Quote:And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He (Ron Paul) might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."
blah Wrote:Quote:And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He (Ron Paul) might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."
Very next paragraph?
When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.
That article is what Ive been hoping for....I dont think RP has any chance...but I think he might be the one to push the debate and light the fire under some young people, that may stay lit for the future....I hope his voice will not get silenced....Rock on Ron Paul Revere!!
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:blah Wrote:Quote:And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He (Ron Paul) might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."
Very next paragraph?
When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.
"The Vicitims"? Are you kidding me? I am not a Clinton or Janet Reno's Dance Party fan, but that is just lunatic fringe crap.
GrayBeard Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:blah Wrote:Quote:And conservative syndicated columnist Mona Charen said out loud what many campaign reporters have no doubt been thinking all along: "He (Ron Paul) might make a dandy new leader for the Branch Davidians."
Very next paragraph?
When conservatives feel comfortable mocking the victims gunned down by Clinton-era attorney general Janet Reno's FBI in Waco, Tex., in 1993, it suggests that a complacent and increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened.
"The Vicitims"? Are you kidding me? I am not a Clinton or Janet Reno's Dance Party fan, but that is just lunatic fringe crap.
Well this is the Washington Post....
Why else would they be doing an article on Ron Paul? Other than to undermine the Republican party?
Fo Shizzle Wrote:That article is what Ive been hoping for....I dont think RP has any chance...but I think he might be the one to push the debate and light the fire under some young people, that may stay lit for the future....I hope his voice will not get silenced....Rock on Ron Paul Revere!!
Doesn't happen that way. ...and I'm speaking from experience. I voted for Perot in '92 and '96. Ears at least knew how to protect the country.
RebelKev Wrote:Fo Shizzle Wrote:That article is what Ive been hoping for....I dont think RP has any chance...but I think he might be the one to push the debate and light the fire under some young people, that may stay lit for the future....I hope his voice will not get silenced....Rock on Ron Paul Revere!!
Doesn't happen that way. ...and I'm speaking from experience. I voted for Perot in '92 and '96. Ears at least knew how to protect the country.
This isn't Perot. This is Goldwater.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:Fo Shizzle Wrote:That article is what Ive been hoping for....I dont think RP has any chance...but I think he might be the one to push the debate and light the fire under some young people, that may stay lit for the future....I hope his voice will not get silenced....Rock on Ron Paul Revere!!
Doesn't happen that way. ...and I'm speaking from experience. I voted for Perot in '92 and '96. Ears at least knew how to protect the country.
This isn't Perot. This is Goldwater.
Maybe...BG had a hawkish streak
if by "Hawk", you mean advocating Nuking the North Vietnamese/Communist......Paul has Communist supporting him.
of course, Goldwater had the luxury of seeing the fruits of isolationism play out as we passed one "Neutrality Act" after another, while Britain ignored Churchill and listened to Neville Chamberline in the 1930's....the bury the head in the sand mentality got 10's of millions killed.
the fundamental problem with big L, libertarianism, is that its amoral(no moral base). It doesn't have any logical way of dealing with foreign affairs and it's lead many of them(not all) to flock to isolationism as a default. That basically assumes what secular-humanist beleive, "Man kind is naturally good". Under that thought, the idea of completely withdrawing from the world, would lead our enemies abroad(whether imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or the Communist of the recent past, or the Islamo-Nazi's of today), to suddenly not want to conquer the world anymore and "leave us alone". Then we could all hold hands and sing kumbaya.
GrayBeard Wrote:"The Vicitims"? Are you kidding me? I am not a Clinton or Janet Reno's Dance Party fan, but that is just lunatic fringe crap.
I see what you are saying, but the majority of those people were victims; victims of a cult.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:"The Vicitims"? Are you kidding me? I am not a Clinton or Janet Reno's Dance Party fan, but that is just lunatic fringe crap.
I see what you are saying, but the majority of those people were victims; victims of a cult.
The article implied that they were victims of Clinton and Reno, and that is just crap.
GGniner Wrote:if by "Hawk", you mean advocating Nuking the North Vietnamese/Communist......Paul has Communist supporting him.
of course, Goldwater had the luxury of seeing the fruits of isolationism play out as we passed one "Neutrality Act" after another, while Britain ignored Churchill and listened to Neville Chamberline in the 1930's....the bury the head in the sand mentality got 10's of millions killed.
the fundamental problem with big L, libertarianism, is that its amoral(no moral base). It doesn't have any logical way of dealing with foreign affairs and it's lead many of them(not all) to flock to isolationism as a default. That basically assumes what secular-humanist beleive, "Man kind is naturally good". Under that thought, the idea of completely withdrawing from the world, would lead our enemies abroad(whether imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or the Communist of the recent past, or the Islamo-Nazi's of today), to suddenly not want to conquer the world anymore and "leave us alone". Then we could all hold hands and sing kumbaya.
Although appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain, I don't think Hitler would have refrained from attacking just because we told him he couldn't have Czechoslovakia. He occupied most of Western Europe but was that enough? No, he then invaded the Soviet Union too. He didn't spend all that time and money building up an offensive war machine only to say, okay, if you're going to act tough, I'm not going to attack after all. Appeasement gave Hitler something for nothing, that's all he was looking for. We would still have ended up at war.
NIU007 Wrote:Although appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain, I don't think Hitler would have refrained from attacking just because we told him he couldn't have Czechoslovakia. He occupied most of Western Europe but was that enough? No, he then invaded the Soviet Union too. He didn't spend all that time and money building up an offensive war machine only to say, okay, if you're going to act tough, I'm not going to attack after all. Appeasement gave Hitler something for nothing, that's all he was looking for. We would still have ended up at war.
they could've kept him from getting so powerful, instead they waited till it was too late and we nearly lost to them in WW2. Churchill saw it, was branded a 'war monger' throughout the 30's for it and they ignored him. rest is history I suppose. My point is that the idea of "leaving them alone" will not lead to them changing their ways, seeking world domination, you have to keep that from coming to reality in some way.
GGniner Wrote:NIU007 Wrote:Although appeasement didn't work for Neville Chamberlain, I don't think Hitler would have refrained from attacking just because we told him he couldn't have Czechoslovakia. He occupied most of Western Europe but was that enough? No, he then invaded the Soviet Union too. He didn't spend all that time and money building up an offensive war machine only to say, okay, if you're going to act tough, I'm not going to attack after all. Appeasement gave Hitler something for nothing, that's all he was looking for. We would still have ended up at war.
they could've kept him from getting so powerful, instead they waited till it was too late and we nearly lost to them in WW2. Churchill saw it, was branded a 'war monger' throughout the 30's for it and they ignored him. rest is history I suppose. My point is that the idea of "leaving them alone" will not lead to them changing their ways, seeking world domination, you have to keep that from coming to reality in some way.
What would they have done to keep him from getting powerful? Invade Germany? Stalin also misread Hitler in the 30s and didn't realize his mistake until it was too late, and he was not exactly the weak-kneed type given to knuckling under. Leaving them alone may not change their ways, but it depends entirely on who you're dealing with - it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Right now we are appeasing North Korea, and so far it is working.
NIU007 Wrote:What would they have done to keep him from getting powerful? Invade Germany? Stalin also misread Hitler in the 30s and didn't realize his mistake until it was too late, and he was not exactly the weak-kneed type given to knuckling under. Leaving them alone may not change their ways, but it depends entirely on who you're dealing with - it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Right now we are appeasing North Korea, and so far it is working.
How about go to the League of Nations to enforce the f'n Treaty of Versailles, youngun? You're trying to make an excuse for a past mistake. This **** should have been addressed and today, just maybe, the LON wouldn't be considered such an utter failure......kinda like the damn UN is.
Goldwater's hawkish attitude is what lost him the election. Daisy ad, anyone?
And for the millionth time, isolationism is NOT non-interventionism. Of course I don't expect neocons to understand that, as their idea of defending this country is leaving the borders wide open and sending most of those guarding the border to Iraq, and diverting most military power to Iraq (and now Iran) instead of going all out to kill that little Osama f***.
Almost forgot ... the real problem with hardcore libertarianism is open borders. Thankfully even the Libertarian Party itself is starting to back away from that one.
Non-interventionism is the logical foreign policy of libertarian ideals, and the one that makes the most sense for this country at this time given our impending fiscal meltdown and overburdened military.
If Ron Paul would get rid of this removing all troops from Iraq NOW ****, I'd probably support him.
....and he is an isolationist.....at least militarily.