Ron Paul Wins Iowa GOP Debate; Is Right On Iran

[RLENT]

Here is a blatant form of McCarthyism worthy of Old Joe, himself. This line of questioning was shamed out of public discourse more than 50 years ago.

See if you can manage to contain your self-righteous indignation there ..... for just a little bit .....

No EO member is required to prove his or her loyalty to anyone for any reason.

And I wasn't asking anyone to do so - I simply inquired as to where that loyalty lay, having observed, over time, both Moose's previous comments (as well as current), and the current notation in that little thingie to the left of his posts - describing his location as Minnesota & Israel .....

Not knowing the man personally, it was actually, in and of itself, a fairly innocent inquiry ..... a question asked in earnest, with the full expectation that the answer given would have been an honest one ...

This highly objectionable bullying tactic is used to silence opposing viewpoints.

Too rich by half .....

Methinks thee doth protest a bit too loudly .....

Factually, the only actual bullying that is being attempted here is by yourself - you accuse me, of the very thing that you yourself are attempting to do:

Whereas I actually sought more communication and dialog, you seek the exact opposite - and seek to silence me.

Dumpster-diving into one's ethnic or religious affiliation is beyond the pale.

And I asked about neither - only about nationality, citizenship, and the allegiance that should be attendant with it.

For all I know, the individual I addressed my questions to could actually be a non-US citizen .... or as I mentioned, a dual-citizen .... if either is the case, it is relevant to understanding the individual's motivations.

See if you can manage to stick to the issues I actually raised, rather than attempting to insert something of your own creation into the conversation (all whilst falsely attempting to pawn it off on me)

I am not the one inserting ethnic and/or religious affiliation into the matter - I don't know what either of those are for the individual in question, nor do I have any interest in them particularly, or care about them one way or another, even in the slightest.

Having said that, as OVM rightly pointed out, he was commenting on national politics and policy - which as OVM characterized "affects his native land" - and I believe that inquiring as to his motivations for his position is entirely fair game.

Factually, I really have no idea whether he is even a US citizen at all - he may only hold Israeli citizenship - which is totally fine - lots of non-citizens have opinions about our politics.

Did this slip by the censors unwittingly?

Probably not .... it's just that they, being reasonable individuals, may have entertained the possibility it just might not have been motivated by some nefarious purpose.

You wanna know what the real hoot here is ?

Consider the long litany of disgusting innuendo, aspersions, insinuations, and otherwise utterly vile general commentary about the religion, nationality, and allegiances of the current occupant of the Whitehouse, on this very forum, coming from the end of the political spectrum that you appear to self-identify with.

..... where was your voice then ?

 

[RLENT]

OVM... have you studied the practice of McCarthyism? Are you familiar with its historical roots? In other words, do you have a clue what you're talking about?

I am (familiar with) and actually do (have a clue) .... I also have a friend from Wisconsin that is (familiar) as well ..... very familiar, much to his everlasting shame ....

His name is Joe ..... he was named after his great-uncle .... with whom you may already be familiar (hint: the last name begins with an "M" and ends with a "y")

Why would you deflect attention away from a transgressor, even to the point of making excuses?

Perhaps because he was able see to my questions for exactly what they were: an effort to understand someone else's motivations ....

This is, of course, entirely different thing than assuming that one already knows another's motivations ... or has the ability to somehow divine them ...... from a few simple, direct questions asked by another ....

 

[Turtle]

Moose seems to be defending an American policy that favors his native land and since he brought it up it is fair game...as in made a statement....

That's the problem. "Seems to be" is an assumption. Plus, he didn't bring up his "native land" in this thread, someone else did, and then a different someone else attempted to use it to against Moose personally in order to discredit his opinions. In doing so, massive assumptions were made ("The above, roughly translated (IMO)" and what followed) not only about Moose, but about what the Founding Fathers' foreign policy views might be in a modern post-WWII nuclear era. While not necessarily a personal attack, or the (arguably) over-the-top, drama-queen characterizations of McCarthyism and Antisemitism, it is nevertheless not a debate, but something else. It would certainly get the individual and his team disqualified from a formal debate competition, not that that matters much here.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is that of Noninterventionism, and of having no entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. It's the same foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Well, most of the Founding Fathers, but certainly not all of them. It's also a policy that, not unlike Communism or Socialism, is Utopian today, because it assumes no foreign entity would have any ill will towards us or any of our friends (who might ask for our help). Noninterventionism is not the same as "isolationism", true enough, but if you turn your back on enough friends enough times to avoid entangling alliances, the end result could very well be precisely that.

Noninterventionist foreign policy sounds great in the abstract, but a very good argument can be made for it being meaningless in application in today's far smaller world. And whether something is meaningful or meaningless, is purely subjective. In a post-WWII relatively smaller world, a strong argument can be made that, “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.” (Roosevelt) It's a valid opinion that mirrors reality of today's world. And frankly, we can use ourselves and our own actions are a brilliant illustration of that, since we have become experts at breaking the peace all over the place, both overtly and covertly.

In George Washington's Farewell Address, he stated "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world." The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson just as clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."

Such viewpoints became far more than mere policy. It became a national expression of ourselves and our place in the world. It was a view which contrasted the simple virtues of our Republic with the subtle and complex qualities of Europe. From 1789 until the Second World War, with the sole exception being our relationship with Panama, the United States refused to enter into treaties of alliance with anyone. Alliances, we believed correctly, would involve us in obscure quarrels and various and sundry rivalries which were none of our concern. Such alliances were both undesirable and completely unnecessary considering our rather unique geographic and political circumstances.

But all that ended with WWII, where in the aftermath we didn't merely reverse the long-standing foreign policy of no entangling alliances, we did so with great gusto. We have allied ourselves with half the world. It's rather insane, really. We have gone overboard with it, with reckless abandon. The pendulum has swung back a little too far.

The policy of no foreign alliances made absolute sense back when the world was a really big place, considering our geographical location and circumstances. But the same policy is arguably quite meaningless in a small world and a global economy.

When someone says that such a foreign policy is meaningless, it's a valid opinion that has value. Their statement is not reduced to a simplistic black/white, "either/or" situation, that of either innocent ignorance, or that of a knowing and willful perversion of the facts (with the "facts" being that Dr. Paul has a quite meaningful foreign policy, which is an opinion not a fact, as "meaningful" is subjective). The logical fallacy of pigeonholing, is an attempt to subsume something or someone's opinions into a frame-of-reference that is too small to incorporate the thing or the opinion. It is an attempt to classify disparate entities into a small number of categories, usually mutually exclusive ones, like the "either/or" situation above.

The example above is actually a combination of two logical fallacies, that of the Straw Man (Dr Paul's foreign policy is meaningful, as a fact, and if you don't agree you are therefore perverting that fact), wrapped inside the Pigeonhole of the False Alternative Fallacy ("Educate yourself ... or get honest .... whichever is appropriate"), which precludes even the possibility that one could be well educated and completely cognizant of Dr Paul's foreign policy, and yet have a differing opinion about it's meaningfulness.

While we can't really put the no-alliance genie back in the bottle, we can certainly better select alliances based on a noninterventionist policy that doesn't require us hitting people who do not agree with us over the head with the empty bottle.

 

[greg334]

In Barack Hussein Obama, we have a Socialist running as a Democrat. With Ron Paul, we have a Libertarian running as a Republican. If either man ran under his true colors neither of them would have ever gotten elected at all.

So if any of those others in the republican group trying to become a candidate show their true colors, they would never get elected too, right?

Libertarianism cannot get serious traction in the USA. Ron Paul, nice fellow, is enjoying a last hurrah and swan song as he fades into irrelevancy.

Actually it did in an acceptable form, the tea party is not a conservative movement although it is under the conservative banner because of the popularity of being with either one or the other group that runs our country. They call themselves one thing but preach many many libertarian values that are not part of the conservative movement.

Meanwhile, Obama is now widely understood to be an open advocate for Socialism. This is an imminent problem. Widespread Democratic support for a genuine Socialist should trouble every American voter.

Well I guess I have to say get over it because that was the way it was in 2008 when we had two candidates who had clear socialist agendas by their political actions in the past who had one rather right conservative and the other with a bigot running mate. If you didn't know Obama by November, well that's sad.

Even Rick Moran's peice in the American Tinker shows the ignorance of the many who claim to discover now he is socialist - the opening paragraph;

[FONT=times new roman,times]We all knew that Barak Obama was liberal. But just how devoted he is to the nanny state has been a pretty well kept secret by both the Senator and his campaign. [/FONT]

God how dumb can he be claiming it was a secret?

Beside I haven't seen too much change towards the socialist agenda as people are claiming, I surely haven't seen our country take a huge social dive towards the socialism everyone preaches. However I seen the republicans being part of the same problem everyone claims is only caused by the dems and the messiah.

We seem to be on the same path that we have been on for the last 45 years, where are the drastic changes that he has made?

 

[greg334]

No matter how you want to look at it, we had 31 people die this past week or so and the country seems to be a upset with that number - our social fabric seems to be ripped at this point because if we are to expect to defend or aid another country without any real justification like being attacked, then can you imagine the reaction of people when thousands are killed defending say Korea?

As much as many can make Paul out as wrong, he has a point and without the support of other countries who have a direct reason to worry, we should not be anywhere but here. Israel is an exception to a point but they too can take care of themselves.

 

[layoutshooter]

Re: Obama, the lying sack of blank

Obama is a career politician, career politicians are liars. Lying is how they rip us of to get their pay. ( they do NOT earn a living). I just expect ALL of them, Obama included, to lie through their teeth. I would never allow one to kiss a baby of mine, who knows what kinds of germs politicians carry? They kind of remind me of walking viruses.

There are few kinds of people in life more useless than career politicians.

 

[moose]

Ron Paul Foreign Policy makes him an Un-electable candidate.

wouldn't we all be better off without the needs to spend,what it is now, 3 trillion $ a year or so, on our elected wars ?
sure we will.
problem # one is, that the American voter is an experienced consumer. and the current president run on that card in 2008.
somehow, once a person becomes familiar with the information and responsibility involving the presidency, they gets cold feet.
happens now - with a Muslim in charge - will happens again.
problem #2 is, while we might not call Iran an enemy, they sure as hell call us an enemy.
if we do not do what it takes to protect ourselves, they will interpolate it as weakness, and comes after us.
the American voters are smarter then that, and understands the costs of defending our way of life.
problem #3 is, that the American voter know that every single candidate will offer an economic reliefs in return for the vote. we somehow along the way stopped believing them.
let alone giving away our security in return for a worthless promises.
problem #4 is, we like our wars. it keeps our homeland safe. the most horrible times was 911 and pearl harbor .
and that's was a 3,000 Americans life's lost in a day - each.
if we do not prevent the nukes from Iran, a dirty bomb is on it's way to our mainlands . and that's a 30,000,000 Americans life's a day - each .
the elected president will be one that is willing to prevent a dirty bomb from the Hisbu'llah and El-Kahi'dah, Aka Iran.
problem #5, this is not about Israel. it is about America.
*I am not afraid of what Ron Paul's foreign policy will do to Israel. they do not really needs our military support. and once it's not about the money, i'm not seeing Run Paul going against the Jewish voters, and it's affiliated, and loudly stopping internationals political threats against Israel. - it will be a political suicide .
*i'm triffid of what it will do to America. the Vast majority of American voters, are simply not ready to die for it's candidate .
as stated : Ron Paul Foreign Policy makes him an Un-electable candidate. he WILL drop.

Wow, that was long

 

[greg334]

Ron Paul Foreign Policy makes him an Un-electable candidate.

I think if he ran with the backing of the republican or even the democratic party, he would win with a good margin.

ALSO 9.11 wasn't a country attacking us, it was a group of people who belonged to an organization much like other organization. TO equate it with Japan seems to be rather out of place because we can't declare war on terrorism (or poverty for that matter) but we can on a country which we could easily ID Japan.

 

[moose]

And your point is ?
the 9.11 attackers only had airplanes to attack us with .
by electing R.P, we are arming those same groups with dirty bombs.
remember that Ben Aflek/freeman movie ? when a nuke was placed as a vending machine inside a football field ?
that was 15 years ago.
I do not understand, are we really expecting them to simply leave us alone once they achieve nuke capability ?

 

[greg334]

My point is we have fought 6 or 7 wars since WW2 and only WW2 was the only war where we were attacked by a country.

9.11 we were not attacked by a country but a fundamentalist group equal to one of them anti-abortion/environmentalist groups. It is the same as Oklahoma city or the abortion clinic bombings or the burning of new housing in California.

The difference is we could easily identify who attacked us in 1941 as a country and fight them, but in 2001 we could not identify a country that was actually part of the attack and fight them because there wasn't any.

The problem is Iran will get a Nuke, they may already have it from Russia but we are not ready or able to go into Iran and topple the government or just plainly wipe them out. We lack the strength and the political capital by being too many places for too long. On top of that, I would think Israel would have a grip on things, better than we do and they have come out and said they will pretty much wipe Iran off the map when they get a nuke.

 

[AMonger]

And your point is ?
the 9.11 attackers only had airplanes to attack us with .
by electing R.P, we are arming those same groups with dirty bombs.
remember that Ben Aflek/freeman movie ? when a nuke was placed as a vending machine inside a football field ?
that was 15 years ago.
I do not understand, are we really expecting them to simply leave us alone once they achieve nuke capability ?

Well, if they're attacking us for a reason (and it isn't "They hate us for our freedom"), and you remove the reason...

Now, beyond that, myself, I don't consider the Arabs stable eggnog to have nukes. But once you use that as a basis for making a foreign policy decision to prevent them from acquiring them, you're opening the door to more than you realize, especially considering that the U.S. isn't going to be the biggest dog on the block for much longer. So what happens in the near future when some new weapon is invented or discovered and China doesn't want US to have it. Will you agree then that one nation can tell another sovereign nation they can't have technology that others have?

I'm sure you've heard, and probably used, the saying, "An armed society is a polite society." Well, it can work the same way globally. If Iran was armed, would the West have installed a brutal dictator over them, planting the seeds of what would later become the Iranian Hostage Crisis?

No, freedom must be the only basis for governing both individuals and nations.

 

[RLENT]

by electing R.P, we are arming those same groups with dirty bombs. remember that Ben Aflek/freeman movie ? when a nuke was placed as a vending machine inside a football field ? that was 15 years ago.

Good Lord .... here we go again .....

{Personal attacks are not permitted. Text deleted. - OVM}

In any event, well said to both Greg and Amonger.

And Moose - thanks for your non-responsiveness in (not) answering the two relatively simple questions I asked - that, in itself, speaks volumes to me.