You know, it still amazes me that people think Ron Paul makes sense on anything. I don't get it. I will just assume it is a failure on my part.
Could the conservative majority on the Supreme Court be why Obama moves so slow?
(49 posts) (6 voices)-
Elemenope
ModeratorChina is contained (and contains) India. Besides, right now we don't have the ability to project force in that region close to what would be necessary to contain an honest-to-goodness Chinese imperialist push.
When one carrier group could pay for every child's education in America from pre-k to post-grad, lock stock and barrel, it seems like we have our priorities pretty cocked up.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ty
ModeratorBut would Ron Paul pay for every child's education through post-grad? That seems very non-libertarian. Downright Socialist!
But you missed my point on China. I am saying that someone always takes the lead on the international stage. Always. And it is generally the country with the greatest mobile military force. If the US vacates that position, someone will fill it. I only used China as an example.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorBut would Ron Paul pay for every child's education through post-grad? That seems very non-libertarian. Downright Socialist!
Well, that's a chicken/egg problem. You need to end the empire before you can start spending the peace dividend.
But you missed my point on China. I am saying that someone always takes the lead on the international stage. Always. And it is generally the country with the greatest mobile military force. If the US vacates that position, someone will fill it. I only used China as an example.
Yeah, but we're at the point where nobody else is even close. If the US reduced its military force in half, it would still be larger than the rest of the world's combined in $$.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberI would point out that nobody, not even Ron Paul, is advocating total isolationism or disengagement from the world. There is a middle ground. Why do we have thousands of soldiers in eruope? In Japan? Given the bad blood in Korea? Why do we have according to some sources 700 "bases" (including minor facilities) spread around the world? Why do we preach "the free market" yet act like military force and corrupted client states are the only way to obtain access to resources (while the eviiiiilll commies in china are using much cheaper and more effective commercial contracts to obtain MORE access to the resources their economy needs?) Plus: someONE taking the role as hegemon is actually pretty rare in history...usually there are contending forces. I'm not saying that's more peaceful or pleasant (c.f. European history) but how well is "total spectrum dominance" really working for anyone but a few banks and arms manufacturers?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Ty
ModeratorI'm not saying that I disagree with any of your analysis there, Brian. I'm saying that nothing I've ever heard come out of Ron Paul's mouth makes me think he has any clue how to address the problem with the nuance that it requires. He strikes me very much as a blunt instrument looking for something to hammer on.
But, as I said, he just utterly fails to speak to me or my issues on any level. I am prepared to accept that this is my fault somehow. Or maybe my Mexican heritage makes me want to choke him out every time he speaks on immigration, and the blood pounding in my ears cancels out everything else he is saying.
It actually doesn't matter, because he comes off as such a crackpot that he will never be more than a footnote in major politics.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberTy: Given that many of Ron Paul's supporters are Ayn Rand loons or White Nationalists, it's easy to understand why you find him distasteful. It's just that during the debates, he was the only candidate (well...Gravel was pretty cool, too) who said anything close to what I think about our current "Campaign to Civilize the Wogs (and make a ton of money for well connected sociopaths") :)
And, as his own partisans noted during one discussion, what is really worse, having a few isolationist racist nuts on your side (Ron Paul) or
promulgating policies that will result in thousands of civllian dead and billions in debt? (Obama AND McCain...and certainly that vampire Hillary Clinton)I am by no means a Paul supporter....but I admire the man a little bit. Just a little.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberI would also confess that many of the most rational voices against our warfare state are coming not from the left ("Well...Obama may be continuing the exact same policies as Bush I, W, etc, but he does these policies with disdain, so that is ok!") but from "fringe" old line conservatives like Daniel Larrison at American Conservative magazine. It's scary when I find myself agreeing with the "Peleo Right" more than mainstream liberals who are just happy about more war under Obama:
"The security and warfare state is no less and actually far more alien to these shores than any entitlement program. It is far more dangerous to the constitutional government that truly was one of the most admirable achievements of our ancestors, and it goes against the grain of most of our national history. A huge standing army, military outposts scattered around the globe, perpetual war and the arbitrary use of force by executive order–are these really compatible with the national character Lowry, Ponnuru and Rubio claim to cherish? Of course they are not, which reminds us that their dedication here is no more meaningful than that of most of the would-be “constitutionalist conservatives” who gathered near Mount Vernon."
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberSecret arrests, renditions, torture...should be anathema to the citizens of a constitutional republic. The CIA now acknowledges that American citizens can be assassinated at the discretion of the American government"
I have to say...despite his baggage, Ron Paul can be amazing. I don't share his faith that the American Republic was that constitutional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGktTws2bK0&feature=player_embedded#
He acknowleges that the American Government has become the biggest threat...the National Security State.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberExactly. Heck...when he stops worrying about dark skinned people and invasions by Spanish speakers*, Pat Buchanan sometimes makes more sense on foreign policy than most mainstream "cruise missile liberals" like Hillary and Obama and my Senator (D) from the great State of the Defense Industry Diane Feinstein (hat tip to Stop Me Before I Vote Again) or "Neoconservatives".
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorBut that's just me.
No, it isn't just you. What you said was perfectly fair. It is just frustrating in the extreme to have a guy that makes sense on other things *that nobody else does* to be wedded with execrable positions on other things that matter a great deal, like immigration policy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorFair enough. They actually come from a similar strain of American conservatism (the "paleo" strand), which Paul then flavors haphazardly with libertarianism much as Goldwater once did.
Infinitely preferable, IMO, to the neo-con/evangelical alliance of doom, though they still manage to be excruciatingly stupid about a few issues (like immigration and border law).
Posted 3 years ago # -
Brian M
MemberTy and Elemonope: And that's the challenge, isn't it? The rabid racism and cultural/Christian chauvinism combined with a visceral reaction against the national security state and foreign policy adventurism.
Still...as the Paulbots pointed out: who care how racist Paul is when his policies will result in fewer invasions and resulting death and suffering by foreign dusky people?
If I fully believed that were the case, of course.
Posted 3 years ago # -
WarbVIII
MemberJust thought I'd point out there are two or three states already getting prepared to sue the Gov. about the health care bill and hope to have it declared unconstitutional Virginia, and one or both of the Carolina's and that is just today...so am I still seeing phantoms? This is exactly the type of thing that happened in FDR's time...anyway am I still wrong or just a good student of history?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Elemenope
ModeratorThe difference is that post Wickard, SCOTUS will never back significantly off the rational relation test (regardless of the conservativeness of its members) because they are ideologically invested in the government having enough power to do what they just did with health care, just in other areas. This is why Lopez never really went anywhere.
The states *will* lose in court. This is just the last gasping of a politically defeated faction.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.