[TallyW]

Frankly for those of my friends here who love Ron Paul's stand on Federalism but who want a guy who's also sane on the rest of the issues... I'd encourage you to explore Fred Thompson. I like him a lot... He just isn't showing me anything as a campaigner. His highlight to me was a YouTube video he did responding to Michael Moore. If he ran his campaign like that I think he would be kicking tail but he dumped his staff that he had early on and went to a much older group who was with him during his runs as Senator. By going retro he is coming off as uninteresting.

What Huckabee and Paul are showing is that there are things you can do to energize the young voters (18-34) and make their voice count. Obviously Paul is doing much better than anyone with energizing youth but usually anti-establishment candidates in every generation do that. Once people have kids and actually own businesses or land they begin to take more mainline approaches. Again to all my Paul friends out there... I appreciate you supporting your guy... I just think I've found the leader who can win it and with whom I agree with much more. From the Federalist side I give the nod to Paul.

Scorcho (and whomever else is reading)... I would like to say that Ron Paul had (in my opinion) the best answer when asked about "conspiracies". The facts he stated about the intercontinental highway between Mexico and Canada is true. The other candidates don't want to touch it because they know he's right on that issue. I've seen plans from the Texas Department of Transportation which outline exactly where that road would come up through the country. It comes very close to where I used to live in Corpus Christi, TX. Paul spoke a lot of truth on that issue. It's sad so many people don't know about it.

[PeterParker]

Tally, first of all, my question of which group you were referring to was sincere. I was unsure which you meant. The point being that whoever wins the nod, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney or Paul has to swing the independents to win.


Secondly, it is good to see that you are consistent in using ad hominem attacks about intelligence to debunk the points I was trying to make. You also fail to see that some of the points about Huckabee were not what I necessarily felt, simply an observation (from reading) that certain folks in other camps have made.

I am almost starting to find it comical in re-reading the tone of the posts in comparison to each other. I believe mine to be rational and somewhat benign in tone, whereas the majority of the time you come out swinging with the tired "feigning intelligence" ad hominem slogan when you disagree with someone. I admire the consistency, though. I feel that I can reasonably say, however, that I do not resort to assuming an intellectual superiority or the intellectual fraud that you ascribe to me, yet I observe that the very thing you accuse me of is implicit in the inflammatory rhetoric, dogmatic stance and elementary ad hominem arguments you used to paint your rebuttal (which, I have observed, you resort to often when you disagree with someone, which happens to be me oftentimes yet not always However, this isn't the first time you've used that device, see thread from a year ago on the housing bubble where you used the same personal attacks to bolster your point. You accused me then of only pulling buzzwords and phrases from an economics textbook, I believe it was, which was a convenient, yet incorrect assumption. However, a year later and a quick perusal through any reputable financial publication is confirming the points to which I alluded concerning the impending financial crisis. Observations that were gleaned from reading critical analysis and econcomic fundamentals theory by men smarter than me, such as Adam Smith, Benjamin Graham, along with more contemporary analysts et al.) But I digress.


See, the difference between our posts is that I can appreciate and respect your views, read your opinions carefully and consider them critically in case I come across information I may have not been privy to or a rational argument that sways me, yet not resort to an attempt to belittle them or disparage you personally. I can only hope that eventually you would learn to extend the same respect when you respond to views that do not coalesce with yours.

[El Scorcho]

TallyW, we agree and disagree on some things about Paul, but I honestly don't have the energy to write a thorough response right now. I don't mean for that to be a cop-out, it's just one of those mornings. I'll try to do quick hits...

On Paul's Demeanor: I agree. He's angry and it often shows. I honestly believe that he believes the federal government is wildly out of control and out of the boundaries originally created for it. I think it turns some people off, but I like his passion.

On positions that resonate: I think they resonate with a lot of people, and a lot of people haven't actually had a chance to consider his positions. I do realize that a lot of people aren't the grandiose idealistic types, and those kinds of things probably don't sit well with them.

On the war: I don't think you fully understand what he's proposing. At least, I hope you don't. I think Islamic terrorism would stop if we brought ALL of our troops home. I really do. I understand the problems with Islam and their views of the infidels, but we weren't terror targets until we started setting up military bases on the soil of Islamic nations. Even if their government agreed to let us do it, they don't have representative government. We didn't consider how the people of those nations would view that, and now we're paying the price. I don't agree with us having military bases in other countries or our reasons for having them there. It's imperial and it oversteps the bounds of our government. Paul doesn't want to destroy the military. He wants a strong national defense. The key word there being defense. As for Iraq itself, the question is whether or not our government (which is us, the people) has a greater moral responsibility to the citizens of Iraq to cleanup the mess we've made, or if we have a greater responsibility to ourselves and future generations to embrace fiscal responsibility and spend those trillions of dollars on getting our nation out of debt instead of trying to build foreign governments. (I'm aware of the run-on, but too lazy to fix it.) I think either way we've got a giant mess to clean up and I'd rather us be cleaning up our own mess and let the middle east sort itself out.

On young voters: See your own statement about positions that resonate. He's not anti-establishment. He's pro-constitution. The younger generation is seeing their future squandered and they believe a return to constitutional government is the only way to fix that. He's got the voting block that no one else ever gets, because the candidates usually only pay lip service to that demographic. 18-34's know that the rest of the candidates aren't going to do anything to change government spending. The GOP sold us that lie in recent executive and congressional elections and we're now spending more than ever thanks to those that won those elections.

I understand folks who support Huckabee, and I do like the guy. I'm happy for anyone who's found a candidate they can support with a clear conscience. I just don't think the other GOP candidates offer any real change, and real change is what I believe is needed to fix this mess. Paul is the only one who seems to be offering that on either side of the aisle. Like I said before, Huckabee gets credit with me for supporting the Fair Tax, but that's about as far as I can go with him.

[LUconn]

I would be the biggest Paul supporter here if it weren't for that whole paragraph that you wrote about the war. The idea that we "brought this on ourselves" just makes me shudder. And because that is too important, I have to bascially sacrifice most of my other views on some other dude.

[El Scorcho]

The idea that we "brought this on ourselves" just makes me shudder.

I understand. I don't look at it from the perspective that they're justified or that it's somehow okay that they've attacked us. I just don't think what we did was very intelligent from a social perspective. Especially when we all knew they were nuts before we ever went in there the first time.

[ToTheLeft]

[Fumblerooskies]

I would be the biggest Paul supporter here if it weren't for that whole paragraph that you wrote about the war. The idea that we "brought this on ourselves" just makes me shudder. And because that is too important, I have to bascially sacrifice most of my other views on some other dude.

I'm jumping in here just because of LUconn's post. Paul has a semi-valid point. Had we butted out of middle-eastern affairs the terrorists would not have a "cause" or reason to mess with us. I am not advocating that...just guessing at why he made the point.

[PeterParker]

I would be the biggest Paul supporter here if it weren't for that whole paragraph that you wrote about the war. The idea that we "brought this on ourselves" just makes me shudder. And because that is too important, I have to bascially sacrifice most of my other views on some other dude.

I'm jumping in here just because of LUconn's post. Paul has a semi-valid point. Had we butted out of middle-eastern affairs the terrorists would not have a "cause" or reason to mess with us. I am not advocating that...just guessing at why he made the point.

Yes. It is a cause-and-effect analysis point, not a complicit endorsement of justification of their actions.

It is also one of two major points people misrepresent the man on, the other being Isolationist vs. Non-Interventionist. He is a Non-Interventionist in foreign entanglements that do not propose a direct threat to America's national sovereignty; He is not, as McCain tried to paint him in the Youtube debate and others have prior, an Isolationist.

[LUconn]

That's a bit oversimplifying it. The whole idea of "if we would have just stayed out of their business" is laughable. Obviously the fact that we are, makes them mad. But the fact that you think it's possible to leave them alone is pretty short sited. A lot of what they do in that part of the world has direct consequences in the U.S. But let's just stay out of their business and cross our fingers.

[Fumblerooskies]

hmmmm. Non-interventionist. Perhaps I need to check into him a little more. I as still very much still undecided.

[PeterParker]

That's a bit oversimplifying it. The whole idea of "if we would have just stayed out of their business" is laughable. Obviously the fact that we are, makes them mad. But the fact that you think it's possible to leave them alone is pretty short sited. A lot of what they do in that part of the world has direct consequences in the U.S. But let's just stay out of their business and cross our fingers.

Respectfully, I would have to point out that your point could also be construed as oversimplifying it. One has to go back 50 years of the United States' schizophrenic foreign policy in the region including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq et al. If you follow the timeline, our foreign policy over that time has created many of the issues that we are facing today (Saddam was a US creation; the Shah of Iran, et al.) There are several books out that detail how the policies, CIA and other alphabet soup agencies did not always know the extent of the ramifications of their decisions. According to some sources, oftentimes agencird were in conflict with one another in trying to enforce the policies in the region.


Just as a talking point to throw it out there: If we want to talk direct ramifications, let's not forget that Afghanistan should have remained ground zero for what happend on 9/11 (Bin Laden) and let's also not forget that the nationalities of most of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian, not Iraqi. Saddam was a bad dude, but there are similar atrocities in other nations that we aren't intervening...it's simply not feasible logisitically to cure all of the world's ills through military might. (Didn't work for the Ottomans, the Spaniards, the British or the French.)


Also, remember that as goes our economic clout, so goes our Interventionist strategies/policies and our geopolitical "capital." Even if one is not on-board with a Non-Interventionist approach to foreign policy, one should at least entertain the thought that we really need to regroup and get our economic house back in order. Otherwise, the Interventionist/Non-Interventionist debate will be irrelevant as we will not have the clout to enforce whichever policy our fine nation so chooses.

[JDUB]

yall write too much.

i heard somewhere that huckabee said he wouldn't run with guliani

[DeathCab4LU]

Lot of people are saying Huckabee won the debate.. just an FYI.

I think Romney won the debate last night but I think it was very close with him and Huckabee....One person I wasn't impressed with at all was Fred Thompson...It's like he is never there you don't hear much from him

[Knucklehead]

Lot of people are saying Huckabee won the debate.. just an FYI.

I think Romney won the debate last night but I think it was very close with him and Huckabee....One person I wasn't impressed with at all was Fred Thompson...It's like he is never there you don't hear much from him

From what I saw, I thought Mike was very strong. But I'm biased!

[DeathCab4LU]

Lot of people are saying Huckabee won the debate.. just an FYI.

I think Romney won the debate last night but I think it was very close with him and Huckabee....One person I wasn't impressed with at all was Fred Thompson...It's like he is never there you don't hear much from him

From what I saw, I thought Mike was very strong. But I'm biased!

Romney struggled on the Bible question but that was the only really struggled to me and I love how he handled McCain on the torture question.

[LUconn]

Respectfully, I would have to point out that your point could also be construed as oversimplifying it. One has to go back 50 years of the United States' schizophrenic foreign policy in the region including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq et al. If you follow the timeline, our foreign policy over that time has created many of the issues that we are facing today (Saddam was a US creation; the Shah of Iran, et al.) There are several books out that detail how the policies, CIA and other alphabet soup agencies did not always know the extent of the ramifications of their decisions. According to some sources, oftentimes agencird were in conflict with one another in trying to enforce the policies in the region.

I'm no phd but I'm well aware of who we used to fight whom in the past century and our involvement in that area. Things we have done might escalate the situation when we were trying to do something else, but regardless that doesn't mean if we stayed out of there politically that they wouldn't cause us trouble. I'm not gonna give you the Hannity bull "They hate us for our freedom" or something dumb like that. But they've been pulling this jihad crap way before we started messing with them. It's pretty much ingrained in most of their society.

[ALUmnus]

Anyone remember the Barbary Pirates? No? Maybe that's because it happened a long time ago. Yep, even before the US became the "international busybody".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 2c1174d2d8

Hmm, what does this sound like?

"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.cult ... d3662b0fa5

That's not the same Ron Paul that blames America for all our ills is it?


As for Huckabee, he says all the right things, and seems to be a genuine candidate we can all support, but I just see him as a pushover, based on his record as governor and his answers to questions in the PBS "minority" debate. I don't see him as much of a leader.

[kel varson]

I'm supporting Huckabee as well, but I think Fred has the most conservative record. Either would be viable candidates.

[JDUB]

it seems like fred isn't pushing himself as a leader. huckabee is making bold statements and causing a stir, which is why he is becoming popular. if fred wants a chance he needs to step up and say something. i like his record but he needs to do more than have a good record to get voted in

[El Scorcho]

Anyone remember the Barbary Pirates? No? Maybe that's because it happened a long time ago. Yep, even before the US became the "international busybody".

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... 2c1174d2d8

I don't even know where to begin with this. You're citing pirates from Islamic nations in the 1700's as our first encounter with modern terrorism? Really? You honestly think that the current situation in the middle east is the evolution of, or a direct relation to that?

"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism. Trouble is, few seem willing to do anything to stop them. The cops have been handcuffed. And property owners are not allowed to defend themselves. The mayor of Los Angeles, for example, ordered the Korean storekeepers who defended themselves arrested for "discharging a firearm within city limits." Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Los Angeles riots was the response by the mayors, the media, and the Washington politicians. They all came together as one to excuse the violence and to tell white America that it is guilty, although the guilt can be assuaged by handing over more cash. It would be reactionary, racist, and fascist, said the media, to have less welfare or tougher law enforcement. America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.

"Rather than helping, all this will ensure that guerrilla violence will escalate. There will be more occasional eruptions such as we saw in Los Angeles, but just as terrifying are the daily muggings, robberies, burglaries, rapes, and killings that make our cities terror zones."

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.cult ... d3662b0fa5

That's not the same Ron Paul that blames America for all our ills is it?

That's Ron Paul talking about an American issue. An issue that exists inside of our borders and is our problem to deal with. He's dealing with the root cause of an issue that happened in OUR country. I understand the connection you're trying to make, but it doesn't fly because you're comparing a national issue with an international issue.

[thepostman]

I think Romney won the debate last night but I think it was very close with him and Huckabee....One person I wasn't impressed with at all was Fred Thompson...It's like he is never there you don't hear much from him

From what I saw, I thought Mike was very strong. But I'm biased!

Romney struggled on the Bible question but that was the only really struggled to me and I love how he handled McCain on the torture question.

by dancing around the question?? Romeny lost me a long time ago, but he really lost me last night. He came off as unsure of himself and his answers...He seemed like he wasn't sure if he believed what he was saying.

Of course this is just my opinion....but thats how I viewed it...

there wasn't really a single candidate though that stood out...there were a couple that I thought didn't do well at all though and Romney is one of them....

[LUconn]

I don't even know where to begin with this. You're citing pirates from Islamic nations in the 1700's as our first encounter with modern terrorism? Really? You honestly think that the current situation in the middle east is the evolution of, or a direct relation to that?

Do you recall how that started?

Jefferson refuses to pay tributes to the Barbary states. Their reasoning of why we should pay?

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

That sounds awfully familiar. It's a new era but it's old hat.

[El Scorcho]

Do you recall how that started?

Jefferson refuses to pay tributes to the Barbary states. Their reasoning of why we should pay?

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

That sounds awfully familiar. It's a new era but it's old hat.

That makes more sense to me, but I don't think refusing to pay tributes and setting up military bases on another nation's soil is equivalent. And even if it was, we certainly ought to have taken a lesson from those crazy mofos the first time around instead of getting involved with them again. We've more or less sold our souls to the Saudis and that's no one's fault but our own.

[ALUmnus]

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Mohommadans don't need an excuse, they will attack at will, unprovoked. It's what they're taught is okay. This isn't a new phenomenon, what's new is now they have fuel for their propoganda machine to target particular nations/groups. There is a root cause to all of this, and it's not us. The nazi's didn't come to power until it was an opportune time to foster that kind of system. The muslims couldn't attack us until it was an opportune time, namely the jimmy carter era and the liberal era of this country. Wait until there's ideological/social weakness, and pounce.
Having one base in saudi arabia, not by force by the way, is such a pathetic cop-out and totally illogical excuse, especially when it was there to protect an Islamic state against an obviously non-muslim dictator.

And national issue vs. international issue? Come on. He totally pulled a 180 on his basic principle of why people were doing what they were doing and who should take responsibility for their own actions.


By the way, I'm glad Ron Paul is in the race. Not so I can vote for him, but to make the other candidates think and make them uncomfortable. I hope they're listening to some of his ideas and see how appealing and popular they can be. Same with Duncan Hunter and Tancredo.

[El Scorcho]

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Mohommadans don't need an excuse, they will attack at will, unprovoked. It's what they're taught is okay. This isn't a new phenomenon, what's new is now they have fuel for their propoganda machine to target particular nations/groups. There is a root cause to all of this, and it's not us.

They don't need an excuse, but we gave them a huge one. We may not be the very root cause, but we certainly didn't help ourselves. That's my point.

Having one base in saudi arabia, not by force by the way, is such a pathetic cop-out and totally illogical excuse, especially when it was there to protect an Islamic state against an obviously non-muslim dictator.

It's not pathetic, it's not a cop-out and it's not illogical. People who live in a nation without a representative government have no say in what their government allows. The Saudi royal family most certainly allowed us to build a base there and protect them. Their family and our nation both benefitted from that. There's a huge difference between the Saudi royal family and the wildly crazy Islamic whack jobs that are under their rule. We were protecting the royal family and their oil fields, not the Saudis.

And national issue vs. international issue? Come on. He totally pulled a 180 on his basic principle of why people were doing what they were doing and who should take responsibility for their own actions.

No, he didn't. He's never said that Islamic terrorists shouldn't take responsibility for their actions. What he's saying is that America has made some mistakes and it's time that we take responsibility for them. His focus is on OUR failures, of which there are many. It's unbelievable to me that so many conservative people are dying to defend our inept government. Who armed the Taliban? We did. Who armed Iraq? We did. Who gave up their freedom to OPEC and the Saudi royals? We did. All mistakes and now we're paying for it.