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 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 236

Thread: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

  1. #21
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,035

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Not the point. You will hear many on the libertarian isle call for a "Laissez Faire" economic policy similar to the 18th and 19th century. However, "laissez faire" has only existed in third world nations and in the theoretical realm. The US has never held an actual "hands off" approach to the economy. This does not mean the government should "manage" the economy because of historical track records.

    The US government has not always been in the business of nation building. I can think of many decades in which we were not setting up so called democracies in culturally non democratic parts of the world.
    My point was that calling him 'neo-conservative' for supporting strong foreign policy is kind of dishonest. If anything neo-conservativism is an approach to foreign policy. One which is very precise about where it wants to do the 'nation building'(the Middle East). I support strong foreign policy but I believe it should be measured. Not knee-jerk reactions to please either the left or right.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #22
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Wait what? Sympathize with nation building? My biggest beef with Paul is his stance on Israel and the War on Terror.
    "The war on terror"?

    You mean like the pathetic attempts to keep airliners safe? Or.... Invading Iraq because they had mobile bomb factories?

    BTW; Israel can take care of itself.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    "The war on terror"?

    You mean like the pathetic attempts to keep airliners safe? Or.... Invading Iraq because they had mobile bomb factories?

    BTW; Israel can take care of itself.
    America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.

    And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.

  4. #24
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    My point was that calling him 'neo-conservative' for supporting strong foreign policy is kind of dishonest. If anything neo-conservativism is an approach to foreign policy. One which is very precise about where it wants to do the 'nation building'(the Middle East). I support strong foreign policy but I believe it should be measured. Not knee-jerk reactions to please either the left or right.
    From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

    Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

    Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

    Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

    Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.
    Well then in your opinion I'm a neocon. In my opinion and my views I am not. But meh, label me if you want to.

    Btw, I am not cheering for the War on Terror. I previously said I had mixed feelings. Truth be told I think Iraq was handled very poorly and that we should have waited and validated information before we charged in. I do support military bases, but for national security reasons. I am against pushing American influence into non-hostile nations and making them out to be miniature American states. I am all for people governing their countries. If the people want some ultra communist state then I have no problem with that. If a country is war torn and through a coup becomes communist I do have a problem with it, but I don't think It's America's job to fix that either.

  6. #26
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.
    I do miss the days of neo-con argumentum ad populum. So we send over 4,000 of our young men and women to die for a lie? Quality foreign policy All the while taxpayers foot the $1 trillion price tag.

    And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.
    While political stability in the region is necessary, we have held an uneasy bias toward Israel.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,982

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    I do miss the days of neo-con argumentum ad populum. So we send over 4,000 of our young men and women to die for a lie? Quality foreign policy All the while taxpayers foot the $1 trillion price tag.



    While political stability in the region is necessary, we have held an uneasy bias toward Israel.
    Please read my above post.

    And I think America has had a healthy bias in regards to Israel. We shouldn't take what the Arab nations and enemies of Israel have to say unbiased. I wouldn't call it so much a bias as much as it is a judgement call based on history and current situations.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,035

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

    Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

    Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.
    But what does that have to do with being a neo-conservative? I support putting bases in countries like Turkey and Japan for strategic reasons. I also support it on the grounds that we live in the 21st century and total war is no longer an avoidable issue. That doesn't make me a neo-con. A neo-con supports foreign policy which is DIRECTLY involved in the Middle East. If China went around putting bases in African countries I would not care as long as they were doing it with the permission of the country in question. The only base I really wish we would get rid of is Guantanamo. With the change of government in 1959 it should have been removed immediately.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #29
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Please read my above post.
    I did. While you seem more moderate in your approach; when i consider you immediate posting history, i sense a neo-conservative lean.

    And I think America has had a healthy bias in regards to Israel.
    Has this healthy bias indulged Israel to behave far more aggressively than they would in its absence?

    We shouldn't take what the Arab nations and enemies of Israel have to say unbiased. I wouldn't call it so much a bias as much as it is a judgment call based on history and current situations.
    In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état.[2][3] Alleged examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerrilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; it is claimed that some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States.[4]

    In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities. Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.

    Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence.[5] Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.
    Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #30
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    But what does that have to do with being a neo-conservative? I support putting bases in countries like Turkey and Japan for strategic reasons. I also support it on the grounds that we live in the 21st century and total war is no longer an avoidable issue. That doesn't make me a neo-con. A neo-con supports foreign policy which is DIRECTLY involved in the Middle East. If China went around putting bases in African countries I would not care as long as they were doing it with the permission of the country in question. The only base I really wish we would get rid of is Guantanamo. With the change of government in 1959 it should have been removed immediately.
    Read his post history and form your own opinion. If not for you liberal social sentiment, you would be ripe for the neo-con plucking
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •