable personality make him a fine candidate. He's not a hypocrite, a flip-flopper, a crook, or a sellout. He would be the best thing that could happen to the libertarian movement.

I think you're naive. You're assuming that a clear explanation will win people over. I think a clear explanation will drive them away. I'm basing it on my own experience explaining it clearly and seeing horrified looks on people's faces.

Do you have these same concerns about the conservative movement being discredited by these other candidates?

You misunderstand. I don't think it's Paul that will discredit anything. As I've tried to get across over and over, it's Paul's raw libertarianism, not Paul. Most Americans want their freedom watered down, not straight up.

I think he can. I've talked to hundreds of people about Ron Paul and the most common thing they say is "I like him but he is unelectable." With Paul poised for victory in Iowa and other early states, these voters will realize that the "unelectable" mantra was all a bunch of defeatist baloney. Paul will be given credence and Republicans will have the all-important choice of choosing between Mitt Gingrich and Ron Paul. They will realize that he is their only hope of seeing any semblance of fiscal conservatism from a president in the foreseeable future.

Anecdotal evidence. I don't care how many people you've talked to. I see no evidence that most people want what Paul wants.

The general election will be an epic battle but I believe Ron Paul will win. Mainstream Republicans are itching to pull the lever for anyone not named Obama. Paul will bring Independents, Libertarians, and traditionally non-voting citizens out of the woodwork. He will also steal votes from underneath Obama, due to his stance on war and civil liberty. And he has the most dedicated and fiercely supportive fans in all of politics; the kind it takes to win elections.

I agree that his best chance is in the general, for the reasons you give. The press would savage him, though. You also assume Democrats are for civil liberties. This is a common misunderstanding, I believe. Yes, there are a lot of "useful idiots" who truly believe they are voting civil liberties when voting for Democrats, but I can't think of a single area where the Democrats are for liberty.

None of this can be said for the other candidates. They fracture their own base and scare away the independents. Some of the most conservative people I know are refusing to support another one of these other socialist, Police-State-loving RINOs. It would be hard enough for a conservative to vote for Newt Romney, let alone give him money and campaign for him. Its been done before in 1996 and 2008. Same results are imminent.

The Republicans have a big problem because of their base. The Republican Party is a big tent, and some of their factions are bitterly opposed to each other. Lots of R voters WANT some government goodies, they are mainly conservative on cultural issues. The Libertarians hate that stuff. Yet the R candidate is forced to bridge these gaps which are unbridgeable. This is the essence of most of the threads on this forum of late.

He encompasses things that people from both sides of the paradigm like. His stances are what it takes to convert Democrats who aren't interested in more war, spy agencies and watch lists.

Again, I think your view is naive. Wait and see how he was spun. For instance, I couldn't stand McCain. I remember when the press loved him. I can't remember how many prominent Democrats who weren't politicians came out and said he was the one Republican they could vote for. Yet he suddenly became ultraconservative, not to mention senile as soon as the general election started. They would absolutely murder a Ron Paul. The typical Democrat voter is not a sophisticated political observer. Many of them don't vote for Republicans because of the way they were raised. My family is like that. Talk to them about their views and they sound Republican. Yet they vote Democrate because voting Republican in my family is utterly unthinkable. They all think I've completely lost my mind.

The attacks will be less devastating to a man or his character. He has a perfect constitutional record to stand on. Imagine the slugfest if the Republican nominee represents the worst of both sides of the spectrum, an all-around statist, and his flip-flopping record is so atrocious that Republicans have no way or desire to defend it.

Yep. It's gonna be a hard row to hoe, no matter what.

The big difference in this election is the number of Supreme Court justices that will likely be replaced.

These next four years will determine the course of our country for a looong time.

No. As many here will tell you, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a Democrat and a Republican. Just like there's no difference between Ginsberg and Scalia, or Sotomayer and Alito.

There are quite a few Americans that are not willing to see the Jews once again subjected to attempted genocide. It may be for religious reasons. It may be for humanitarian reasons. We stood by while millions were killed in the Nazi Holocaust. We do not intend to stand by during a Muslim led Holocaust.

We can't be the world's policemen. If they want to put a bunch of people in camps and kill them and torture them and experiment on them and wipe them off the face of the earth, who are we to judge? It's their business. What right to we have to enforce our views on people who want to kill all of a certain group of people? After all, we had Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding. Who are we to judge after those horrific atrocities? So screw the Jews. Let 'em roast. Nothing to do with us.

I sometimes think that Ron Paul's biggest enemies are his ardent supporters.

Arguing with them I often have to remind myself that he's not responsible for the crap his supporters say.

Can you please provide just where in our highest legal document, the very one that is supposed to bind our government, that says we have that right or responsibility?

We have no inherant right to protect others. That is a falsehood that gunbaot diplomacy pregressives have force fed us.

We have no responsibility to protect others. We have the individual right to protect others, which extends to our elected government.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights, nor does it enumerate all of our rights, so my not finding a right in there is irrelevant. The power the Constitution grants in this area is found in Article One, Section Eight. There is no restriction in the Constitution about what we can or can't go to war to accomplish.

You certainly have the right to go prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

You do not, however, have the right to force me to go prevent someone from initiating force against someone else.

My apologies. I misread your post when I responded the first time.

We have an all volunteer Army. No one is forcing you to fight.

 

[steveh_131]

We have an all volunteer Army. No one is forcing you to fight.

You're forcing me to pay for it.

In addition, by forcing our country to participate, I am of the opinion that you are forcing all of us to participate.

If you want to protect Israel, feel free to go do so. Feel free to spend your own resources doing so. Leave everyone else out of it.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

You're forcing me to pay for it.

In addition, by forcing our country to participate, I am of the opinion that you are forcing all of us to participate.

If you want to protect Israel, feel free to go do so. Feel free to spend your own resources doing so. Leave everyone else out of it.

I approve this message.

 

[dross]

You're forcing me to pay for it.

In addition, by forcing our country to participate, I am of the opinion that you are forcing all of us to participate.

If you want to protect Israel, feel free to go do so. Feel free to spend your own resources doing so. Leave everyone else out of it.

I approve this message.

Fine, I have no problem with your opinion. I have the same opinion about a lot of things.

This is a policy dispute, however. In every instance where I disagree with a policy, in essence, I'm being forced to pay for a policy I don't agree with. That's how our system works, we elect people who represent us. Sometimes they'll spend money on stuff some of us disagree with.

I think we should spend money sometimes to save other people. If our elected officials empowered to go to war agree with me, you'll have to pay for it. That's how it works.

 

[sepe]

Nope, he doesn't have to do anything unlawful. Impeachment is a political process. All it requires is that Congress feels like they'll benefit from impeachment.

Where did you get that from the impeachment process? Yes, I do agree that Congress can attempt to impeach (even if it is just as you say...for their benefit) without reason. If they do, those are more corrupt politicians that NEED to be gone.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature that allows for formal charges against a civil officer of government for crimes committed in office. The actual trial on those charges, and subsequent removal of an official on conviction on those charges, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

^^^^ That, to me, doesn't say that since we don't like you we're going to do everything in our power to get rid of you and that is perfectly fine.

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced by a member of the House of Representatives on their own initiative, either by presenting a listing of the charges under oath, or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of what actions constitute grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, a state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition.

"We don't like you" isn't a valid charge and if that was the referral used...once again, more politicians NEED to be gone (I don't care if it would be Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Adolf Hitler III). The whole "we don't like you so we're going to get rid of you" crap sounds very 7th grade girls cheer leading. We really need some more frivolous BS for the idiots in DC to worry about instead of actually trying to take the country in a direction that doesn't smell like .

Is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Yes. Is it much more than the method they want to use to bankrupt the country? Not really that I can see. I can not say that one is better than the other or one is more trust worthy than the other.

 

[rambone]

Nope, he doesn't have to do anything unlawful. Impeachment is a political process. All it requires is that Congress feels like they'll benefit from impeachment.

Does this have any historical basis or foundation in the Constitution?

Article 2, Section 4, states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The founders took the time to specify that criminal acts provide grounds for impeachment. Please tell me if there is some historical case that I am missing.

I think you're naive. You're assuming that a clear explanation will win people over. I think a clear explanation will drive them away. I'm basing it on my own experience explaining it clearly and seeing horrified looks on people's faces.

Maybe some people don't like to hear the truth, but he doesn't have to win everyone over. It does not take a majority to win an election. It requires that a small percentage of swing voters be convinced.

And I've seen plenty of horrified looks on people's faces when they hear about Newt Gingrich's record.

Anecdotal evidence. I don't care how many people you've talked to. I see no evidence that most people want what Paul wants.

Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

You also assume Democrats are for civil liberties. This is a common misunderstanding, I believe. Yes, there are a lot of "useful idiots" who truly believe they are voting civil liberties when voting for Democrats, but I can't think of a single area where the Democrats are for liberty.

I think you are naive with your adherence to the Left-Right Paradigm. Plenty of democrat voters support civil liberties. That's a big reason that many of them don't want to be Republicans.

Recent example; John McCain (R) authored the National Defense Authorization Act which allows indefinite military detentions for American citizens. Diane Feinstein (D), of all people, authored a bill countering that Police State atrocity.

Again, I think your view is naive. Wait and see how he was spun. For instance, I couldn't stand McCain. I remember when the press loved him. I can't remember how many prominent Democrats who weren't politicians came out and said he was the one Republican they could vote for. Yet he suddenly became ultraconservative, not to mention senile as soon as the general election started. They would absolutely murder a Ron Paul. The typical Democrat voter is not a sophisticated political observer. Many of them don't vote for Republicans because of the way they were raised. My family is like that. Talk to them about their views and they sound Republican. Yet they vote Democrate because voting Republican in my family is utterly unthinkable. They all think I've completely lost my mind.

Let them come, let them try. Its going to happen no matter what. It will be uglier if it happens to a Republican with a mountain of dirt and inconsistency in his closet. If Republicans are so afraid of running a campaign against Obama then maybe they should all just roll over and die right now; lest they defend their record from the media.

No. As many here will tell you, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a Democrat and a Republican. Just like there's no difference between Ginsberg and Scalia, or Sotomayer and Alito.

I would be terrified of anybody Newt Gingrich wants to nominate. He was mentored by Henry N.W.O. Kissinger. He's spent a career campaigning for progressives like Nelson Rockefeller, Dede Scozzafava, and "Clinton Clone" Greg Laughlin. He endorsed and wrote a forward to a book by Alvin & Heidi Toffler that advocates destroying the U.S. Constitution and instituting World Government. His positions and statements throughout the years utterly horrify me. An honest analysis of Gingrich's dark side tells me that he will trash the constitution just as hard as any Democrat.

 

[dross]

Does this have any historical basis or foundation in the Constitution?

Article 2, Section 4, states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The founders took the time to specify that criminal acts provide grounds for impeachment. Please tell me if there is some historical case that I am missing.

Andrew Johnson. He defied Congress specifically having to do with a law about the political process he believed to be unconstitutional. Sound like something Paul might do?

Maybe some people don't like to hear the truth, but he doesn't have to win everyone over. It does not take a majority to win an election. It requires that a small percentage of swing voters be convinced.

And I've seen plenty of horrified looks on people's faces when they hear about Newt Gingrich's record.

You're skewing the point, and it's annoying. I'm not trying to make points against Paul, I'm stating an honest concern. It doesn't need to be countered because I'm not trying to score points. Are you telling me you have zero concerns or nothing to discuss about how the general public might react to hearing libertarian ideas presented in the mainstream for the first time for many of them? Get out of combative mode for two f'ng seconds because it's a valid point of discussion. It's not about whether he's better than Gingrich or Romney.

Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence.

So your personal experience is evidence, and my personal experience is no evidence.

You know, I was going to respond to your entire post, point by point, but I'm deleting everything below this and based on these last two points I realize you have zero interest in an actual discussion. You just want to score points. I'm done talking to you now. Count me among those who have written you off. I tried.

 

[Zoub]

Why? What should the libertarian movement do then?

Get control of 7% of the seats in Congress. No one could even take a dump without that 7% agreeing to it. The 2 party system is ripe for a motivated third party to take advantage of it and play one side against the other. The President Du Jour would be screwed. Veto Schmeeto.

Just stay off the radar and pick up seats in North Dakota, Texas, Georgia, Alaska, etc.....

The same thing the Russians do now to makesky their moniesky. Their fingers are in everything and no one evne noticed............low profile. Hell, we even hired them to run our space program for us now. How many of our Dead Fathers would have EVER believed that would happen.

 

[steveh_131]

I think we should spend money sometimes to save other people. If our elected officials empowered to go to war agree with me, you'll have to pay for it. That's how it works.

People make the same case for food stamps, welfare, socialized medicine, the drug war and pretty much every other popular violation of liberty. I don't like any of it. Enforcing the moral imperative of the majority should not be the purpose of our government.

 

[dross]

People make the same case for food stamps, welfare, socialized medicine, the drug war and pretty much every other popular violation of liberty. I don't like any of it. Enforcing the moral imperative of the majority should not be the purpose of our government.

Agreed, in general.

If you looked at my war thread, I made the case that helping other people only provides a moral justification for the use of force. Congress has a legal justification according to the Constitution. After those criteria are met, it's a policy discussion.

No natural law is being violated, neither is the Constitution. Not everything you disagree with is a violation of rights. If you believe that, then you must believe in no government, because any government will sometimes take actions with which you disagree, but that you must carry some burden for.

 

[Expat]

We can't be the world's policemen. If they want to put a bunch of people in camps and kill them and torture them and experiment on them and wipe them off the face of the earth, who are we to judge? It's their business. What right to we have to enforce our views on people who want to kill all of a certain group of people? After all, we had Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding. Who are we to judge after those horrific atrocities? So screw the Jews. Let 'em roast. Nothing to do with us.

Not surprising if you even got a rep for posting that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sounds like a rather entangling alliance to me...

Is there anyone anywhere who doesn't need friends?

Is a friend someone who intercedes when another friend is in need or in trouble?

What good is a "friend" who won't help out another friend?

What makes interpersonal relationships any different from international ones?

The fact that one or several of the Founding Fathers didn't want the new nation to be entangled in foreign alliances didn't mean that all of them felt that way, and really, how would such an attitude be perceived by, say, 18th Century France, which aided the American rebels with arms and cash (admittedly for their own purposes)?

 

[dross]

Not surprising if you even got a rep for posting that.

I didn't, but I should have. Isn't that EXACTLY what some of them are saying?

 

[Expat]

I didn't, but I should have. Isn't that EXACTLY what some of them are saying?

If anything you were probably restrained in your characterization.

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't, but I should have. Isn't that EXACTLY what some of them are saying?

Maybe that's what some are saying, but that's not what I am saying.

We all have moral imperatives that we believe in, and we have to prioritize our own lives and resources to pursue them.

Apparently, fighting for Israel is an important one for you. I have no problem with that. I have to decide which things are most important for me to pursue. And participating in a never-ending war that is honestly none of my business is not high on that list.

The "Well then you must believe in NO government" argument is used incessantly against libertarians, and I'll answer it the same way I always would. Our government should exist solely to protect our liberties. Under that construct, I still have all the freedom I want to meddle in world affairs. The government should not be forcing me to save the lives of starving children, to save the lives of sick children, or to save the lives of Israeli children. That's all there is to it.

 

[dross]

Maybe that's what some are saying, but that's not what I am saying.

We all have moral imperatives that we believe in, and we have to prioritize our own lives and resources to pursue them.

Apparently, fighting for Israel is an important one for you. I have no problem with that. I have to decide which things are most important for me to pursue. And participating in a never-ending war that is honestly none of my business is not high on that list.

The "Well then you must believe in NO government" argument is used incessantly against libertarians, and I'll answer it the same way I always would. Our government should exist solely to protect our liberties. Under that construct, I still have all the freedom I want to meddle in world affairs. The government should not be forcing me to save the lives of starving children, to save the lives of sick children, or to save the lives of Israeli children. That's all there is to it.

Neither should the government force me to pay for saving children burning in a fire in the house down the street.

 

[steveh_131]

Neither should the government force me to pay for saving children burning in a fire in the house down the street.

Agreed.

 

[CarmelHP]

Agreed.

And that's why you'll forever be on the political margin.