View Poll Results: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

Voters
339. You may not vote on this poll
  • Ron Paul

    268 79.06%
  • Barack Obama

    60 17.70%
  • Neither

    11 3.24%
Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 236

Thread: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

  1. #201
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    high my name is cpwill, i got my degree in history, have focused quite a bit on the history of the middle east, done two deployments to the middle east, study them professionally, and probably understand the last 1400 years in that region better than 95%+ of the US population (which admittedly isn't a high bar to clear).

    Ron Pauls' isolationist foriegn policy is nuts, and shouldn't be implemented.
    Hello, my name is Helvidius. I also have a degree in history, have done an extensive amount of research into middle eastern current/past affairs, thank you for your service, and look forward to your explanation as to why Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy is nuts. I prefer to call it non-interventionist btw since he is not shutting America down from the rest of the world, just trying to stop our meddling in their affairs.
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  2. #202
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Amazing to see how many posters have bought into the Republican three sacred principals... Crucify the weak, decimate the middle class, and worship the wealthy. That's the gist of Ryan unholy trinity. Instead of moving toward a more civilized world we seem to have moved backwards, back to hate, intolerance and discrimination.

    ricksfolly

  3. #203
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    Hello, my name is Helvidius. I also have a degree in history, have done an extensive amount of research into middle eastern current/past affairs, thank you for your service, and look forward to your explanation as to why Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy is nuts. I prefer to call it non-interventionist btw since he is not shutting America down from the rest of the world, just trying to stop our meddling in their affairs.
    excellent. can we agree with dispensing with the canard that "nobody" who is aware of the history of that region could oppose Ron Pauls' preferred foriegn policy? there are a large number of middle-east and foreign policy experts who are indeed opponents of that stance.

  4. #204
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Amazing to see how many posters have bought into the Republican three sacred principals... Crucify the weak, decimate the middle class, and worship the wealthy. That's the gist of Ryan unholy trinity
    at this point, i realize you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. I might as well post about how the real driving force behind Democrats destructive policies is their hatred of American Children.

  5. #205
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Amazing to see how many posters have bought into the Republican three sacred principals... Crucify the weak, decimate the middle class, and worship the wealthy. That's the gist of Ryan unholy trinity. Instead of moving toward a more civilized world we seem to have moved backwards, back to hate, intolerance and discrimination.

    ricksfolly
    I think you may be in the wrong thread...
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  6. #206
    Educator Helvidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Good ol' US of A
    Last Seen
    02-01-17 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    735

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    excellent. can we agree with dispensing with the canard that "nobody" who is aware of the history of that region could oppose Ron Pauls' preferred foriegn policy? there are a large number of middle-east and foreign policy experts who are indeed opponents of that stance.
    Fair enough. You seem very reasonable and well educated in your other posts, so I am very interested in hearing what you have to say on the matter. I recant my previous statement.
    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  7. #207
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    at this point, i realize you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.
    I'll be happy to read your rebuttal, but only if it has substance, not just mindless rancor.

    ricksfolly

  8. #208
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    I'll be happy to read your rebuttal, but only if it has substance, not just mindless rancor.
    my rebuttal of your claim that I worship the rich, and hate the poor? really? you want to prove to me that you don't kill kittens?

  9. #209
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Helvidius View Post
    Fair enough. You seem very reasonable and well educated in your other posts, so I am very interested in hearing what you have to say on the matter. I recant my previous statement.
    then we are already off to a good start; acknowledging that the other side can raise solid points in it's favor is the beginning of good academic debate.

    a couple of basic key points (we can go into further detail on any of them that you wish)

    1. the Middle East remains a strategic center of gravity in the world for two major reasons: the oil and the canal, and huge chunks of the world economy are dependent on both of those. instability in the region threatens those two facets, thus threatening the world (and our) economy.

    2. the Middle East is inherently unstable, as demonstrated by nothing better than recent events. Tyrannical governments keep their populace in line with the stick of the mukhaberat and the carrot of the welfare state based on revenues generated from nationalized resources (read: oil and the Suez). But that rentier state carrot is intensely vulnerable to falling revenues and - as the Iranian Shah and Mubarak learned to their chagrin - can rapidly inspire revolution followed by replacement by radical (and themselves inherently destabilizing) elements. Internally, the Middle East is a bubbling cauldron, and the resources upon which much of the worlds' economy is based right there in the middle.

    Internationally, among the Sunnis, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both consider themselves the natural leaders, and have already proven willing in Yemen to shoot at each other over that disagreement. The Iraqi's also consider themselves the natural leader of the Arab world, but lately they haven't been a serious contender. The Saudis are currently attempting to take control over the region through the exportation of Wahabism, which is itself inherently destabilizing, as it preaches the overthrow of the National-Socialist model governments left over from the 60's and 70's in Egypt (check) and Pakistan, (as well, obviously, as the democracy - as much as it exists - in Lebanon and in Israel) followed by the violent unification of the region under a single banner, followed by an invasion of the rest of the world. They aren't kidding about that part, and we are idiots if we fail to take them at their word, especially as they seem to have just succeeded in part A of step 1, the removal of the Mubarak regime.

    The Iranians are the largest terror-exporting nation in the world, and they are very, very good at it. The IRGC, and in particular the Quds forces, have fostered the growth of Hezbollah (the real deadliest terrorist network in the world - Al Quada was their student, not the other way around), Hamas, and even (through proxies) Al Quada. They are currently waging a campaign to destroy the Lebanese government, and are strengthening ties with Syria and Turkey in an attempt to build a base with which to challenge the US and Saudi Arabia for dominance of the region, part of that struggle (they assume) including the destruction of Israel. The leadership of that nation Really Believes that the 13th Imam is coming soon, and that they must kick off international Jihad in order for him to arrive and bring about the End Times - and again, we are fools if we fail to take them at their word on that.

    3. the region, thus, needs an overpowering, hegemon if it is to remain stable enough to ensure the non-collapse of the world economy. Someone has to impose order and keep these nutjobs from destroying the ability of the world to access the oil and the suez. There is only one nation currently on the planet with the capacity to perform this task: the US. The US Fifth Fleet, currently headuquartered in Bahrain, is the major (and perhaps only realistic) force for stability in that region, contending with numerous, powerful forces for instability.

    4. Withdrawal or severe downdrawl of US Forces would create a power vacuum and kick off fights within the sunni community and between Iran and Saudi Arabia for regional dominance. Shiite Iran is seeking to get nukes. Syria has had a nuclear facility already destroyed by the Israelis. Sunni Pakistan (see: Wahhabi plans for governments, the overthrow and replacement of) already has them. In the face of a US Withdrawal, Saudi Arabia certainly would start developing her own.

    Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.

    FUN FACTS WORTH NOTING: China (also nuclear) is rapidly becoming a good, good friend of Iran, and is distancing itself from Pakistan. China is also heavily invested in East Africa. It is possible that China would seek to intervene in the region to tilt the balance in Iran's favor as the US did in Saudi Arabia's. If that happens, then the newly Taliban (and nuclear!) Pakistan - which is deeply paranoid, xenophobic, and a wierd mixture of Wahhabist and neo-Deobandi - becomes an ally of Saudi Arabia, and our players are all now holding two pistols even as their inner demons scream at them to shoot first. BEST CASE SCENARIO here is that China is able to stabilize (kinda) the region, and merely takes all the oil for itself - only partially collapsing the world economy. but that's the "best" case, not the "most likely" one. it's not even really a "sorta likely" or a "semi likely" one.

    5. The West is dying. Literally - our creation of an entitlement culture and our devotion to materialism have left us with birthrates below replacement level. In both Europe and America the solution has been mass immigration - but both have had issues with assimilation. America here is comparatively lucky, her immigrants share many of her cultural assumptions. But Europe is not - the West in Europe is being replaced by a high-birthrate Islamic culture which does not accept the Enlightenment. As the immigrant populations threaten to break the local safety nets and culture, the backlash they provoke isn't what we would recognize as classic liberalism, but rather classic fascism. Nationalist groups are springing up all over Europe, though they are doomed by their own inability to breed to dying out after sparking conflict. All those aspects of the West that we consider dear ; the rights of the individaul, limited, secular government, free markets, they are doomed to wither and die as the culture that upholds them does.



    The situation at current cannot sustain indefinitely - eventually the destabilizing elements that are currently inherent in the Middle East will win, and the price of loss is not just a world wide economic collapse, but the slide, decline, and perhaps fall of the West. The long-term solution is therefore to change the rules of the game. The destabilizing elements in the Middle East must be replaced with stabilizing ones. Tyrannies must (carefully) be replaced with representative governments that give public pressure an outlet other than violent overthrow. Rentier societies that encourage stagnation, revolution, and hostility abroad must be replaced with market economies that encourage trade, growth, and a politically active middle class with a vested interest in stability. Radical Islam must be replaced with a new ideology that allows Muslims to recoup their pride and independence without striking at others. In short, we need to allow the Enlightenment to do to Islam what it has done to Christianity.

    Even with our presence, US pursual of that strategy (again, as we see today) is not guaranteed, and even with US pursual of that strategy, sucess is not any kind of certain.... but if the US withdraws before these things are accomplished (or, at least, accomplished enough to become self-feeding cycles), then the game is up. the match is struck. Europe falls, China moves to become hegemon, nukes possibly fly, and back to the Dark Ages we go, but this time with much, much better weapons with which to massacre each other in the name of God.

    THAT's why i would suggest that "oh well let's just leave and let em fight it out amongst themselves" is a bad idea.
    Last edited by cpwill; 04-25-11 at 04:49 PM.

  10. #210
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    06-19-12 @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    then we are already off to a good start; acknowledging that the other side can raise solid points in it's favor is the beginning of good academic debate.

    a couple of basic key points (we can go into further detail on any of them that you wish)

    1. the Middle East remains a strategic center of gravity in the world for two major reasons: the oil and the canal, and huge chunks of the world economy are dependent on both of those. instability in the region threatens those two facets, thus threatening the world (and our) economy.

    2. the Middle East is inherently unstable, as demonstrated by nothing better than recent events. Tyrannical governments keep their populace in line with the stick of the mukhaberat and the carrot of the welfare state based on revenues generated from nationalized resources (read: oil and the Suez). But that rentier state carrot is intensely vulnerable to falling revenues and - as the Iranian Shah and Mubarak learned to their chagrin - can rapidly inspire revolution followed by replacement by radical (and themselves inherently destabilizing) elements. Internally, the Middle East is a bubbling cauldron, and the resources upon which much of the worlds' economy is based right there in the middle.

    Internationally, among the Sunnis, Egypt and Saudi Arabia both consider themselves the natural leaders, and have already proven willing in Yemen to shoot at each other over that disagreement. The Iraqi's also consider themselves the natural leader of the Arab world, but lately they haven't been a serious contender. The Saudis are currently attempting to take control over the region through the exportation of Wahabism, which is itself inherently destabilizing, as it preaches the overthrow of the National-Socialist model governments left over from the 60's and 70's in Egypt (check) and Pakistan, (as well, obviously, as the democracy - as much as it exists - in Lebanon and in Israel) followed by the violent unification of the region under a single banner, followed by an invasion of the rest of the world. They aren't kidding about that part, and we are idiots if we fail to take them at their word, especially as they seem to have just succeeded in part A of step 1, the removal of the Mubarak regime.

    The Iranians are the largest terror-exporting nation in the world, and they are very, very good at it. The IRGC, and in particular the Quds forces, have fostered the growth of Hezbollah (the real deadliest terrorist network in the world - Al Quada was their student, not the other way around), Hamas, and even (through proxies) Al Quada. They are currently waging a campaign to destroy the Lebanese government, and are strengthening ties with Syria and Turkey in an attempt to build a base with which to challenge the US and Saudi Arabia for dominance of the region, part of that struggle (they assume) including the destruction of Israel. The leadership of that nation Really Believes that the 13th Imam is coming soon, and that they must kick off international Jihad in order for him to arrive and bring about the End Times - and again, we are fools if we fail to take them at their word on that.

    3. the region, thus, needs an overpowering, hegemon if it is to remain stable enough to ensure the non-collapse of the world economy. Someone has to impose order and keep these nutjobs from destroying the ability of the world to access the oil and the suez. There is only one nation currently on the planet with the capacity to perform this task: the US. The US Fifth Fleet, currently headuquartered in Bahrain, is the major (and perhaps only realistic) force for stability in that region, contending with numerous, powerful forces for instability.

    4. Withdrawal or severe downdrawl of US Forces would create a power vacuum and kick off fights within the sunni community and between Iran and Saudi Arabia for regional dominance. Shiite Iran is seeking to get nukes. Syria has had a nuclear facility already destroyed by the Israelis. Sunni Pakistan (see: Wahhabi plans for governments, the overthrow and replacement of) already has them. In the face of a US Withdrawal, Saudi Arabia certainly would start developing her own.

    Imagine a Mexican standoff, except that 3 of the 4 players are A) paranoid schizophrenics facing opponents they violently hate, B) convinced that death will be a net benefit for them, C) convinced that their souls are in peril if they don't shoot, and D) potentially armed with nukes (the 4th Player is the unfortunately-located Israel). I think everyone here can agree that that is not a "stable" situation, particularly when you add in E) these countries are not internally stable, but may feel forced into an external war in order to solidify internal support and F) at least two of the players (Iran and Saudi Arabia) are held hostage by their own extremists, who feel free to act without permission, are nearly impossible to stop, and are most desirous of the conflict. And I feel that A) deserves rementioning.

    FUN FACTS WORTH NOTING: China (also nuclear) is rapidly becoming a good, good friend of Iran, and is distancing itself from Pakistan. China is also heavily invested in East Africa. It is possible that China would seek to intervene in the region to tilt the balance in Iran's favor as the US did in Saudi Arabia's. If that happens, then the newly Taliban (and nuclear!) Pakistan - which is deeply paranoid, xenophobic, and a wierd mixture of Wahhabist and neo-Deobandi - becomes an ally of Saudi Arabia, and our players are all now holding two pistols even as their inner demons scream at them to shoot first. BEST CASE SCENARIO here is that China is able to stabilize (kinda) the region, and merely takes all the oil for itself - only partially collapsing the world economy. but that's the "best" case, not the "most likely" one. it's not even really a "sorta likely" or a "semi likely" one.

    5. The West is dying. Literally - our creation of an entitlement culture and our devotion to materialism have left us with birthrates below replacement level. In both Europe and America the solution has been mass immigration - but both have had issues with assimilation. America here is comparatively lucky, her immigrants share many of her cultural assumptions. But Europe is not - the West in Europe is being replaced by a high-birthrate Islamic culture which does not accept the Enlightenment. As the immigrant populations threaten to break the local safety nets and culture, the backlash they provoke isn't what we would recognize as classic liberalism, but rather classic fascism. Nationalist groups are springing up all over Europe, though they are doomed by their own inability to breed to dying out after sparking conflict. All those aspects of the West that we consider dear ; the rights of the individaul, limited, secular government, free markets, they are doomed to wither and die as the culture that upholds them does.



    The situation at current cannot sustain indefinitely - eventually the destabilizing elements that are currently inherent in the Middle East will win, and the price of loss is not just a world wide economic collapse, but the slide, decline, and perhaps fall of the West. The long-term solution is therefore to change the rules of the game. The destabilizing elements in the Middle East must be replaced with stabilizing ones. Tyrannies must (carefully) be replaced with representative governments that give public pressure an outlet other than violent overthrow. Rentier societies that encourage stagnation, revolution, and hostility abroad must be replaced with market economies that encourage trade, growth, and a politically active middle class with a vested interest in stability. Radical Islam must be replaced with a new ideology that allows Muslims to recoup their pride and independence without striking at others. In short, we need to allow the Enlightenment to do to Islam what it has done to Christianity.

    Even with our presence, US pursual of that strategy (again, as we see today) is not guaranteed, and even with US pursual of that strategy, sucess is not any kind of certain.... but if the US withdraws before these things are accomplished (or, at least, accomplished enough to become self-feeding cycles), then the game is up. the match is struck. Europe falls, China moves to become hegemon, nukes possibly fly, and back to the Dark Ages we go, but this time with much, much better weapons with which to massacre each other in the name of God.

    THAT's why i would suggest that "oh well let's just leave and let em fight it out amongst themselves" is a bad idea.
    So what would you suggest we do? The situation as you describe it sounds even more hopeless than I previously thought. Which means unless we actually have a realistic solution (which we don't) then we need to gtfo. Endless wars are very expensive, and I think our current financial crisis is just as pressing, if not more so, than who is the big dog in the Middle East.

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •