Congressman Ron Paul

[Omnis]

No, it wouldn't be our problem because the people that go to help Taiwan don't represent the United States or Americans.

 

[Danoff]

No, it wouldn't be our problem because the people that go to help Taiwan don't represent the United States or Americans.

But you still have the government picking and choosing which nations american citizens are helping. It's still America helping some nations and not others - represented by both citizens and the government's selection.

It's the same damned thing.

 

[Omnis]

But you still have the government picking and choosing which nations american citizens are helping. It's still America helping some nations and not others - represented by both citizens and the government's selection.

It's the same damned thing.

I'm just giving hypotheticals here. I don't know why someone who wants to leave to help China would be stopped. The only thing I can think of is that if it was really an urgent threat to the US, the people could still go but would have to leave their citizenship behind.

 

[Swift]

The point is my friend that "world" looks at all Americans as representing Americans and the US Government. It's simply the way things are. So if a group of Americans goes to help EITHER side, it will look like US involvement.

That's why I believe you're missing.

 

[Omnis]

The point is my friend that "world" looks at all Americans as representing Americans and the US Government. It's simply the way things are. So if a group of Americans goes to help EITHER side, it will look like US involvement.

That's why I believe you're missing.

But it is not US involvement and it is privately funded or paid for by the other countries.

We don't get involved in other civil wars but there are still humanitarian organizations that go to help.

 

[Swift]

But it is not US involvement and it is privately funded or paid for by the other countries.

We don't get involved in other civil wars but there are still humanitarian organizations that go to help.

Right, but not in a military fashion. See where I'm going?

 

[Omnis]

Right, but not in a military fashion. See where I'm going?

What difference does it make? Military contractors and volunteers would be associated with Taiwan and/or China.

 

[Danoff]

What difference does it make? Military contractors and volunteers would be associated with Taiwan and/or China.

Are you sure? Can you say that about everyone? Even most people? It remains US involvement, and the more (necessarily) selective the US is with that involvement, the more it truly becomes US entanglement in the issue.

My point is this, in a free society, you cannot remain isolationist.

 

[Omnis]

Are you sure? Can you say that about everyone? Even most people? It remains US involvement, and the more (necessarily) selective the US is with that involvement, the more it truly becomes US entanglement in the issue.

My point is this, in a free society, you cannot remain isolationist.

But you also cannot use the U.S. military for anything other than national defense. That means no police actions against sovereign states or enemy groups without a declaration of war or without letters of marque.

 

[Danoff]

But you also cannot use the U.S. military for anything other than national defense. That means no police actions against sovereign states or enemy groups without a declaration of war or without letters of marque.

...and definitely not aid for Tsunami victims. Afterall, that kind of aid could engender angry feelings from some that we didn't help.

 

[FoolKiller]

What difference does it make? Military contractors and volunteers would be associated with Taiwan and/or China.

The point that Swift and Danoff are trying to make is any contracting company based in the US will be associated with the US government and citizens, the same way private charitable aid is associated with the US government and citizens.

In a case like you are laying out any military or security firm from America will be seen as Americans and the people involved will blame America for any problems that arise. The involved governments will demand that the US government intervene. If we follow proper domestic policy the US will refuse and our foreign relations will suffer.

Basically, the way you propose this would work would not benefit our foreign relations in the way Ron Paul would want them to work.

 

[Omnis]

...and definitely not aid for Tsunami victims. Afterall, that kind of aid could engender angry feelings from some that we didn't help.

That's up to congress. I'm just talking about the President here.

The point that Swift and Danoff are trying to make is any contracting company based in the US will be associated with the US government and citizens, the same way private charitable aid is associated with the US government and citizens.

In a case like you are laying out any military or security firm from America will be seen as Americans and the people involved will blame America for any problems that arise. The involved governments will demand that the US government intervene. If we follow proper domestic policy the US will refuse and our foreign relations will suffer.

The government can cut citizenship, like I said. After all: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"

 

[Danoff]

That's up to congress. I'm just talking about the President here.

So any kind of meddling in the affairs of other nations is fine, just so long as the president isn't the one doing it. Is that what I'm hearing? Because now you're just making a procedural argument, not a policy argument - which weakens your position substantially.

 

[FoolKiller]

The government can cut citizenship, like I said. It's all up to congress.

But wouldn't that be the government interfering in private business and their overseas business?

 

[Omnis]

You guys caught me before I edited.

Anyway, FK,

The only thing I can think of is that the people could still go but would have to leave their citizenship behind.

I don't know what else could be done.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

If he's Ray Charles, you're Hellen Keller. Honestly, the people living in the middle-east are not beasts. What few are radicalized is the result of our intervention in the region against the Soviets and installing the Shah in Iran. What deep-rooted conflicts exist-- such as between the caliphates-- can be and was always settled between the involved parties. However, we unwisely took sides and are suffering the consequences.

Yes i know not everybody who lives in the Middle East is so extreme, yet i have yet to see the Baptists in my town setting up bombs for the Catholics. I have yet to see the Methodists in my town raiding homes of the Muslims. At worst, you may see an occasional swastika (or some other such symbol or slogan) spray-painted with haste...the offender fearing he'll get caught because he knows the penalties and he knows better. Nobody dies.

When you consider the frequency of bombing in Iraq (not to mention Palestine, Isreal, etc) you have to consider that it is way out of proportion...that's what i'm getting at. Many of these incidents have religious motivations at their core.

"What few are radicalized??..." There shouldn't be any! That should be the goal in any civilization.

Government doesn't make money to spend, they take money to spend. They don't have to spend; they ought to stop taking.

yes. And how is the possible in the long run?

 

[YSSMAN]

I was watching CNN this afternoon when Ron Paul was on post-debate and I can't say Wolf Blitzer was too nice. Sure, hes lagging in polls nationwide, but he keeps winning local polls... God forbid an outside candidate does well in any market?

Even if Ron Paul doesn't take it, at the very least he has started a movement in this country that suggest that if you can believe, work together, and actually follow the rules, maybe a change is possible. I hope, pray, believe that we all can make a difference, but until the GOP either splits or finds its way, I don't think 2008 will be our year no matter what candidate is the headline act...

 

[Azuremen]

Yes i know not everybody who lives in the Middle East is so extreme, yet i have yet to see the Baptists in my town setting up bombs for the Catholics. I have yet to see the Methodists in my town raiding homes of the Muslims. At worst, you may see an occasional swastika (or some other such symbol or slogan) spray-painted with haste...the offender fearing he'll get caught because he knows the penalties and he knows better. Nobody dies.

When you consider the frequency of bombing in Iraq (not to mention Palestine, Isreal, etc) you have to consider that it is way out of proportion...that's what i'm getting at. Many of these incidents have religious motivations at their core.

"What few are radicalized??..." There shouldn't be any! That should be the goal in any civilization.


yes. And how is the possible in the long run?

Considering we owe the modern age of Europe to the Muslim society, I think you have things way skewed.

Furthermore, I don't think your neighboorhood was a point of interest for the USSR, or had puppet rules put in place, or a terrorist force that initially was supplied by the US. The Middle East can run under democracy, just not US democracy. Islam states laws, but most western countries derive their laws from some version of the Book. And I don't think you realize how bad some of the religious extremists are in this country. We've had issues with shootings related to antisemitism in north Idaho. Religious persecution was a huge issue in the "civil" world up till 100 years ago. And it still is more of an issue than you make it out to be. The Middle East though has been in turmoil for along time due to British ruling, colonials, division of land from WWII, the USSR, and the US playing games over there. They haven't had time to figure stuff out on their own.

And while you might see a small difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, there is quite a bit more to it. One of the key issues is the Caliphate, but I really don't want to give a lesson in Islam right now. Educate yourself more before you start calling people monsters.

And like I said, modern Europe has much to thank Islam for, such as the Enlightenment.

 

[YSSMAN]

And like I said, modern Europe has much to thank Islam for, such as the Enlightenment.

And the Renassiance before that...

 

[Azuremen]

And the Renassiance before that...

Thank you... I always get those switched around in my head, ya know that? Not sure why though.

 

[Omnis]

Probably because Leonardo Da Vinci and Benjamin Franklin both drove MR-2s.

 

[YSSMAN]

Thank you... I always get those switched around in my head, ya know that? Not sure why though.

There have been arguments that the Islam v. Christianity battle caused both in Europe, but generally speaking, there is no arguing that Islam was vastly superior for well over 1000 years due to the early Christian's self-destructive nature.

...That, however, does not make them any better today...

 

[Azuremen]

I wasn't arguing they were better. And the Renaissance bit I was referring to was the library at Madrid that the Moors had. The massive collection of translated Greek works and what worked to stir interest in philosophy and all that good crap.

 

[Dougboy]

Hmmmm..... i was watching this guy on Glenn Beck and he seems to stutter quite a lot. Now im not judging or anything but i would expect a political leader to have better communications skills, no matter in what situation.

 

[Omnis]

True, albeit it's not stuttering but stumbling. He's a much better writer, just like Jefferson. Still, I'd rather have someone speak to me and stumble through a word or two instead of pulling something from their rear a la Bush.

 

[Solid Fro]

Oh, it's ok for Ron Paul to stumble, but not Bush?

Yeah... I get it.

I am glad to see Ron Paul's Zeppelin is off the ground. How much Carbon Offset do you need for a blimp? I am also glad to see Iran's Press TV giving a big shout out to Ron Paul.

 

[Omnis]

No, I mean it's okay to stumble on your words if you're not saying something completely stupid. Bush have good delivery, for instance, but he still comes up with his "Bushisms".

 

[Azuremen]

Oh, it's ok for Ron Paul to stumble, but not Bush?

Yeah... I get it.

I am glad to see Ron Paul's Zeppelin is off the ground. How much Carbon Offset do you need for a blimp? I am also glad to see Iran's Press TV giving a big shout out to Ron Paul.

Do you have a Troll school you attend? I am very curious, because I still have to see you contribute much besides "witty" one liners. And amazingly, you never suggest an alternative here... maybe if the PS3 ran for president.

I would rather have stumbling words that show is thinking and picking them than smoothly said bull****. And OMG, Carbon offset... lets look at more impacting things on the environment, like volcanoes.

Fail.

 

[Solid Fro]

No, I mean it's okay to stumble on your words if you're not saying something completely stupid. Bush have good delivery, for instance, but he still comes up with his "Bushisms".

If you had the whole world watching you, I think anyone would stumble a few times.

What about Ronisms?

 

[YSSMAN]

What Ronisms are there? Actually speaking the truth for once instead of dancing around issues like the rest of the Democrats and Republicans who are looking to maintain the status quo?

If progress requires a President who isn't the best public speaker, by all means, it is not the end of the world. God forbid our leaders are human for once, almost makes you miss the days when most people only had a radio or got their news from newspapers. At least that way you had to be informed about a candidate's position instead of picking the one who is supported by Oprah or looks the nicest.