Thread: Ron Paul 2012

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Also, if Obama has done nothing but extend Bush's policies, then why is the Iraq war officially ending? Or am I wrong about that?

It 'officially' ended while Bush was still in office. We have a new permanent military base in Iraq, and will continue to keep 15,000 solider in Iraq permanently. You could call that an end to the war, and the new normal is to forever have troops in the country, like we do in many other countries. However, the troops are still going to get attacked and die, and we are still spending money so there is little practical difference.

Originally Posted by Alric

It 'officially' ended while Bush was still in office. We have a new permanent military base in Iraq, and will continue to keep 15,000 solider in Iraq permanently. You could call that an end to the war, and the new normal is to forever have troops in the country, like we do in many other countries. However, the troops are still going to get attacked and die, and we are still spending money so there is little practical difference.

I thought I heard on the news that they were sending ALL the troops back home.

Originally Posted by Supernova

he thinks the US is and should be above the United Nations

Whats wrong with that? Any globalist organisation is an affront to soverignity and eventually to personal freedom.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

I thought I heard on the news that they were sending ALL the troops back home.

Unfortunately no. There will be about 15,000 troops left as "embassy guard." Just like every country we've ever been in, we will ALWAYS have troops there. Germany, Korea, Japan, Panama, etc. The entire Middle East has been fucked over by our foreign policy; we just took down two dictators that we propped up... and now what will we do with these new likely dictators that will rise? I really don't know, but we don't have the money to nation-build there.

And on the UN; I agree with Ron Paul. We, the People have established a government, we have the right to act as a sovereign nation. There ARE benefits to an intergovernmental PANEL, which is acceptable, but the UN is just a steppingstone to a World Government, which is a horrible idea (Just look at how it's working in the EU.) What happens if we establish a world government, but it's a failure? It's much better in my opinion to have multiple sovereign nations that can work together without being forced. Governments that fail, fail.

Indeed, international dialogue has its benefits, but any move to world government is doomed to end in disaster. With regards to the EU, it's not only bas on economic, social and soverign levels, it's unaccountable and completely undemocratic.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Unfortunately no. There will be about 15,000 troops left as "embassy guard." Just like every country we've ever been in, we will ALWAYS have troops there. Germany, Korea, Japan, Panama, etc. The entire Middle East has been fucked over by our foreign policy; we just took down two dictators that we propped up... and now what will we do with these new likely dictators that will rise? I really don't know, but we don't have the money to nation-build there.

Well, he's certainly doing far more than most of the GOP would do if president.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Well, he's certainly doing far more than most of the GOP would do if president.

Which is precisely why I do not vote Republican. Those guys are bat-shit war crazy I vote libertarian, which is what Ron Paul is. Libertarian, classical liberal, fiscal conservative. (And technically, Obama's following up Bush's signed promise to withdraw by the end of 2011. Remember when he got shoes thrown at him? That's when he was announcing our withdrawal from Iraq.) I'm not honestly sure Obama would have withdrawn had Bush not promised it... which is very, very sad.

I'll add, that Rick Perry is the perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican Party and why they will NOT exist for another 25 years in their current state. They need to change their principles from "Preemptive war" and "Gay people sux" back to fiscal conservatism.

And the Democratic party needs to change from SAYING they want no war, legal drugs, etc. To actually DOING it. So we can either have the crazy people who admit they like war and dislike gay people... or the guys who just pretend.

Well, I guess that's where we differ, because if I were going to vote third-party, I couldn't vote anything other than green party. It's the only platform that makes sense to me in all areas.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

Whats wrong with that? Any globalist organisation is an affront to soverignity and eventually to personal freedom.

See, this attitude is one of the problems I have with Ron Paul. This is the 21st century, we can't just turn a blind eye to the rest of the world and expect everything to turn out fine. Sure, the UN isn't perfect, it has problems, but nothing of that nature exists today without problems. Ron Paul would be doing a lot more for America and the world if he tried to help improve it than completely disregarding it.

I guess it's a mater of weather you see Americans, British, Chinese, Russians, etc., or weather you just see humans.

Originally Posted by Supernova

See, this attitude is one of the problems I have with Ron Paul. This is the 21st century, we can't just turn a blind eye to the rest of the world and expect everything to turn out fine. Sure, the UN isn't perfect, it has problems, but nothing of that nature exists today without problems. Ron Paul would be doing a lot more for America and the world if he tried to help improve it than completely disregarding it.

I guess it's a mater of weather you see Americans, British, Chinese, Russians, etc., or weather you just see humans.

There is a difference between turning a blind eye to the rest of the world (refusing to enter dialogue with other nations) and pushing for a one world government, which will just end up with a world of billions of souless identical consumer drones that do nothing more than to serve a globalist elite.

I see people as both humans and American/Chinese etc, I think globalisation will reduce the interesitng diversity of the world to a souless degenerate single non-culture.

Originally Posted by Thatperson

I see people as both humans and American/Chinese etc, I think globalisation will reduce the interesitng diversity of the world to a souless degenerate single non-culture.

And that sameness inhibits innovation. The world is becoming Westernized, and the UN is an instrument of the West to dominate with culture and methods, when in reality there should be free competition between varying forms of government. Some socialized systems work, generally, like the small Scandinavian nations. Some capitalist areas work, like Hong Kong. But if we all unite under one system, like Europe has attempted and the Soviet Union attempted (And the Western economies are currently doing), if it fails, we ALL fail.

We are all human, but we are also unique in culture, economy, and government. That's what's great about humanity, we can take different ideas, apply them, and make society work for ourselves without forcing it down the throats of other cultures who may disagree. Westernization is destroying non-Western cultures by creating sameness.

Libertarians cloak themselves with "personal liberty" but underneath that cloak is "personal greed". This acts to endanger the weak, the disadvantaged, and the environment of the Earth.

Originally Posted by roswell

Libertarians cloak themselves with "personal liberty" but underneath that cloak is "personal greed". This acts to endanger the weak, the disadvantaged, and the environment of the Earth.

... Or maybe it's actually liberty they want. There is such a thing as charity and volunteer work, in which us libertarians participate. I work at the local library free of charge, because it's an outstanding asset to my community.

And I also take all measures possible to protect the environment, specifically reducing my personal consumption and waste.

We're not all bad people! Most greedy people fall in line with Democrats and Republicans... some of us just want more fairness.

Originally Posted by roswell

Libertarians cloak themselves with "personal liberty" but underneath that cloak is "personal greed". This acts to endanger the weak, the disadvantaged, and the environment of the Earth.

Firstly, many libertarians are indeed chiefly concerned with personal liberty and it has nothing to do with greed. They want people to give to charitable causes like education of their own volition, rather than being threatened with incarceration. Who's the humanist; the person who believes society is capable of kindness, or the person who believes you have to threaten people to be kind?

Note that I could just as well say that people to the left of libertarians use "personal fairness" as a cloak for their personal greed, and this would be just as fallacious as what you're saying.

Secondly, environmental protectionism is not inherently contrary to libertarianism.

Please educate yourself and try to get a control of some of your rampant biases. If that thing you quoted a while back represents where you typically get your information from, it's no wonder you're so wrong; it was full of outright lies.

Ron Paul's support base is so diverse (yet numerically not that large) it kind of makes you wonder what kind of US would emerge out of his presidency.

You seem to have it backwards Supernova. The UN tries to enforce uniformity on all the countries, and often the larger countries bully the smaller countries into doing it their way. Ron Paul wants to open dialogue and communicate with every country individually and treat them all with respect, instead of trying to force them all to be the same. Paul has the attitude that just because a country is smaller than us, doesn't mean we have the right to tell them how to live. Sure we can make suggestions, and trade with them, and there will be positive influences from us going to them, but we shouldn't be doing it by force.

The UN is the one that tries to cut off communications and trade to countries it doesn't like. While most people running for president, including Obama want to force countries to do it our way by flaunting our military might, Ron Paul wants to talk. Which is why if Ron Paul wins we will stop all the wars. If he doesn't we will probably be at war with Iran by next year.

You know Israel and the partitioning of the Middle East? Enough said.

The UN: not so good at making peace.

there is no reason for us to be part of the un. they should have absolutely no power over anything america does. foreign policy is pretty easy without the un. commerce with all nations alliance with none. it aint rocket science. if someone does attack us then we defend ourselves with the fury of 1000 suns quickly. no drawn out preemptive wars of aggression for resources. in short im not a fan of the un.

Going back to roswell's post about RP and Ayn Rand, I was just watching an event he did in Meredith, NH on CSPAN. The audio feed picked up the following after he was done answering questions (I've paraphrased it a bit, but it's mostly verbatim):

Girl: I have a question. Who is John Galt?
RP: [laughs] I think I remember that story. Have you distinguished the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism?

Ayn Rand was a crap philosopher and an even worse writer.

Nobody's perfect, but there was some genius in there.

She seemed very derivative to me, from an academic perspective. What original ideas did she have, exactly? She was also mean, hypocritical and dogmatic. I have heard plenty of people talk inspiringly or rationally about libertarianism; she definitely wasn't one of them.

Are you saying she derived objectivism? That's what I was thinking, but I don't really recognize her as an original philosopher, just a recognizer of some wise views. It shows in her work that I've seen, namely Anthem. I haven't read her other books though. All I'm saying is that I don't think she deserves the amount of derision you give her.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Are you saying she derived objectivism? That's what I was thinking, but I don't really recognize her as an original philosopher, just a recognizer of some wise views. It shows in her work that I've seen, namely Anthem. I haven't read her other books though. All I'm saying is that I don't think she deserves the amount of derision you give her.

She really does. Her normative ethical position (egoism) is that we should act in our own self interest..........Irrespective of her sophistry, she really is just a terrible human being. Sorry for the off-topic rant, I hate politics but I always jump on a chance to bash Ayn Rand. I know I'm a loser.

Edit: Cthulhu 2012

All I know is that Anthem and even the concept of embracing egoism revealed at the end of the book was personally balancing and it will always be meaningful to me, I can't argue if you have a different perspective of her.