I'm all for us not being team America, but I don't think Ron Paul is the way to go about it. He may not be a strict isolationist, but he sure does come close enough.
I don't think nation building and what not is cool, either.
Burying your head in the sand isn't a swell option either.
Where's the middle option?I think non intervention is the middle ground between isolationism and imperialism.
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist as the medial loves to label him. The media and GOP's constant use of the term isolationist is a deliberate slur and distortion.
I just don't think that avoiding entangling alliances and opposing preemptive war equates to sticking our head in the sand. We cannot afford to maintain an empire and be the policeman of the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So unless we pull out of the world economy and break all treaties, we're not technicly isolationist.
But in every other way, we would be.
It's like when people point out that tomatos are technicly not vegetables, they are fruit. But in everyday vernacular, they're vegetables.
By "in every other way" you mean ONLY militarily? That's hardly every other way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no real problem with his foreign policy.
I've also been told that while he's happy to take money from lobbyists and such, he personally doesn't let it influence his votes. That's good for him, but it doesn't address the fact that without an overhaul, the whole system consists of big business using their wealth to bribe government to pass laws to make big businesses wealthier -- at the expense of small businesses, workers, and everyone else. Paul's stance is that we should make government smaller so that it's less useful to bribe it, but that to me throws out the baby with the bath water -- you also reduce the legitimate uses of government, along with the corruption. The stantpoint then becomes "because there is corruption, the federal government can never serve any legitimate use."
Paul claims, correctly, that ethics reform is meaningless because unethical reps just ignore any reforms -- but the next step, which he never takes, is that of course no rules are really rules if there are no penalties for ignoring them. If it were a felony conflict of interest, carrying life imprisonmnent, to go to work for Merck for $10M a year after spending a few terms in congress as the big pro-big-pharma guy? You'd find that a lot of the corruption suddenly would evaporate, without the need to just cut out government indiscriminantly.
I'd like a president who has ideas about steering the federal government back to its legitimate uses. Instead we have Paul, who mostly wants to dismantle it, and almost everyone else (including Obama), who mostly want to push it further into the corrupt ends it already serves.
And we have Huntsman, who's pushing for term limits and bans on lobbying -- and he's never going to get the nomination, or even make it to the primaries.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I believe that Ron Paul is in favor of a strong defense. I believe that the President has the greatest power to defend this country. But I do not think that the power to attack is within his domain. If there is a reason to attack, or intervene in any nation's sovereignty, it is up to Congress to Declare War and indicate what actions should be done, specifically and clearly, and suggest a plan of action to have it done.
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.
Now, I do not think the President has the power to attack or interfere with Iran in any way to prevent their development, their autonomy, or their sovereignty. But Congress can, by a Declaration of War, if it is deemed that there is a genuine threat to American security. It would go something like this:
WHEREAS, The Republic of Iran has been secretly developing nuclear weapons, AND
WHEREAS, The Government of Iran has used violent language against the United States and its Allies, and also threats of a military nature,
THEREFORE, The United States and The Republic of Iran are in a state of WAR, and shall remain at WAR until the following is completed:
a); b); c);
I'm not entirely certain if this is the correct format, but that is generally how it would go over.
Once War is Declared, which only Congress has the Power to do, it is up to the President as our Commander in Chief to successfully lead and end the war according to the resolutions determined in the Declaration of War.
I do not care for this shooting from the hip thing that our Presidents have been doing since 1950-something. Cause shooting from the hip with nuclear arms at your disposal seems a little more than dangerous.
Shooting from the hip also requires that the guns be constantly loaded, and I'd much rather that a man face war with conviction and resolution, go home and load his gun, then engage the enemy, and return... instead of just meandering about shooting guns in the air and throwing bombs around to impress (or scare) everyone.
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.
On the contrary, the IAEA just published (start of november 2011) a report claiming that Iran was trying to fabricate nuclear detonators, which have only MILITARY uses.
For the record, during the Iraqi crisis, the IAEA told from day one and kept telling that the US claim of WMD or of nigerian uranium imports in Iraq was utter BS. They are quite independant from US influence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.On the contrary, the IAEA just published (start of november 2011) a report claiming that Iran was trying to fabricate nuclear detonators, which have only MILITARY uses.
For the record, during the Iraqi crisis, the IAEA told from day one and kept telling that the US claim of WMD or of nigerian uranium imports in Iraq was utter BS. They are quite independant from US influence.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Iran is producing NBC weapons what gives the US the right to start a war with Iraq?
How is it sane to invade Iran over a presumed nuclear program when we took no military action against North Korea for actually testing fission weapons?
The blow back of yet another preemptive invasion of an Islamic nation goes far beyond the billions it would cost in the short term and trillions it would cost in the long term.
I think the fact that Obama, Clinton, and all the remaining GOP field except Paul won't rule out ANY preemptive military option against Iran is what is really insane.
My favorite journalist/political commentator of the past 20 years is going to vote for Paul, given the chance.
(The January 4th article by Alexander Cockburn. I tried linking up the article itself but it took so long to transcribe the code they use for quotation marks, the post expired.)
I'd consider voting for him--despite extreme disagreement on many, many, many issues--but I don't vote.
How is it sane to invade Iran over a presumed nuclear program when we took no military action against North Korea for actually testing fission weapons?
Think about that for a minute, and, I think, the logic will become clear.
|
|
Comrade New Hampshire,
Considering that N.K. is likely the source of the technical know-how Iran possesses (Russia is the source of Iran's hardware, though), much like they were the source of Pakistan's, the logic gets a bit fuzzier again. It's all intertwined, they aren't separate issues at all, really.
|
|
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.On the contrary, the IAEA just published (start of november 2011) a report claiming that Iran was trying to fabricate nuclear detonators, which have only MILITARY uses.
For the record, during the Iraqi crisis, the IAEA told from day one and kept telling that the US claim of WMD or of nigerian uranium imports in Iraq was utter BS. They are quite independant from US influence.
Niger, not Nigeria, different other things. And, according to wikileaks, not entirely unfounded. They did find six tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq, after all.
Not to justify Iraq or anything, but the U.N. and the IAEA plays politics as well as anyone, and their missives shouldn't be taken at face value.
*shrug*
The logic is simple: Invading countries that already have nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than invading ones that are still developing them.
More simply: They can nuke you. Or your invading troops. Or your nearby allies.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, oh yeah, Comrade Thorn:
The logic is simple: Invading countries that already have nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than invading ones that are still developing them.
More simply: They can nuke you. Or your invading troops. Or your nearby allies.
I'm just high lighting the massive hypocrisy of our policies, but your point is valid. I would add that our bellicose foreign policy seems to incentivize nuclear proliferation as a (presumably) unintended consequence.
This leads me to point out that another valid argument for non-intervention (or at least less intervention) is that we seem to pretty bad at it.
And, oh yeah, Comrade Thorn:
** spoiler omitted **
Yay!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's what I meant.The logic is simple: Invading countries that already have nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than invading ones that are still developing them.
More simply: They can nuke you. Or your invading troops. Or your nearby allies.
There's another major reason not to invade N. Korea; it's called "China." They said don't do it. We seriously can't afford to piss them off to the point where they write off our bad debt and sink our currency -- yes, that would play havoc with their economy, but it would ruin ours.
There's another major reason not to invade N. Korea; it's called "China." They said don't do it. We seriously can't afford to piss them off to the point where they write off our bad debt and sink our currency -- yes, that would play havoc with their economy, but it would ruin ours.Yeah, that's what I meant.The logic is simple: Invading countries that already have nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than invading ones that are still developing them.
More simply: They can nuke you. Or your invading troops. Or your nearby allies.
It's sad that our debt has largely made us their b&*&&.
It's sad that our debt has largely made us their b&#$+.
Overall, maybe, but being one of only two world superpowers puts a certain amount of moral responsibility on us to act with caution, wisdom, and restraint. We have egregiously failed to do so, except with respect to NK, so in this case our indebtedness to the other superpower is forcing us not to do something we should have known better than to do anyway.
When you put a 30-year-old in a roomful of toddlers, the same rules don't apply to everyone in the room. If the 30-year-old goes around bullying the little kids unless there's another adult present... well, there we are.
|
|
More about Ron Paul's foreign policy (and comparison to Obama and Bush)
'Japan likes the idea of someone ending bases and ending the wars. The bases are a cause of a number of problems in Japan and the US wars drives up the price of oil and restricts Japan's ability of where they can buy oil, namely Iran. This is a vital issue as the nuclear reactors in Fukushima were lost and Japan needs immediate energy sources for its electricity.'
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.On the contrary, the IAEA just published (start of november 2011) a report claiming that Iran was trying to fabricate nuclear detonators, which have only MILITARY uses.
For the record, during the Iraqi crisis, the IAEA told from day one and kept telling that the US claim of WMD or of nigerian uranium imports in Iraq was utter BS. They are quite independant from US influence.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Iran is producing NBC weapons what gives the US the right to start a war with Iraq?
How is it sane to invade Iran over a presumed nuclear program when we took no military action against North Korea for actually testing fission weapons?
The blow back of yet another preemptive invasion of an Islamic nation goes far beyond the billions it would cost in the short term and trillions it would cost in the long term.
I couldn't agree more with you. I just wanted to point out that this time, it wouldn't be a complete fabrication.
Now, Iran has said multiple times that it does not have the capabilities of making a weapon, that they are not making a weapon, and that they would not use a nuclear weapon if they had one. The UN has investigated this as part of the Alliance that Iran and some other Middle Eastern nations are part of, and concluded that there are no nuclear arms.On the contrary, the IAEA just published (start of november 2011) a report claiming that Iran was trying to fabricate nuclear detonators, which have only MILITARY uses.
For the record, during the Iraqi crisis, the IAEA told from day one and kept telling that the US claim of WMD or of nigerian uranium imports in Iraq was utter BS. They are quite independant from US influence.
Niger, not Nigeria, different other things. And, according to wikileaks, not entirely unfounded. They did find six tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq, after all.
Not to justify Iraq or anything, but the U.N. and the IAEA plays politics as well as anyone, and their missives shouldn't be taken at face value.
*shrug*
Niger, sorry. My mistake.
The original US claim (on the floor of the UN Security Counncil ) was that the uranium came from the Niger mines, which are under french control ([i]military(/i] control), which explains why our government had trouble believing that half a dozen truckloads of the stuff could have been smuggled out.
The IAEA (through its chairman, Al Baradei) issued the following day a statement that some of the pieces of evidence produced were forged.
The yellow cake stocks weren't "found" after the invasion : they were previously known, dutifully declared to the IAEA. Iraq had got a civil nuclear program.
That the UN has an hidden political agenda is a common theme in the USA, but only there.
They could be manipulated or fed false data by governements though : the recent report seems to be based (mostly? Partly?) on data acquired through secret agencies, so it indeed must be taken with some salt.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the cake was not a lie?
Ron Paul Took Independents and Moderates by 8-to-1: Wanna Talk About Electability Now?
Does anyone have specific numbers for this?
Ron Paul Took Independents and Moderates by 8-to-1: Wanna Talk About Electability Now?
Does anyone have specific numbers for this?
I've got no idea where the 8-1 number comes from. CNN has different numbers.
I also suspect that Independents and Moderates who are motivated to vote in a Republican caucus are a very different group than general election voters. Paul has always had a small, but very enthusiastic set of supporters, who don't fit the standard Republican mold. It makes sense that they would be a large percentage of the small number of moderates and independents who turn out to vote in a Republican primary.
According to the CNN data: Moderates and liberals were only 17% of the voters. Paul won 40% of those, Romney 35%.
Independents were 23%: 43% for Paul, 19% for Romney.
It would have helped if DP had linked some sources.
So the cake was not a lie?
Uh, sorry, didn't get the joke.
If it wasn't one, yellow cake (that is, uranium ore) is quite useless as a weapon.
In the video game Portal, you wake up in a facility and put through a series of hazardous "tests" by the computer GlaDos, with the promise of cake at the end. Near the beginning of the game you find this are with "the cake is a lie" scrawled over and over on the wall with something unsavory.So the cake was not a lie?Uh, sorry, didn't get the joke.
In the end, there is no cake, the computer just wants to kill you.
It's a spectacular game, one of the best ever made, and if you haven't played it you ought to.
I liken the game to an existential parody, an allegory of real life. To wit, you play the game (life) alone, everyone else around you are just robots who would see you dead. You jump through hoops, never resting, with the promise of a reward (cake/heaven) at the end. But there is no cake/heaven, and you just die. The only way to win is to DISOBEY.
In the video game Portal, you wake up in a facility and put through a series of hazardous "tests" by the computer GlaDos, with the promise of cake at the end. Near the beginning of the game you find this are with "the cake is a lie" scrawled over and over on the wall with something unsavory.So the cake was not a lie?Uh, sorry, didn't get the joke.
In the end, there is no cake, the computer just wants to kill you.
It's a spectacular game, one of the best ever made, and if you haven't played it you ought to.I liken the game to an existential parody, an allegory of real life. To wit, you play the game (life) alone, everyone else around you are just robots who would see you dead. You jump through hoops, never resting, with the promise of a reward (cake/heaven) at the end. But there is no cake/heaven, and you just die. The only way to win is to DISOBEY.
Spoilers are you friend, Citizen Meatrace!
You're right. I apologize, Citizen Meatrace.
I forgot that with my recently acquired PlayStation 2, I am woefully behind the times. I was just reading along and I was like, that game sounds awesome, aw! now I know the ending and why do I need to play the game! Aaargh!
You're right. I apologize, Citizen Meatrace.
I forgot that with my recently acquired PlayStation 2, I am woefully behind the times. I was just reading along and I was like, that game sounds awesome, aw! now I know the ending and why do I need to play the game! Aaargh!
FWIW that's revealed roughly halfway through the game, and by no means ruins the play experience. The plot is, as clever as it may be, an afterthought to the puzzle-shooter core that is the gameplay. I urge you to download it off steam on whatever contraption you use to post on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Ron Paul ripped Newt a new one at the debate last night.
Man, Ron Paul ripped Newt a new one at the debate last night.
:)
FWIW that's revealed roughly halfway through the game, and by no means ruins the play experience. The plot is, as clever as it may be, an afterthought to the puzzle-shooter core that is the gameplay. I urge you to download it off steam on whatever contraption you use to post on these boards.You're right. I apologize, Citizen Meatrace.
I forgot that with my recently acquired PlayStation 2, I am woefully behind the times. I was just reading along and I was like, that game sounds awesome, aw! now I know the ending and why do I need to play the game! Aaargh!
No need to apologize. On the contrary, I thank for 1) making me get the joke; 2) reminding me I should give a second look to my orange box compilation, taking dust on my shelf.
In fact, I already did so some days ago but my post got zapped...
I'm all for us not being team America, but I don't think Ron Paul is the way to go about it. He may not be a strict isolationist, but he sure does come close enough.
I don't think nation building and what not is cool, either.
Burying your head in the sand isn't a swell option either.
Where's the middle option?I think non intervention is the middle ground between isolationism and imperialism.
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist as the medial loves to label him. The media and GOP's constant use of the term isolationist is a deliberate slur and distortion.
I just don't think that avoiding entangling alliances and opposing preemptive war equates to sticking our head in the sand. We cannot afford to maintain an empire and be the policeman of the world.
Thanks for that BT
Thanks for that BT
You're very welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smash imperialism!
Vive le Galt!
|
|
Out of my depression regarding the South Carolina disaster, I've created this character with all due consideration and gratefulness to the Good Doctor.
Ronald Paolus
Male Human Champion of Freedom* 4 / Oracle of Ancestry (Enlightened Philosopher) 4
Medium humanoid (human)
Init -1, Senses Perception +9, deafened
DEFENSES
AC 17 (19), touch 13, flat-footed 10 (+1 dodge vs melee, +4 armor, +3 Dex, +2 shield when called)
hp 60 (4d10+4d8+8+4 favored)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +12 (+2 vs enchantment spells)
Special Defenses defensive move, defensive stance, mobility
+1 dodge AC vs melee attacks
+4 dodge AC vs ranged attacks when moving
+4 dodge AC vs movement based attacks of opportunity.
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +10 (1d6+2, crit. 19-20/x2)
Full Attack mwk short sword +10/+5 (1d6+2, crit. 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks call upon the power, freedom's strength
+1 attack and damage when fighting to free someone from imprisonment, enslavement, or tyranny
Oracle Spells Known (CL 4th)
2nd (4/day) - ancestral communion, owl's wisdom
1st (7/day) - comprehend languages, detect the faithful, fairness, unseen servant
0 - detect magic, guidance, light, mending, purify food and water, stabilize
STATISTICS
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 8 (12), Wis 18, Cha 14
Base Atk +7/+2, CMB +9, CMD 22
Feats Defensive Move, Defensive Stance, Eidetic Memory, Focused Healing, Mobility, Modify Combat Style
Skills Appraise +6, Diplomacy +8, Heal +9, Knowledge (History) +6, Knowledge (Nobility) +6, Perception +15, Profession (medicine) +15, Sense Motive +15; Racial Modifiers Profession (medicine) +4; Item Modifiers Perception and Sense Motive both increased to 8 ranks, Appraise +2, Knowledges +2.
Languages Common
Gear masterwork armored coat, masterwork short sword, scroll of commune (the Constitution), headband of vast intelligence +4 (Perception, Sense Motive), scabbard of keen edges
SPECIAL ABILITIES
Call Shield (Sp) Once per day, Ronald can summon a medium metal shield +2 as a standard action, which remains for 4 minutes.
Call Upon the Power (Su) Twice per day, Ronald can call upon the Power of the Constitution to gain a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for 4 rounds.
Deaf Ronald suffers from the deafened condition, but casts spells as if they were modified by the Silent Spell feat.
-4 Initiative checks, fail sound-based perception checks, -4 penalty on opposed Perception checks
Defensive Move (Feat) Ronald gains a +4 dodge bonus against all ranged attacks in which he moves at least 10 feet, or in any circumstance where he has cover.
Defensive Stance (Feat) Ronald has a +1 dodge bonus against all melee attacks.
Eidetic Memory (Feat) Ronald has a +1 bonus to all knowledge skill checks, +4 to intelligence checks to remember information, and is immune to magical spells that alter memory
Focused Healing (Feat) Once per day, Ronald can concentrate for one full minute to heal himself of up to 8 hit points of damage, requiring a constitution check (DC 10 + amount of damage healed).
Freedom's Strength (Ex) Ronald has a +1 luck bonus to attack and damage rolls when fighting to free someone from captivity, or from an oppressive force.
Freedom's Will (Su) Ronald has a +2 resistance bonus to saves against enchantment spells.
Heart of the Fields (Ex) Ronald has a +4 racial bonus to Profession (medicine) checks and may ignore an effect that would cause fatigue or exhaustion once per day.
Mobility (Feat) Ronald gains a +4 dodge bonus against attacks of opportunity caused by moving out of or within a threatened area.
Modify Combat Style (Feat) After a full round of melee with an opponent, Ronald can make a Perception check (DC equal to the opponent's attack bonus). If this check is successful, Ronald gains a +2 competence bonus to attack rolls for the remainder of the combat with that opponent.
Sacred Council (Su) Twice per day, Ronald can call upon his ancestors for council as a move action, granting him a +2 bonus to any d20 roll made within one round.
Wisdom of the Ancestors (Su) Once per day, Ronald can enter a trance and commune with the spirits of his ancestors. This trance lasts for 10 minutes, and acts as an augury spell with 80% effectiveness.