Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

[Citizen]

SNIP Imperialism....

I'd heard the "imperialism" charge for years, too. And, viewed it with disdain.

It was only within the last, oh, three years or so, that I realized the accusers can't possibly mean imperialism in a literal sense since there is no imperialism in that sense any more. Thus, they must be using the term to describe something else.

When you do dig into it a little bit, you find the accusers are applying the word to modern day manifestations, which I would say began, oh, in the early 1900's.

Now, this doesn't mean the accusers are correct in all cases. But, if you free yourself slightly from the old dictionary definition of imperialism and look for what the accusers could mean, I think you will see some interesting things.

 

[since9]

Obama will be around for two terms. If I am wrong then I owe someone on here beer money

How about all of us? :uhoh:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

How about all of us? :uhoh:

I'm not that confident!

 

[Citizen]

How about all of us? :uhoh:

We'll still be around. We'll just have a bigger mess to clean up.

Who knows, maybe a second term by him would drive enough more people into the freedom camp to make a real difference.

If we assume there will be no major advances in changing human nature, the key will be emasculating the Federal Reserve and getting a gold standard or some other mechanism that makes it very difficult for the fegov to run up debts without also running up huge tax increases.

The fact that Congress can spend, spend, spend while financing the spending through borrowing is the important angle. As long as Congress can get away with only having to tax enough to pay the interest, the taxpayers don't feel the impact as strongly.

Imagine for just a moment if the fedgov had to obtain through taxation the total amount it spent every year. In advance of the spending. Taxes would have to go through the roof to meet anything like the current spending. And, the citizens would damn sure vote those criminals out real quick.

Now, that wouldn't solve things completely. Congress would just go back to its pre-Federal Reserve trickery and machinations. Monkeying around with tariffs, tax breaks and subsidies to favored lobbyists' industries, etc. (Think banking regulations twisted in favor of banks extending too much credit, then risking collapse of regional banks.) So, we couldn't rest. We'd have to be ready to fight the next series of machinations.

 

[Metalhead47]

[COLOR=blue
[COLOR=#0000ff]Do you just regurgitate things that sound cool to you that you hear from your friends? Show me ONE STATEMENT that warns against "imperialism", then define exactly how any relationship we have with any foreign country, land mass, tribe or village can even slightly relate to "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire[/COLOR], based on domination and subordination." You won't get any arguement from me regarding the federal relationship with the domestic states, but to even suggest the federal empire is malignantly bleeding the resources of the rest of the world that gets tens of billions in aid is beyond leftist idiocy.

Damn you go boy :banana:

We'll still be around. We'll just have a bigger mess to clean up.

Who knows, maybe a second term by him would drive enough more people into the freedom camp to make a real difference.

If we assume there will be no major advances in changing human nature, the key will be emasculating the Federal Reserve and getting a gold standard or some other mechanism that makes it very difficult for the fegov to run up debts without also running up huge tax increases.

The fact that Congress can spend, spend, spend while financing the spending through borrowing is the important angle. As long as Congress can get away with only having to tax enough to pay the interest, the taxpayers don't feel the impact as strongly.

Imagine for just a moment if the fedgov had to obtain through taxation the total amount it spent every year. In advance of the spending. Taxes would have to go through the roof to meet anything like the current spending. And, the citizens would damn sure vote those criminals out real quick.

Now, that wouldn't solve things completely. Congress would just go back to its pre-Federal Reserve trickery and machinations. Monkeying around with tariffs, tax breaks and subsidies to favored lobbyists' industries, etc. (Think banking regulations twisted in favor of banks extending too much credit, then risking collapse of regional banks.) So, we couldn't rest. We'd have to be ready to fight the next series of machinations.

Is there ever any rest? Could there be? Who was it who said something about power corrupting? What I've seen the last couple of years has given me hope though. Real hope, not that bumper sticker "hopey changey" nonsense. People ARE starting to wake up, and at least from Jan up to this point, the new Republican House has done a commendable job of sticking to their campaign promises and actually trying to reel in spending (commendable, not perfect) with their limited power. Getting spending under control is the first step, at that at least looks plausible from here.

Emasculating the Fed and/or returning to a metal standard? Don't think we'll see that any time soon, barring some cataclysmic upheaval. But controlled federal spending and perhaps a balanced budget amendment, yes I could see that. Especially if the European gov'ts continue to go bankrupt. As Mrs. Thatcher warned, they've run out of other people's money. I think we're on the verge of a great Conservative Renaissance in this country. Conservative, not Libertarian. Perhaps that will come after.

IF people continue waking up. Unfortunately in this country, we have a really bad habit of sitting bolt upright at the first alarm.... and then rolling over, hitting the snooze button, and going back to sleep. :banghead:

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Getting spending under control is the first step, at that at least looks plausible from here.

Emasculating the Fed and/or returning to a metal standard? Don't think we'll see that any time soon, barring some cataclysmic upheaval. But controlled federal spending and perhaps a balanced budget amendment,

You remember Godfather III? Where Michael, his lawyer, and Vinnie are sitting in front of the villa in Sicily? Michael says, "They're the same problem." Whoever was thwarting the Immobilarie deal was behind the helicopter hit on the commission.

Same thing here. The Federal Reserve, spending, and no gold standard are all the same problem. Congress can only spend, spend, spend because the Federal Reserve can print vast amounts of money at will and loan it to Congress. The Treasury Department could not print vast amounts of money if there were no gold standard.

This is an ancient problem done up in modern circumstances. In times past, the Roman Emporer could demand tax payment in gold, then melt the gold, add some copper or whatever, and make 10% more coins than he started with (one emporer actually did something like this). Then use the additional "money" to spend on his legions, or whatever.

I've come across a reference to kings having their treasury "shave" coins, which would then be meltable for making new coins. Although, I haven't come across more than this one reference.

King William III was quite happy to have the first central bank--the Bank of England--in 1694. Gave him all kinds of finance without having to raise taxes--just create debt and then tax the people enough to pay the interest on the debt.

The revolutionary war congress did it by printing "continentals". And, printing more continentals. And, more. Until continentals were almost literally worthless. That congress had very little gold money. So, it printed paper money.

The attendees to the constitutional convention were very much aware of what can happen when government can just print money--they'd all seen what happened with the continentals. That's why the constitution only allows congress to "coin" money. And, why the states are expressly prohibited from "emitting bills of credit" (paper currency).

So, you see? Old problem. Very old. Just the latest version. Add in that the central bank (Federal Reserve) now has computers and doesn't have to actually print the money. They just add numbers to an electronic ledger. Wah-lah! $600B new money aka QE2.

Oh, and getting rid of the Federal Reserve? Quite possible. Already been done twice in this country. The Federal Reserve is our third central bank. Andrew Jackson got rid of the second one. Not impossible at all if enough people demand it. This is probably one of Ron Paul's biggest accomplishments--getting the Federal Reserve and its hijinks and lies front and center in people's awareness.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I'd heard the "imperialism" charge for years, too. And, viewed it with disdain.

It was only within the last, oh, three years or so, that I realized the accusers can't possibly mean imperialism in a literal sense since there is no imperialism in that sense any more. Thus, they must be using the term to describe something else.

When you do dig into it a little bit, you find the accusers are applying the word to modern day manifestations, which I would say began, oh, in the early 1900's.

Now, this doesn't mean the accusers are correct in all cases. But, if you free yourself slightly from the old dictionary definition of imperialism and look for what the accusers could mean, I think you will see some interesting things.

I see the left generally warping and twisting facts, statistics, historical events and yes, even words. I do not allow them to twist words. Do do so is to allow yourself to be manipulated. In the case of "Imperilaism", NOTHING the US does in foreign affairs can even remotely be considered imperialism. Words mean things, and the way these oxygen thieves

distort words is Orwellian, so I won't tolerate it.

 

[JamesCanby]

I am not disputing that he did his time (although there are some who do). I am questioning why he was playing pilot, when he should have been knee-deep in rice patties like all the other men who were serving at that time. I am sure his Daddy's political, and financial power had nothing to do with it.

I find your posting to be highly unfortunate on several levels.

"Playing pilot?" I suggest that you might want to reconsider your words in light of the intelligence and fortitude that it takes to strap yourself into a high-performance military aircraft and safely pilot it. One does not "play" at controlling such an aircraft. As a private pilot that flies a relatively sedate civilian aircraft, and who has known many military pilots, I can guarantee you that anyone who qualifies to sit in the cockpit of a jet fighter deserves respect.

"Should have been knee-deep in rice patties [sic]?" Again, you seem to be denigrating every soldier, Marine, sailor and airman that served during the Viet Nam war who didn't actually slog through rice paddies ... did they not also serve honorably and in many cases, give that last full measure of devotion to the cause? It's not just the Army's 11 Bravos who fight our wars.

By inference you seem to also be denigrating members of the National Guard who, in your estimation only "play" at being pilots, well away from the actual fighting. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In our current conflicts, more than 40% of those deployed comprise National Guard units and I know many who also served in SE Asia during Viet Nam.

Your comments betray a lack of understanding as well as a tendency to be affected by BDS -- Bush Derangement Syndrome. You should recant your opinion.

 

[eye95]

This is exactly the behavior I decried in the Obama name thread, just applied to another president.

Can't we argue the politics of these people without resorting to specious arguments about the persons themselves? A little rationality please...just a little.

 

[Metalhead47]

Kind of like this video where he is taking all the credit:

This just showed up in my inbox, and I simply had to bring it to your attention.

Giving credit vs taking credit

Confidence vs egotism

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam:


The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.



Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Your comments betray a lack of understanding as well as a tendency to be affected by BDS -- Bush Derangement Syndrome. You should recant your opinion.

You have the so-called 'Freedom' to express yourself about what you 'think' I am stating.

 

[marshaul]

I was referring to isolationism more in the sense of non-interventionism, I suppose. Y'know, the "world cop" thing.

So, what, you intentionally manipulate the language so as to discredit a guy you haven't even made your mind up about?

Isolationism is bad, for obvious reasons.

Non-interventionism, on the other hand, is the only truly "conservative" approach. Jefferson has lots to say on the issue.

It sounds to me like you've been drifting towards the left, Metalhead. The neoconservative (interventionist/statist) branch of American politics is anything but conservative.

 

[Metalhead47]

So, what, you intentionally manipulate the language so as to discredit a guy you haven't even made your mind up about?

Isolationism is bad, for obvious reasons.

Non-interventionism, on the other hand, is the only truly "conservative" approach. Jefferson has lots to say on the issue.

It sounds to me like you've been drifting towards the left, Metalhead. The neoconservative (interventionist/statist) branch of American politics is anything but conservative.

I was starting to wonder if you'd show up The term "isolationism" is often used synonymously with non-interventionism. I'm not the one doing the manipulating, and it was certainly not intentional, which is why I rephrased it.

And there's no such thing as "neoconservatism." I've yet to hear anyone identify themselves as such. Non-interventionism may have been a legitimate policy 150 years ago, but in this modern "global community," with liberty-hostile ideologies like communism and Wahhabism that don't stop at national borders, non-interventionism only delays the inevitable conflict until a time, place, and manner of the enemy's choosing.

 

[marshaul]

Are folks bent cuz Paul is against the way we went and iced OBL? Or that they think that Paul was against icing OBL? Sounds to me like Paul was a OBL dead or alive guy to me and is not loosing any sleep over OBL being fish food. Just peeved at the way we did it without Pakistan being in the mix.

Non- story as far as I am concerned.

Yes, for an "isolationist" Dr. Paul actually has a pretty good understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy.

Unlike, you know, all the interventionists in this thread.

 

[Metalhead47]

Yes, for an "isolationist" Dr. Paul actually has a pretty good understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy.

Unlike, you know, all the interventionists in this thread.

One thing I have yet to see all y'all non-interventionists in this thread address is the fact that the Pakistani gov't is/was most likely compromised by OBL-friendly agents at various levels, and that any attempt to involve them directly may have compromised the entire mission and allowed OBL to slip away again.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

So, what, you intentionally manipulate the language so as to discredit a guy you haven't even made your mind up about?

Isolationism is bad, for obvious reasons.

Non-interventionism, on the other hand, is the only truly "conservative" approach. Jefferson has lots to say on the issue.

It sounds to me like you've been drifting towards the left, Metalhead. The neoconservative (interventionist/statist) branch of American politics is anything but conservative.

Your non-Interventionism view is interesting. I wonder if you have realized that we live in a world economy, have a world oil market, as well as other world 'things'.

Jefferson probably had no idea what a nuclear bomb is, or that there would come a day when a person could fly from one Continent to another inside a day.

You want to apply your Jeffersonian politics, you should invent a Time Machine, and travel back when thing were 'better', and people were 'free'.

Jefferson's views should be noted, but let's get real here people, we are living nearly 200 years past the death of Jefferson, and there have been technological advances that have allowed for a Global state of affairs not even conceived as being possible by Founding Fathers, or most any person so many hundreds of years ago.

I am shocked that Jefferson's ideas, although generally applicable, are 200 year past the world as it is now, and individuals are clasping to them as if they are applicable in the world we live in right now.

 

[j4l]

"that have allowed for a Global state of affairs not even conceived as being possible by Founding Fathers"

And yet, some folks will consider this to be some kind of "progress"...given how things have shaken out in the last 50 yrs?.....hmm

But dont forget- there was Global trade in a number of goods and technologies thru-out all the times. Molasses, Sugar, spice, wood, cotton? Doesnt mean Jeffersonism is just total isolation. But being more selective would be nice now days-esp. as it pertains to how much we come to depend on other's goods, while neglecting our own.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

"that have allowed for a Global state of affairs not even conceived as being possible by Founding Fathers"

And yet, some folks will consider this to be some kind of "progress"...given how things have shaken out in the last 50 yrs?.....hmm

But dont forget- there was Global trade in a number of goods and technologies thru-out all the times. Molasses, Sugar, spice, wood, cotton? Doesnt mean Jeffersonism is just total isolation. But being more selective would be nice now days-esp. as it pertains to how much we come to depend on other's goods, while neglecting our own.

I agree that we are neglecting our own.

Jefferson had to deal with States that dealt sugar; we have to deal with States that deal in chemical, and nuclear weapons.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Lomax, 1799.

"I do not indeed wish to see any nation have a form of government forced on them; but if it is to be done, I should rejoice at its being a freer one." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Correa, 1815.

"That we should wish to see the people of other countries free is as natural and at least as justifiable as that one King should wish to see the Kings of other countries maintained in their despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Gallatin, 1817.

"The presumption of dictating to an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal execrations against the other." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Monroe, 1823.

Sounds like Jefferson knew what we would be talking about today, way back then.

As I stated in previous posts, Jefferson's issues were nothing like the issues we deal with, and are confronted with today.

The reason I would support Ron Paul is in hopes of him getting us the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and hopefully setting a tone for future Administrations not going into places, such as Iraq, for no reason, but rather, post-invasion justifications of why - a crude attempt at validating a war that we should have never been waging.

 

[Greg Bradburn]

I am not disputing that he did his time (although there are some who do). I am questioning why he was playing pilot, when he should have been knee-deep in rice patties like all the other men who were serving at that time. I am sure his Daddy's political, and financial power had nothing to do with it.

His "daddy" was shot down twice in WWII and floated in the Pacific waiting to be rescued. He was almost a POW.

Sounds to me like a pilot is an admirable position in which to serve. Pilots swung the war in the pacific (Midway) and ended the war (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). Lots of them died or were captured.