If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Pick the leading candidate from the Democratic party. Now pick the leader from the Republican party. It will be either one of those people.
I can only speak from my limited time on this planet but I've seen "third party" candidates every election. And each election they don't win. It's always a dream that somebody like Paul will get the nod, but in all reality we're dealing w/ too many people of voting age who are acclimated to voting R or D, don't really understand the purpose of the Constitution (ty public schools), and will simply listen to the petty hate shit about the other party's candidate...thus they're riled up to "vote the lesser of two evils."
Wash, rinse, repeat.
And damnit this ^^^ is why we wanna know what you know about the next generation being more libertarian minded. You said it, so where are the stats, man?!?!
Correlation to the statistics of the average Internet user. The World's Smallest Political Quiz, on the Internet, is statistically higher in the Centrist and Libertarian sectors than any other.
Also the amount of buzz over the Internet re: Ron Paul.
Hopefully someone from a reputable organization will gather some real statistics on the matter.
__________________
bzb - SBN's resident DJ
2006 Ducati SuperSport 800 - Carbon fiber fender & heel guards, 14T front sprocket, CA integrated tail light, fender elim, air box mod, cut DP cans, Sargent seat
I take issue with that too. But I guess I don't know what he means by "armed forces".
It's really the policy makers and politicians are at fault. You want the troops home? Good, me too. Give them the tools, strategy and equipment to carry out a specific set of objectives and then redeploy them.
The problem with Paul's perspective on the WoT is that he's simply to introverted. We live in a global economy that's interwoven. Isolationism does not lend itself well to this concept.
Isolation isn't really the same as non-intervention.
But I 100% agree with your stance on the current war. In fact, that's almost exactly what I told my coworkers today at lunch when asked what I thought about the war.
__________________
bzb - SBN's resident DJ
2006 Ducati SuperSport 800 - Carbon fiber fender & heel guards, 14T front sprocket, CA integrated tail light, fender elim, air box mod, cut DP cans, Sargent seat
Posts: 9,283
Casino Cash: $18495
Sportbike: Katana - Sold 8/08
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem317
The problem with Paul's perspective on the WoT is that he's simply to introverted. We live in a global economy that's interwoven. Isolationism does not lend itself well to this concept.
How many times do we have to differentiate between isolationism and non-intervention before you understand?
Pick the leading candidate from the Democratic party. Now pick the leader from the Republican party. It will be either one of those people.
I can only speak from my limited time on this planet but I've seen "third party" candidates every election. And each election they don't win. It's always a dream that somebody like Paul will get the nod, but in all reality we're dealing w/ too many people of voting age who are acclimated to voting R or D, don't really understand the purpose of the Constitution (ty public schools), and will simply listen to the petty hate shit about the other party's candidate...thus they're riled up to "vote the lesser of two evils."
Wash, rinse, repeat.
And damnit this ^^^ is why we wanna know what you know about the next generation being more libertarian minded. You said it, so where are the stats, man?!?!
Except that the difference this time is that Ron Paul is *not* a third party candidate. He is contesting for the *Republican* nomination. His chances aren't, honestly, all that good, in part becuase of the sort of dishonesty pointed out by the OP on this thread. But your third-party objection on this particular case is incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem317
The problem with Paul's perspective on the WoT is that he's simply to introverted. We live in a global economy that's interwoven. Isolationism does not lend itself well to this concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
How many times do we have to differentiate between isolationism and non-intervention before you understand?
An infinite number of times, for he has made a conscious choice not to understand. You cannot teach a person who refuses to learn.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
158,000 miles (so far)
Except that the difference this time is that Ron Paul is *not* a third party candidate. He is contesting for the *Republican* nomination. His chances aren't, honestly, all that good, in part becuase of the sort of dishonesty pointed out by the OP on this thread. But your third-party objection on this particular case is incorrect.
Indeed.
I should have labeled him specifically as "different" from the typical breed in the Republican lineup. He may as well be considered a third party as he'll have to get Republicans to vote for him instead of the usual R-etard. Ultimately, as you as alluded to, the result will be the same.
How many times do we have to differentiate between isolationism and non-intervention before you understand?
Tomato, tomato. *Emphasis added on different syllables*
I've heard your explanation. Obviously, there's a fine line. He certainly sounds more like a Buchanan-style isolationist. He's never really defined what criteria or criterion should trigger intervention.
Tomato, tomato. *Emphasis added on different syllables*
I've heard your explanation. Obviously, there's a fine line. He certainly sounds more like a Buchanan-style isolationist. He's never really defined what criteria or criterion should trigger intervention.
In neighborhood terms, isolationism is when you turn your house into a bunker and hunker inside with your guns and grow your own mushrooms in the basement, and all your neighbors don't talk to you and think you're nuts. Non-interventionism is when you talk to your neighbors, lend and borrow and buy and sell stuff, but don't tell them how to live or get involved in their household affairs unless they're threatening you. What we're doing now is when you run around the neighborhood telling everyone what their yard has to look like and how to raise their kids, and everyone hates you because you're a busybody and an asshole.
Non-interventionism is when we, as a country, would trade freely with others, and have diplomatic relations, and easy travel, but would not involve ourselves in the internal affairs of another country unless it was posing an actual threat to us. That's good neighborliness. And that's different than isolationism, which is more like cutting off trade and instituting tariffs and "protecting" jobs and pretty much pulling into the turtle shell and trying to be "self-sufficient" and not to interact with the rest of the world any more than absolutely necessary. Buchanan is more the latter; Paul is more the former.
I'll admit that Paul leans toward the isolationist in his desire to seal the borders and restrict immigration, and I do not agree with that part of his position. But other than that particular position, he's a good non-interventionist, not an isolationist.
His position on what criteria or criterion should trigger intervention is pretty simple and clear, and in line with libertarian thought: in self-defense. When a country attacks us, or poses a credible threat to actually do so. Otherwise no.
Kind of like how as a person, you may use violence to defend yourself from an actual attack, or from someone who is directly threatening an imminent attack in a manner that a reasonable person would agree is credible. And in that latter case, you'd better be able to show clearly why you felt threatened. In any other situation, it would not be considered self-defense, and would not be right.
So it's more than "to-may-to, to-mah-to". The difference matters.
PhilB
__________________
'93 Ducati Monster 900
158,000 miles (so far)
This is why Ron Paul won't get the nod.
