[Kjorteo]

.

sasquatch2 wrote:

No hi-jacking necessary. The common thread in all these matters is identical.

You're saying that isolationism, abortion, gun control, and pretty much whatever other random political issues I can think of have a "common thread" in the global warming debate? Oh, I can't wait to hear this one explained.

Well, actually, maybe I can, since I'm not quite done with the Bingo cards yet, and knowing which ones are already filled in before I arrange them would make them significantly less fair.

...Nah, actually, go ahead; it's worth it.

sasquatch2 wrote:

Don't ya just hate it when that is dragged into the light.

On the contrary; this will make my day. Please continue.

Quote:

Go eat your tofu and be quiet.

Tofu? What, you couldn't work in a BIG OIL reference? I'm disappointed.

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

1. The overt religious movement into government is creating a very resentful and dissenting atheist population, I know, I'm one of em.

First, the fact that various officials are religious does not demonstrate any religiosity of the government itself. That being the case, what evidence is there of an "overt religious movement into government"?

Second, atheists are a small minority. Pandering to them over the religious as a political strategy helps ensure one's unelectability.

EmperorLiam wrote:

2. USA can't do ANYTHING in Africa or Asian continent without drawing hatred from all sides. So their involvement is counter productive no matter what in these two regions (Middle east is on the Asian continent)

That's so radically simplified as to no longer reflect reality. Sure, anything we do in Africa or Asia is gonna be touchy and sensitive, but that doesn't prove our inability to act productively. Yours is a statement of ideology, not of demonstrated fact.

EmperorLiam wrote:

3. War on Drugs (prohibition), is wasting huge resources among other problems, and ruining the lives of literally millions of people.

Can you cite examples of nations with libertarian drug policies demonstrating that they are better off?

EmperorLiam wrote:

4. War on Poverty, by supplying free rice for example to african nations, it puts the local farmers out of work, America needs to stop sending foreign aid, its already been proven that nations without foreign aid develop faster.

I agree with you on this point, foreign aid (at least the free handouts method) is more damaging than productive. One for four.

EmperorLiam wrote:

5. War on Terror, considering how FEW people die from this, why does it warrant so much resources? Just another smoke screen to steal our money and take our rights away from us.

You base this conclusion on what? Taxes are lower, not higher, since 2001. How is more money being taken away? Security at airports is tight and it's harder to do business with Al Qaeda, but I haven't seen Americans being arrested for criticizing the administration or being held without charges. What rights have we lost?

EmperorLiam wrote:

6. American debt has become completely unmanageable, adding in the time bomb that social welfare and medic aid is, America will have an economic collapse if it does not switch to a Libertarian government.

"The level of U.S. government debt, either now or in the near future, is not unusually high by historical or international standards." says this Professor of Economics.

EmperorLiam wrote:

7. Oil dependency can't be solved until the governments subsidies and aid to oil companies ends, giving alternative energies a competitive chance. Peak oil is now predicted down from 2025 to 2011 due to China's advanced growth.

I agree with withdrawing subsidies, but what proof is there behind peak oil? If a given supply of oil disappears, we simply move on to less simply accessible oil, such as oil shale. There's more oil shale in the US mountain west than traditional oil sand in the Middle East. The idea that we're going to hit a peak or run out is ludicrous.

EmperorLiam wrote:

No other candidate in either parties (even Mike Gravel) has a plan to solve all these MAJOR problems which if ignored will help end the American Empire,

No other candidate has been deceived by these distortions, thus the reason they have support while Ron Paul does not.

EmperorLiam wrote:

what good is having a government that interferes in other nations affairs when it will collapse in the process?

What stability can there be with large portions planet plotting against us? You think that if we end interventionism, everyone will just leave our national interests alone and play nice? Do you think Osama is one to forgive and forget overnight?

EmperorLiam wrote:

You STILL think Ayn Rand is a Libertarian don't you? Shes not.

No, she had a cohesive, well-considered philosophy. Libertarians generally lack that.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Also, hes not a Confederate apologist... and really, what was so bad about the Confederates anyhow?

This sounds like "He's not a Confederate apologist... but I am."

EmperorLiam wrote:

Also, the media is heavily biased against him

As is the public. I wonder why a corporate entity like the news media would pander to their customers like that?

EmperorLiam wrote:

Ron Paul has been on Colbert Report, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Dennis miller TWICE, thats more than the others COMBINED.

It's a sad commentary on modern politics that comedians make up the backbone of "the TV circuit".

AdamLein wrote:

Psudo wrote:

"With great power comes great responsibility."

I take that slogan to mean something weaker: With power comes the responsibility to avoid using the power for immoral acts.

You consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral, then? To see an assault on your street corner and merely close the blinds, to watch a man with a gas can burn down a building without calling the police or fire department, these are acceptable inactions? After all, it's not your building burning and not you being assaulted, so what stake do you have in it?

It is your neighborhood. After watching a few assaults or muggings, you may yourself be assaulted or mugged. After watching a few arsons from your window, the odds grow that your building may be next. Unrest threatens you just as certainly as defying unrest does. It is in your personal best interest to address it.

AdamLein wrote:

It can be immoral if doing so requires the initiation of the use of force. It's one thing to defend Israel (a stance which I support only weakly), but another thing entirely to instigate wars and regime change in order to establish a political and military foothold in a region.

An interesting argument. Afghanistan's Taliban government was protecting those who directly attacked us. They instigated the use of force. Saddam's Iraq initiated the use of force when it attacked Kuwait, a conflict that was only conditionally ended and for which the conditions were broken. Our current involvement in both countries is due to the other side initiating the use of force. So, by your own rule, our current involvement is justified, at least arguably.

AdamLein wrote:

Maybe if we practiced noninterference, the Middle East wouldn't directly threaten us, in which case it would be immoral to interfere.

And maybe not. You can't defend your argument by predicting the future any more than I can by giving might-have-been theories.

AdamLein wrote:

However, I think (2) is a key difference between Ragnar Danneskjold and the U.S. government; he was doing it because of his desire to live in a moral society.

Your suggestion here is that the USA did not act out of the desire to live in a moral society. What evidence suggests that was not a motivation of our intervention? There's been a lot of rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to them, and both Afghanistan and Iraq have held repeated democratic elections since our involvement legitimatizing that claim. It seems to me that the USA is acting with the desire to exist in a more moral international community.

Thanks for the name. I suddenly couldn't remember it.

AdamLein wrote:

In any case, I agree that a nation's military forces should be used to defend the interests of the people of that nation. However, it's really hard to tell exactly how best to promote such defense when the army is already embroiled in the local affairs of the foreign aggressor. Better to remove a variable in the equation by getting out of the area; if the aggressor follows you, you then have every justification to clobber them into the dust.

The foreign aggressor already followed us home once, attacking our civilians directly. Do withdraw again is to risk (in my opinion, ensure) the lives of the very citizens the military exists to protect. It's unlikely that an isolationist withdrawal now would cause them to forget their grudges and placate them into calm. Maybe it could have been prevented by libertarian-style isolationism, but it's too late to know. Isolationism is no longer a possibility; the punches are flying, and the fight won't end if we lower our fists. And if Iran adds nuclear capability to our opponent's arsenal, the equalivant of a handgun in a boxing ring, we'll be a lot worse off for having withdrawn.

[Calbeck]

Meh. 2% merely means he has full support from the Libertarians themselves, who will vote for anyone on their own ticket, sight unseen. Every Lib candidate has routinely pulled 1%-2% of the vote come election day, with no improvement in sight.

Hell, Perot got 8% as the Reform candidate in '96, and that was after being a national laughingstock for five years. The only time Reformers have run a presidential candidate that did worse than Libs was when Buchanan hijacked the party, drove off hundreds of thousands of existing Reformers, and split the Reform vote in 2000.

[Scape]

Bloomburg should change all of that.

[AdamLein]

Psudo wrote:

You consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral, then? To see an assault on your street corner and merely close the blinds, to watch a man with a gas can burn down a building without calling the police or fire department, these are acceptable inactions?

I think I probably consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral... I'm not sure. It doesn't matter, though, because the analogy doesn't work: the U.S. doesn't "call the police or fire department". A better analogy would be responding to a violent domestic dispute several towns away by breaking into the house, kidnapping the abusive husband, and presiding over a forced marriage between the battered wife and your drinking buddy.

Not responding to assault and arson may allow such crimes to continue, but when you're dealing with aggressive savages, sticking your nose where it doesn't belong tends to divert the attention of attackers and arsonists toward your own house.

Quote:

It is your neighborhood. After watching a few assaults or muggings, you may yourself be assaulted or mugged. After watching a few arsons from your window, the odds grow that your building may be next. Unrest threatens you just as certainly as defying unrest does. It is in your personal best interest to address it.

It's debatable whether the Middle East is my neighborhood. Assuming for the moment it is, I don't suggest that a country should not defend themselves, or more importantly, that they should wait to be attacked before doing so.

AdamLein wrote:

Afghanistan's Taliban government was protecting those who directly attacked us.

I support the war in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Your suggestion here is that the USA did not act out of the desire to live in a moral society.

Absolutely right. The easiest way for America to live in a moral society is to separate itself off from immoral societies. The U.S.'s official policy is to act, not out of a desire to live in a moral world, but to secure its own strategic interests.

I want to reiterate that I'm not advocating immediate and total withdrawal of all forces. I realize that would be disastrous. But I like the idea of a president who will set us on a path towards the ideal: a free economy protected by a strong but passive government.

[JJ]

There are some very brilliant libertarians careful of forming sophisticated arguments and complex philosophies. Then there are libertarians who are basically just spoiled, lazy populists, people who have little interest in understanding the complexities of politics and political decision-making, and instead embrace a bunch of quick, easy answers. Part of the reason I dislike Ron Paul is because I strongly believe he falls into the latter category of libertarian. There doesn’t seem to be any real over-arching logic to the things he says, he just embraces random talking points from other political groups, mostly from the kook fringe of both parties, in an effort to be some sort of uber-outsider. This only ends up making him a very contradictory, directionless, shallow politician, and gives him absolutely no natural base of support, other than ignorant internet kids who are swayed by his populist appeals to selfishness and laziness (which I think is the appeal of libertarianism in general).

Most of his foreign policy arguments are just lifted from the Chomskyite far-left set. All this stuff about “imperialist wars for oil” is just nonsense. It’s a conspiracy theory without proof that is easily disputed. The Iraq war may have been a half-baked scheme, but it if it was it was because of the naïve thinking of the “neo-cons” and the utopian ideals of transforming the Middle East. None of the historians who have closely studied the decision-making process that led up to the war, such as Bob Woodward, Michael Gordon, and Tom Ricks, have found evidence that “taking the oil” was a primary, or even tertiary goal of invading Iraq. Indeed, the war was waged to the considerable concern of many in the international oil market, and there’s not much evidence to suggest Iraqi oil is easier to get now- under the nationalization schemes of the new Iraqi government- than it was in Saddam’s Iraq where it could be, you know, just purchased.

Regardless, if Ron Paul was true libertarian he should have no problem with corporate wars for oil anyway, since the premise of the “no war for oil” set is that it’s somehow wrong for American oil firms to act in their own self-interest and seek out higher profits. A lot of libertarians are actually apologists for colonialism and imperialism for this very reason, but Dr. Paul seems more keen to adopt the anti-capitalist rhetoric of A.N.S.W.E.R. as long as it wins him a few populist points.

Secondly, Paul’s belief that terrorists only attack America as some way of resolving legitimate political beefs is enormously ignorant of the contemporary realities of fundamentalist Islam and the history of Al-Qeuda. Yes, America is resented in the Arab world for having supported the Saudis, Saddam, etc. But usually this is because said regimes have been too “secular” for the fundamentalists’ liking. He often dredges up the name of Mohammed Mossadiq, the Eisenhower-era president of Iran who the CIA covertly overthrew, as a case study for why Iranian hatred of America is justified. Yet Mossadiq was a socialist secularist with Soviet sympathies. The current regime in Iran has absolutely nothing in common with his values, and would certainly never tolerate the emergence of a new Mossadiq today. The only people who would have affinity for his legacy would be young, educated, secular Iranians, who, guess what, are now America’s most steadfast and supported allies in modern Iran. The present conflict with Khomenist Iran has much deeper more complex roots, most of which stem from the religious vision of the fundamentalist government, and traditional Persian ambitions for regional hegemony.

The Ron Paul vision of the world ignores such complexities, and instead tries to see a planet where the United States is basically the root of all evil, where everything only happens as a result of American “meddling” and incompetence. Though it’s a very far-left, anti-American sort of view, it’s also displays a sort of far-right bigotry to it. It assumes the United States is the only country in the world that matters, with everything revolving around it. It’s looking at the world with egocentric blinders, in which everything is seen to be a reflection of yourself.

I agree very much with what Psudo said. Maybe (and that’s a big maybe) America would be a safer country today if the US had embraced a consistently isolationist foreign policy from 1776 to present. But the fact is, they have not. America is now the world’s superpower, with untold foreign commitments, engagements, alliances, treaties, and partnerships with dozens and dozens of nations around the planet. I believe the world is a safer and more stable place for both Americans and other citizens of other nations as a result of US-led initiatives like NATO, the UN, the WTO, and other pro-democracy, pro-trade movements and organizations that Dr. Paul seeks to destroy.

America is now in a leadership position, and her promises and alliances must be honored. To suggest otherwise is to lazily abandon decades of US statecraft, orchestrated by men and women who are frankly a lot more knowledgeable about world affairs than Dr. Paul, simply because of some vague xenophobic, provincial idea that the rest of the world is disinteresting and dangerous.

Domestically, Paul is just a mess, and I think his policies in that realm are even more contradictory and unappealing. Yes, he advocates an end to the war on drugs and supports crushing welfare. But let’s not forget he is also a loudly self-proclaimed Christian who opposes gay rights and abortion. So despite all his rhetoric about libertarianism and freedom for all, he’s just as arbitrary in who he chooses to dole out his freedoms to as any other politician. You’re free to pay money to drive on a privatized road once the highway commission is abolished, but if you’re a gay man you’re not free to serve openly in the armed forces.

On another level I simply think Paul would make a sucky president based on any sort of functional analysis. Despite all his constitution-waving, he doesn’t seem to have much knowledge about the actual role of the presidency with all his “abolish this, abolish that” talk. The Congress is not part of that radical agenda, and they’re the only body with such powers of abolishment. So is Paul’s plan simply to veto each and every bill passed by the legislature, grinding all functioning of government to a standstill?

As far as the Confederacy business goes, Paul is free to believe what he wants about the origins of that conflict. But the fact remains that during the Civil War the United States of America waged war against a country that had one of the most reactionary, pro-slavery constitutions ever devised by man, in which a right to hold ownership over the life of another human being was one of the most enshrined laws of the land. Dr. Paul in turn chooses to apologize and defend the latter regime as being not so bad, while demonizing President Lincoln’s wartime government as the real tyranny. The fact that this is the most rational conclusion our so-called pro-freedom libertarian can reach reveals the depressing lows of Paul’s overall intellectual bankruptcy.

Overall, I think Ron Paul is a simplistic little man, with simplistic, badly cobbled-together populist arguments based mostly on whining and designed to appeal to laziness and selfishness. He hates everything, and his sweeping “abolish it all” stances on all issues are unfeasible to the point of worthlessness. I believe a president has to be a leader, and an inspiring person with a positive, optimistic agenda for the future of the country. Paul has no such agenda that I am aware of, he’s the classic stereotype of a protest candidate- angry, ignorant, reactionary, and ultimately hopeless.

[EmperorLiam]

Psudo:

Quote:

what evidence is there of an "overt religious movement into government"?

Numerous states passing laws stating atheists cannot be elected (federal laws override them thankfully, but its still an overt gesture) . Religious slogans on money, courts, schools, in the pledge of allegiance, Faith Based Initiatives passed by Bush, faith based foreign policy towards STDs, comments by past and current Presidents denouncing atheists... etc etc.

Quote:

atheists are a small minority

I seriously doubt that, falling church attendance is proof enough. The problem is too many people think being agnostic means they aren't atheist so they shy away from the title, were growing in numbers faster than the religious want to acknowledge. I beleive that it'll be the atheists that save America from Islam, Christians are practically bed buddies with them despite 9/11.

Quote:

yours is a statement of ideology, not of demonstrated fact.

I'ver discussed this with people from these regions. Sure they all desire to come to America, but they still hate its gov. and dislike certain of "our" values. FACT: America is truly singled out, proof of this is that Muslims have been migrating to Canada preferably over America, why is that other than Americas foreign policy? (its been like this long before 9/11).

Quote:

Can you cite examples of nations with libertarian drug policies demonstrating that they are better off?

Easy, United States of America circa 1934, look at how legalizing alcohol reduced crime and societal problems related to alcohol abuse, prohibition doesn't work.

Quote:

I haven't seen Americans being arrested for criticizing the administration or being held without charges.

Thats a pretty damn specific issue, I was far more general, I never said anything about being held without charges, this is NOT a fair way to debate someone.

Off the top of my head I recall this guy got charged for dissing Cheney:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406

Anyhow, the Patriot Act CLEARLY eroded your rights to privacy and also to proper legal processing. So you are easily proven wrong, its all there in ink.

Quote:

Taxes are lower, not higher, since 2001

So what, does our level of taxes determine how good our government is?
The budget isn't balanced, its a horrible mess. You can't argue that fact away. Not till taxes are low and the budget balanced do we get giddy.

Quote:

what proof is there behind peak oil?

Peak oil is actually about the DEMAND for oil surpassing the SUPPLY, not so much about it running out. I personally don't think we will run out of oil ever, just become too scarce. Seeing as you don't understand what 'Peak oil' is, I don't see why you can't just go and research it yourself... wikipedia.com will do just fine.

Fun side note, I don't beleive many of the OPEC nations are telling the truth about their reserves, they benefit by exaggerating them because of OPEC agreements tying sales to reserves.

Quote:

You think that if we end interventionism, everyone will just leave our national interests alone and play nice? Do you think Osama is one to forgive and forget overnight?

Sigh, I did say:

Quote:

Realize that I'm pro-Iraq liberation/occupation,

So I am PRO-INTERVENTIONIST, I just don't beleive America can and should be doing it anymore, especially not that damn CIA at this point in time.

Quote:

This sounds like "He's not a Confederate apologist... but I am."

Not exactly, I'm saying theres nothing 'apologist' about it, I'm saying the Civil war was an illegal war fought to create a strong Federal government. Remember, I'm Canadian, I'm not a southerner, I have no cultural reason to side with them. Remember, winners write the history, so automatically you have to be suspicious of the "official" motives of war. Civil war isn't desirable, and really should be avoided at ALL costs, obviously Lincoln wasn't a good choice to elect, slavery would have ended in its own course.


PLEASE listen to the debate I posted before Psudo, doesn't seem that you did:

http://media33b.libsyn.com/podcasts/17c ... -06-20.mp3

Anyhow, lets just agree to disagree, way too much work responding to every little point... ESPECIALLY since the entire post was directed at JJ specifically, you just couldn't help but respond apparently.



Voyager:

Quote:

Well, people have said that before

Please tell me how you comparing Hitlers land grab and "making the world safe for democracy" have enough in common to Godwin the thread? Hitler invaded other nations, America is doing the same... so the comparison tanks your own point.

But I'll stress this again, I am a PRO-INTERVENTIONIST, if I thought the USA could successfully force democracy down the throat of every country, I'd be all for it. The reality is that America can't succeed using this method in regions where the general population dislikes them more than their own totalitarian government.



AdamLein:

Quote:

I think I probably consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral

Well then you'd be wrong. Humans evolved to be compassionate about the fate of other humans, and I think its beneficial for everyone if we take care of each other. Which is why I'm a PRO-INTERVENTIONIST, I'm mad as hell about whats going on in Darfur, Congo, China, N.Korea, etc etc.




Ron Paul will work to fix America, returning to what the founding fathers intended.

[AdamLein]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

I think I probably consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral

Well then you'd be wrong.

Ah, well, you seem to have morality all figured out then. That's nice.

Quote:

Humans evolved to be compassionate about the fate of other humans, and I think its beneficial for everyone if we take care of each other.

(a) What's evolved and what's natural isn't necessarily what's moral. Humans evolved to beat each other to death with sticks in order to secure access to the better watering hole, too. They evolved to assume that the members of their own tribe are inherently better and more valuable than the members of the neighboring tribe. They evolved to deify their rulers and to fear everything that's different. They also evolved to be selfish, to hoard, and to steal.

(b) "It's beneficial for everyone if we take care of each other" is the motivation behind the welfare state. It's an incredibly naive notion that "ignores the complexities" of economy and motivation.

(c) I'm compassionate about the fate of myself, my family, my friends, the people I do business with, the people in my geographic neighborhood, and the human race in general, in decreasing degrees. It's unfortunate what's happening to people in other parts of the world, but I can't say I care about them all that much (especially since so many of them hate me by virtue of my being American, and p.s. they wouldn't care about me if I weren't). The difference between me and most people is that I don't feel guilty about not caring.

[EmperorLiam]

JJ, give me a chance to convince you:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. Broadly speaking, there are two types of libertarians: consequentialists and rights theorists.

[1] Rights theorists hold that it is morally imperative that all human interaction, including government interaction with private individuals, should be voluntary and consensual.

[2]Consequentialist libertarians do not have a moral prohibition against "initiation of force," but believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society - even if protecting this liberty involves some initiation of force by government. However, such governmental actions are limited in the free society consequentialists envision.

Libertarians generally do not oppose force used in response to initiatory aggressions such as violence, fraud or trespassing. Libertarians favor an ethic of self-responsibility and strongly oppose conscription and the welfare state, because they believe coercing someone to provide charity and military service is ethically wrong, ultimately counter-productive, or both. Apart from some very basic principles favoring personal freedom and free markets, there is not a canon of "official" libertarian beliefs. Libertarians may disagree with other libertarians over specific issues.

Quote:

making him a very contradictory, directionless, shallow politician

Any evidence to back these up?

Quote:

All this stuff about “imperialist wars for oil” is just nonsense.

So your saying that the United States doesn't meddle in the Middle East because of oil interests? Why did the CIA fund the coup in Iran then? Why are they so cozy with the Saudis?

Quote:

{none} None of the historians ... have found evidence that “taking the oil” was a primary, or even tertiary goal of invading Iraq.

True, but if Iraq had no oil, then they would not have been liberated, just like dozens of other WORSE dictatorships go unmolested. No ones going to beleive you that this wasn't about oil... remember, it doesn't matter who has the oil, it just matters that they are selling it (lowering the price worldwide).

Quote:

true libertarian he should have no problem with corporate wars for oil anyway

This contradicts the main tenet of Libertarianism.

Quote:

A lot of libertarians are actually apologists for colonialism and imperialism for this very reason

Bullshit, colonialism and imperialism completely go against the main tenet of Libertarianism.

Quote:

Paul’s belief that terrorists only attack America as some way of resolving legitimate political beefs is enormously ignorant of the contemporary realities of fundamentalist Islam and the history of Al-Qeuda.

No, Al-Qaeda came into existence BECAUSE of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, and they attack America because of its support of Israel and the American bases put into Saudia Arabia for the First Gulf War, intervention in Somalia, etc etc. These are LEGITIMATE political beefs. The Quran states that the proof it is the true word of God, is that all Muslim lands will remain Muslim for eternity, obviously losing Spain and Israel has them pissed off, they have to take them back or question their faith. Also, ALL of Islam is fundamentalist, the Quran is literally the word of God. The Quran states any nation oppressing them is fair game for jihad, and the mainly Saudi Wahhabists are pushing for a jihad against America.

Quote:

where everything only happens as a result of American “meddling” and incompetence.

Ahem... Iran contra, Bay of Pigs, Bay of Tonkin, bombing of Cambodia, Somalia, Cold War, Korean war (pushed north when shouldn't have bringing China into the fight), I mean seriously, the list goes on and on.

Quote:

self-proclaimed Christian who opposes gay rights and abortion.

WHAT? He doesn't oppose gay rights at all! And he delivered BABIES AS A PROFESSION, HE BETTER BE AGAINST ABORTION! He has made it clear that he beleive the States should determine if abortion is legal or not.

Quote:

but if you’re a gay man you’re not free to serve openly in the armed forces.

But Ron Paul said that they should be free to serve openly... I seriously doubt you've researched him very well.

Quote:

her promises and alliances must be honored

So USA all of a sudden SHOULD enforce Kyoto? Can't governments correct MISTAKES?

Quote:

he doesn’t seem to have much knowledge about the actual role of the presidency with all his “abolish this, abolish that” talk.

Actually quite the opposite... he actually is quite the downer about how much he expects to accomplish if elected, so once again, you have not done your research.

Quote:

the fact remains that during the Civil War the United States of America waged war against a country that had one of the most reactionary, pro-slavery constitutions ever devised by man

Oh please, Code of Hammurabi was way worse, and even THEY managed to end slavery without civil war. The ONLY thing Ron Paul has said about this, was that civil war was not necessary to end slavery. The man believes in the 'Just War' ideal and the constitution, with those two ideals you can never advocate a civil war over something the states were one by one solving peacefully anyhow. How does that make him a Confederate? The main tenet of being Libertarian is against slavery, so why are you trying this half assed attempt at slander, to equate him with being a slaveholder?


Please watch these:

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eIzP8ONtkv8

REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - WMUR 4-27-07 - 1 OF 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LhSEeD1xYM0

REP. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT - WMUR 4-27-07 - 2 OF 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v6ZwHhl_gbY

Complete Ron Paul Interview, Part 1 of 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vjQwIcy4OTU


Ron Paul has served in his nations forces, delivered thousands of babies, won multiple elections, and gained an online following dwarfing all the other candidates Democrat OR Republican. Screw your worthless arts degree, I don't give a damn about your minor in political science, you lack any understanding of Libertarianism, and have some ridiculous bias against them. I'd like you to explain yourself, but seeing as how this is the second time this year I've called you on this, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[EmperorLiam]

AdamLein, pay attention here:

You: I think I probably consider it impossible for inaction to be immoral

Me: Well then you'd be wrong.

Now, see, all I have to do is provide once case where inaction is immoral. A guys drowning and all you have to do is toss him a life bouy, and you think inaction is not immoral?

But whenever talking about morals, you need to first agree that they are an invention of the human mind (unless your religious), so you can go with general consensus of what is moral, or just personal.

You're apathetic, but unfortunately not apathetic enough to just keep your opinions to yourself. Good thing I'm apathetic of the apathetic, I don't suggest depending on me when you go swimming. =D

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Psudo wrote:

what evidence is there of an "overt religious movement into government"?

Numerous states passing laws stating atheists cannot be elected (federal laws override them thankfully, but its still an overt gesture) . Religious slogans on money, courts, schools, in the pledge of allegiance, Faith Based Initiatives passed by Bush, faith based foreign policy towards STDs, comments by past and current Presidents denouncing atheists... etc etc.

Oh, my mistake. thought you meant a modern movement towards establishing religion rather than a combination of half-century old traditions with the ability of citizens in public office to have religious opinions. Isn't atheism itself a religious opinion?

FYI, 14.1% of the USA claims to be non-religious, with 0.9% specifically declaring themselves Atheist or Agnostic [1]. That's about 1 in 7 are non-religious, and about 1 in 111 are religiously non-religious. I consider both fractions small. I suspect the number that consider "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" immoral state advocacy of religion is closer to the 1 in 111 fraction.

I do think atheists and agnostics have just as much right to their views on religion as anyone else, but I don't believe that includes censoring such statements that are neither intended nor able to enforce religious activity. It makes about as much sense to me as Jehovah's Witnesses advocating for the abolishment of the Pledge of Allegiance (which they consider a prayer to a false god) or traditional conservative Christians abolishing paintings or statues of nudes in state museums. Why should your (their, anyone's) particular view censor the entire nation?

EmperorLiam wrote:

FACT: America is truly singled out, proof of this is that Muslims have been migrating to Canada preferably over America, why is that other than Americas foreign policy?

Maybe they believe propaganda demonizing the USA, maybe they have jobs lined up in Canada, maybe they like cooler weather, maybe they speak French but not English, maybe they have relatives in Canada, maybe they're just following the lead of someone traveling with them, maybe they prefer a Constitutional Monarchy to a Constitutional Republic, maybe they like hockey. There are a billion possible reasons other than disapproval of US foreign relations. You're making the claim, you prove which. Otherwise, just as I said, it's a statement of belief rather than fact.

As for your alleged anecdotal evidence, I know a nice girl who moved here from Africa who has the opposite opinion; she loves the USA and chose it over her homeland and Canada. Is there any reason why your anecdotal evidence trumps mine?

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

Can you cite examples of nations with libertarian drug policies demonstrating that they are better off?

Easy, United States of America circa 1934, look at how legalizing alcohol reduced crime and societal problems related to alcohol abuse, prohibition doesn't work.

I'll rephrase. Can you cite examples of nations with libertarian drug policies on drugs currently illegal in the USA demonstrating that they are better off? Or, if you insist on using the prohibition example, can you demonstrate how alcohol would be a valid parallel for, say, PCP or heroin?

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

I haven't seen Americans being arrested for criticizing the administration or being held without charges.

Thats a pretty damn specific issue, I was far more general, I never said anything about being held without charges, this is NOT a fair way to debate someone.

I did not intend to suggest that this specific example was the only possible abuse of power, though I now see that that is the meaning my words portrays. I meant something more like "I haven't seen much in the way of actual erosion of rights, just claims that erosions of rights were coming." I intended the specific example as an analogy of the greater issue.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Off the top of my head I recall this guy got charged for dissing Cheney:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406

Hrm... formally charged, out on bail, charges quickly reduced and then dismissed, and the arrested man is suing the Secret Service agent because there's no evidence of wrongdoing except by that one agent. Yes, clearly this one agent's behavior demonstrates the overall corruption of the system and erosion of rights. Or maybe an overzealous agent was an idiot for 10 minutes all on his own. The latter explanation has the advantage of being demonstrated by the evidence without further speculation.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Anyhow, the Patriot Act CLEARLY eroded your rights to privacy and also to proper legal processing. So you are easily proven wrong, its all there in ink.

The Patriot Act enables ("enabled"? I don't know if Patriot2 continued the policy.) the controversial power to hold suspected terrorists without checking with the justice department. This could potentially lead to an erosion of rights if internal oversight fails or becomes corrupt. Do you have any evidence that potentiality ever came true? (This is a restatement of the question two paragraphs ago, just with a more specific context.)

Another restatement of the same question: Are our natural rights being violated, or do you merely predict future violations?

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

Taxes are lower, not higher, since 2001

So what, does our level of taxes determine how good our government is?

No, but taxes do determine how much money our government is "stealing" from us. If government is taking less money in taxes since 2001, how can it be said that Iraq is a smoke screen to empower taxation ("steal our money" as you put it)? Perhaps "We have the power, we're just not using it"? That case demonstrates restraint rather than corruption.

EmperorLiam wrote:

The budget isn't balanced, its a horrible mess.

This is true. However, 1) this is not what your comment said, and thus was not what I was responding to. And 2) as a proportion of GDP, the budget steady (aka "not getting worse"). I gave you an economist's demonstration of that.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

what proof is there behind peak oil?

Peak oil is actually about the DEMAND for oil surpassing the SUPPLY, not so much about it running out. I personally don't think we will run out of oil ever, just become too scarce.

When demand increases, prices go up, making new sources of goods economically feasible. Thus, when gas prices rise, industry becomes more able to limit the rise in prices with new supply. Maybe my wording was unclear, though. Perhaps I should have said "What proof is there that we will experience a peak oil crisis?" After all, I don't necessarily believe demand for oil will never exceed supply. I merely believe that it is not a valid cause for worry or alarm, as normal industry practices will take such a change in stride.

EmperorLiam wrote:

I just don't beleive America can and should be doing it anymore, especially not that damn CIA at this point in time.

What is "it" in that sentence? Interventionism? That would mean you are pro-interventionism but you don't believe American can and should be intervening anymore. That sentence contradicts itself.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Remember, I'm Canadian, I'm not a southerner, I have no cultural reason to side with them. Remember, winners write the history, so automatically you have to be suspicious of the "official" motives of war.

This section clings to a pet peeve of mine: I don't care about your cultural influences, what group(s) you represent or are a member of, or who agrees with you. "Who" is irrelevant to the validity of an argument. If Hitler says 2+2=4, it's still true. If Ghandi says 2+2=5, it's still false. The "official" claims of the history-book-writing winner are exactly as suspect as the resentful claims of the loser or the uninvolved third party. Everyone is capable of being right and everyone is capable of being wrong. The argument matters, not the presenter of the argument.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Quote:

This sounds like "He's not a Confederate apologist... but I am."

Not exactly, I'm saying theres nothing 'apologist' about it, I'm saying the Civil war was an illegal war fought to create a strong Federal government. [. . .] Civil war isn't desirable, and really should be avoided at ALL costs, obviously Lincoln wasn't a good choice to elect, slavery would have ended in its own course.

First, Lincoln was sworn in about 4 months before the first shots were fired. Do you really imagine four months of his administration did more to instigate civil war than the 4 years of James Buchanan actively seeking to piss off abolitionists and advocate slavery when the issue already had the country divided?

You claim civil war should be avoided "at all costs". Such absolutes always attract my criticism. If the cost had been the death of every American citizen, that would have been acceptable to avoid civil war by that argument. That's obviously idiotic. Civil war should be adamantly avoided, but not "at all costs". Perhaps you meant "at any cost up to the cost of the civil war itself." Thus, if avoiding civil war killed more people than engaging in civil war, the civil war would be preferable. I reject this interpretation as well. The US Revolutionary War, a civil war in Britain's eyes, was more costly in lives than submission to the Crown would have been. Yet, lives were paid to gain something more valuable. Even if it wasn't the Civil War's intent, how much longer would slavery have endured in the Confederacy if there had been no Civil War? They had an economy utterly dependent on slavery, and a Constitution protecting it as a civil right. Slavery would have ended eventually, I suppose, just as independence eventually came to Canada without war. War brings such things sooner and more fully.

It's comparable to a shot. Would you rather get a vaccination (war, a quick but severe pain) than the chicken pox (an enduring but relatively minor discomfort)? Okay, this metaphor inherently includes the intent to prevent the disease, and the civil war wasn't really intended to end slavery. It just did, coincidentally. An accidental vaccination, then?

EmperorLiam wrote:

PLEASE listen to the debate I posted before Psudo, doesn't seem that you did

It's true, I didn't. I still haven't. I have it bookmarked for future reference, but after these huge posts I've been writing lately, I'm just sick of the topic and need a break. I'll listen sometime within the next week. I have watched Ron Paul talk before, and I find myself disagreeing with him about as often as I do with you. I suppose, from your point of view, that comparison is a compliment.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Ron Paul will work to fix America, returning to what the founding fathers intended.

Actually, he'll work to get elected and fail at that objective, thus denying him the power to change America. Thankfully.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Ron Paul will work to fix America, returning to what the founding fathers intended.

Actually, he'll work to get elected and fail miserably at that objective, thus denying him the power to change America. Thankfully.

[AdamLein]

EmperorLiam wrote:

But whenever talking about morals, you need to first agree that they are an invention of the human mind (unless your religious), so you can go with general consensus of what is moral, or just personal.

I reject both suggestions: first, that one has to be religious to subscribe to an objective notion of morality; and second, that morality by general consensus is a useful system (i.e. I reject moral relativism; human sacrifice is immoral even if you're an Aztec).

Therefore, just because you claim that not saving a drowning swimmer is immoral, doesn't mean it is, and so you haven't really defended your assertion that "some inaction is immoral".

I'm curious as to what your moral premises are. It seems like you're saying, "Initiation of force or fraud is immoral, and failure to protect others from suffering is immoral unless _______." I'm not sure what to put in the blank. Maybe "[unless] it incurs a cost or risk to do so"? Probably not, since rescuing a drowning victim incurs a risk of drowning, and sending your army overseas to enact regime change incurs the loss of life of your armies (in addition to the material cost of the war). If you don't have an exception clause, then shouldn't you be giving your possessions away to every starving, homeless person you pass on the street? If you do have an exception clause, then won't it probably cover things like military intervention in foreign affairs?

Unless all it takes to protect somebody is to call the police or fire department, then it's going to incur some kind of cost to the protector. In other words, the moral premise that I've outlined above demands self-sacrifice of every person who wishes to be called moral. Noninterventionism is the suggestion that America is still a good country even if it isn't trying to solve the world's problems -- i.e., that self-sacrifice is not required to be a good country. From my perspective, noninterventionism is based on the suggestion that America-the-state exists to protect America-the-people, and for no other reason. If individual Americans want to go and save Darfur or overthrow evil dictators, they're welcome to, but it's not the responsibility (nor even the right) of the state to do so.

Quote:

You're apathetic, but unfortunately not apathetic enough to just keep your opinions to yourself.

I never signed up for the let's-see-who-can-be-more-offensive contest.

Quote:

I don't suggest depending on me when you go swimming. =D

Finally, somebody who agrees with me on the value of personal responsibility...

[AdamLein]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Please watch these:

To this list I would like to add the Republican party debate in South Carolina, which you can find by searching for "Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth" on YouTube (I'm too new to the forum to post the link).

where Paul dares to suggest that our own foreign policy contributes to the hatred of America that led up to the 9/11 attacks, and Giuliani says that it's a preposterous idea and that he has never heard of anybody suggest such a thing before. How is it that America can have such a tradition of distrusting and questioning the government, but as soon as we are attacked, we unite behind the notion that our government can do no wrong? I think Islamofascist regimes and Islamic societies in general are dominated by immoral, violent, aggressive values and policies, but I also think the suggestion that America is completely blameless for the attacks against it is self-delusion of the most dangerous kind.

[mishu]

1. I'll be the first to point out the ironic elephant in the room that some guy who calls himself "EmperorLaim" is lecturing us about the virtues of isolationism. He also finds no fault with the Confederate States of America which easily describes views on integration of racial cultures. I suppose it's only logical that an isolationist is also a segregationist too. No wonder he's not a Republican.

2. Finally, confronting the Islamist threat is nothing new in United States history. It has nothing to do with meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. The current U.S. Constitution wasn't even written when America had her first brush with Islamists. This conflict changed Jefferson's mind about issue of having a weak central government. After finding out the price of appeasement with the Islamofacsists was $30,000 a year to conduct simple trade with Europe, he found it more cost effective in the long run to raise a strong Navy coupled with an elite Marine unit to defend our interests abroad. The Islamofacists don't fight us for what we do but for who we are.

[AdamLein]

mishu wrote:

2. Finally, confronting the Islamist threat is nothing new in United States history. It has nothing to do with meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. The current U.S. Constitution wasn't even written when America had her first brush with Islamists. This conflict changed Jefferson's mind about issue of having a weak central government. After finding out the price of appeasement with the Islamofacsists was $30,000 a year to conduct simple trade with Europe, he found it more cost effective in the long run to raise a strong Navy coupled with an elite Marine unit to defend our interests abroad. The Islamofacists don't fight us for what we do but for who we are.

I'd be interested in reading some references to these events...

p.s. Just want to reiterate again that I'm not claiming that American meddling is the only reason Islamic militants are attacking the West, and I don't think Paul is suggesting that either. One need look no farther than the Muhammad cartoons fiasco or the ongoing fatwa against Rushdie and the murder of his translators and more recent developments to realize that there are powerful figures and organizations in the Muslim world that aggressively preach violence. There are a lot of ingredients that go into the recipe of Islamic hatred for the West.