Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 10, 2022, 9:59 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An objective take on Ron Paul
#1
An objective take on Ron Paul
And it's not too kind...

Richard McGrath Wrote:The underlying problem with Ron Paul is his basic motivation: rather than pro-freedom he is primarily anti-government.

Instead of advocating government that protects individual rights, he has given libertarianism a bad name by advocating anarchism, the view that all government is bad; instead of advocating small government and the rule of law, he and his supporters argue for no state and no rule of law. In reality, there can be no freedom when there is no government

http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/down-to...n-get.html

I've been thinking along the same lines after initially being of the opposite opinion but this piece of writing seals the deal for me. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul's foreign policy is a bastion of hope should think again - in reality the actions he advocates would thwart, not promote, freedom.
.
Reply
#2
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
And, objectively observed, he's 30 years too old.
Reply
#3
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
That's a pretty shit reason to disagree with someone's political or philosophical notions, it's about the equivalent to saying someone is too young or too ginger.
.
Reply
#4
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
It's a waste of time to put effort into agreeing or disagreeing with anybody who is realistically not fit for the vagaries of executive office. The military 'retire' on average at half his age from active duty!

But I like how he fucks the other Republicunts! Big Grin
Reply
#5
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
Quote:It would not douse the flames of resentment in many of those countries, it would fan them. Such a policy would show their enemies (and on numerous occasions since at least the Suez capitulation has shown them) that the U.S. is a soft touch who will tolerate substantial strikes against its own citizens without any adequate retaliation.


So....we're supposed to put a company of Marines into every third world shithole and bankrupt ourselves in the process so this clown can feel good about himself?

The only decent idea Paul had was to reduce the extent of the military-industrial complex.

Paul got 4% in Mississippi and 5% in Alabama. His campaign reminds me of that TV Series "The Walking Dead," but please, leave the old bastard the dignity of his one good idea.
Reply
#6
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
(March 19, 2012 at 2:15 am)Minimalist Wrote: The only decent idea Paul had was to reduce the extent of the military-industrial complex.

Agreed!
So Americans should give him a statue and do something with that idea.

But it is telltale that nobody else in the political landscape seems to have this on their agenda. On either side of the isle. It just confirms yet again what political power the military-industrial complex wields and how money rules. All with tax money!
Reply
#7
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
(March 19, 2012 at 2:15 am)Minimalist Wrote: So....we're supposed to put a company of Marines into every third world shithole and bankrupt ourselves in the process so this clown can feel good about himself?

The only decent idea Paul had was to reduce the extent of the military-industrial complex.

You've got the complete wrong idea.

McGrath mentions in his article that the act of having a military presence in 130 countries is going to bankrupt the US, but he also rejects Paul's notion that the best course of action is complete non-interventionism - He would advocate pulling out of countries where there is no clear and present danger to the US (Germany, Japan, Russian border nations, Strategic Chinese locations etc) to focus on countries that harbour and actively encourage war against the Western world, such as Iran - the idea being that the role of government as a protector of it's citizens rights does not merely require retaliation when acted against, but the subversion of threats prior to their impact. The notion that Paul presents of it being entirely America's fault for the hostility towards their culture and thus proposing non-action is also extremely naive and dangerous, it would only portray America as a nation of cowards and give the extremists more leash to violate the rights of others.

Yeah it's true to an extent that the Americans being overbearing in terms of foreign policy has created some of the backlash against western society at large, but it's completely idiotic to think that this is the sole reason and thus eliminating such foreign policy entirely will solve all of these international angsts against America, the reality is there is literally an army out there of brain-washed anti-society religious fundamentalists who believe they have a god-given right to rule by the sword.

Quote:Paul got 4% in Mississippi and 5% in Alabama. His campaign reminds me of that TV Series "The Walking Dead," but please, leave the old bastard the dignity of his one good idea.

Big Grin Brilliant!

But he does have a few good ideas, like a return to sound money and the end of the fractional-reserve system that constantly ass-fucks the lot of us.
.
Reply
#8
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
(March 19, 2012 at 3:07 am)theVOID Wrote:
(March 19, 2012 at 2:15 am)Minimalist Wrote: So....we're supposed to put a company of Marines into every third world shithole and bankrupt ourselves in the process so this clown can feel good about himself?

The only decent idea Paul had was to reduce the extent of the military-industrial complex.

You've got the complete wrong idea.

McGrath mentions in his article that the act of having a military presence in 130 countries is going to bankrupt the US, but he also rejects Paul's notion that the best course of action is complete non-interventionism - He would advocate pulling out of countries where there is no clear and present danger to the US (Germany, Japan, Russian border nations, Strategic Chinese locations etc) to focus on countries that harbour and actively encourage war against the Western world, such as Iran - the idea being that the role of government as a protector of it's citizens rights does not merely require retaliation when acted against, but the subversion of threats prior to their impact. The notion that Paul presents of it being entirely America's fault for the hostility towards their culture and thus proposing non-action is also extremely naive and dangerous, it would only portray America as a nation of cowards and give the extremists more leash to violate the rights of others.

Yeah it's true to an extent that the Americans being overbearing in terms of foreign policy has created some of the backlash against western society at large, but it's completely idiotic to think that this is the sole reason and thus eliminating such foreign policy entirely will solve all of these international angsts against America, the reality is there is literally an army out there of brain-washed anti-society religious fundamentalists who believe they have a god-given right to rule by the sword.

Quote:Paul got 4% in Mississippi and 5% in Alabama. His campaign reminds me of that TV Series "The Walking Dead," but please, leave the old bastard the dignity of his one good idea.

Big Grin Brilliant!

But he does have a few good ideas, like a return to sound money and the end of the fractional-reserve system that constantly ass-fucks the lot of us.

Such as Iran?
Do you know the history of Iran? How are they a threat to the US?
I don't agree with Paul on everything, but FP is one of the most important policies he has.
You say we should "focus on countries that harbour and actively encourage war against the Western world, such as Iran"...

Can you describe the threat of Iran to the US?
Reply
#9
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
(March 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm)paintpooper Wrote: You say we should "focus on countries that harbour and actively encourage war against the Western world, such as Iran"...

Can you describe the threat of Iran to the US?

It's a threat to our US Interests in Israel, which last I checked, would be cassus belli enough if they were to attempt to annihilate Israel and damage our stuff in the process.

That said, it's easier to step into and fight off actual threats if we're not actively wasting our time playing Occupy Iraq St.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
Reply
#10
RE: An objective take on Ron Paul
(March 19, 2012 at 3:07 am)theVOID Wrote: He would advocate pulling out of countries where there is no clear and present danger to the US (Germany, Japan, Russian border nations...

What the hell are they doing in Germany?!

I had no idea they were there :S
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Black People - Stop Blaming Racism, Take Responsibility Napoléon 227 21143 March 18, 2022 at 4:21 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Let’s take their guns BrokenQuill92 141 4418 November 22, 2020 at 4:28 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  As Economy Crashes, Democracts Finally Start To Take Impeactment Seriously. ReptilianPeon 28 1229 September 22, 2019 at 3:39 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  Paul Manafort fredd bear 21 2056 March 10, 2019 at 10:58 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Paul Krugman Called It Minimalist 38 4474 October 22, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  It's funny how the right loves to dish it, but can't take it GODZILLA 3 362 October 22, 2018 at 11:17 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Oops. Fucked Up Again, Paul Minimalist 2 422 May 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Rand Paul Caves Like The Useless Shit He Is Minimalist 7 1246 April 23, 2018 at 8:55 pm
Last Post: The Industrial Atheist
  Unbelievable! Paul Ryan praises $1.50/week tax cut! Jehanne 14 2040 February 6, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Losing respect for Rand Paul shadow 127 7673 February 4, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)