• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul to Launch Foreign Policy Institute.....

And maybe you should come up with some rhetoric that isn't lying or flamebaiting... frankly at this point, having had the definition of isolationism explained to you, it's progressed to simply trolling. You know what you're saying is false.
 
Yes. Jefferson said that in 1801, which was a couple years before he declared America's first war. Being neutral was, and is, never a viable real life possibility in foreign policy; the 'Founders' never achieved it, and never practiced it, despite the citing of isolated quotes and speeches they made as politicians.

Yes but against Barbary Pirates who demanded tributes from US ships.

He kept good relations with Napoleon's France, the Dutch, and Spain. Powerful empires at the time.
He kept America out of war with the European Imperial empires and scored the Louisiana Purchase.

His relations with British Empire didn't fair so well but relations weren't really that good from 1783 up until 1917.
 
Nice try, but no cigar. What's hilarious is that, when asked what Paul's position is on international relations, the only response is that he believes in trade and diplomacy. Brilliant. So does every reasonably intelligent 7th grader. You Libertarians need to come up with something other than personal greed and isolationism as your philosophy.

Not everyone believes in free trade and/or diplomatic relations with other countries. Dictators and protectionists tend to be isolationists.

If you believe in trade and diplomacy then you are not an isolationist. Period. Not that hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
Was there an actual rebuttal in this rant? What does this have to do with isolationism vs non-interventionism?

It's rebuttal of Ron Paul's latest scam, and isn't a 'rant', nor has the topic segued into isolationism vs non-interventionism just because his fans say so.
 
Yes but against Barbary Pirates who demanded tributes from US ships.

He kept good relations with Napoleon's France, the Dutch, and Spain. Powerful empires at the time.
He kept America out of war with the European Imperial empires and scored the Louisiana Purchase.

His relations with British Empire didn't fair so well but relations weren't really that good from 1783 up until 1917.

Worthy of a History Forum topic. It would be pointless to discuss it here in Tard Town Central. I wouldn't say his relations were good, more like necessary concessions to larger powers, and not really 'neutral'; the attempt at 'neutrality' was a hope that the U.S. could trade with both sides without interference from either of them. That didn't work.
 
Last edited:
It's rebuttal of Ron Paul's latest scam, and isn't a 'rant', nor has the topic segued into isolationism vs non-interventionism just because his fans say so.

A poster implied that he has no foreign policy, which is not true of non-interventionists. I did not bring it up (nor am I a big fan of Paul, though I find myself defending him often against ignorant posts).

You responded to my post with an argument that he is doing this for the money... which had nothing to do with my initial response.
 
Worthy of a History Forum topic. It would be pointless to discuss it here in Tard Town Central. I wouldn't say his relations were good, more like necessary concessions to larger powers, and not really 'neutral'; the attempt at 'neutrality' was a hope that the U.S. could trade with both sides without interference from either of them. That didn't work.

As for derailing a thread I would agree, but you only need to look at his plays for the survival of democracy ( Not dissimilar too Finland in WW2) to realise that Jefferson for the most part improved the fledgling free colonies with his pragmatic libertarian time served.

Obviously he was not part of the more neo-con era where Presidents can invade 2 countries at once. But none the less his politics paid dividend in the time of Imperial empires who were not that dissimilar in tactics.
 
Last edited:
It's rebuttal of Ron Paul's latest scam, and isn't a 'rant', nor has the topic segued into isolationism vs non-interventionism just because his fans say so.

Latest Scam? Are you looking to turn Ron Paul into a neocon?

Back up your claim/con
 
As for derailing a thread I would agree, but you only need to look at his plays for the survival of democracy ( Not dissimilar too Finland in WW2) to realise that Jefferson for the most part improved the fledgling free colonies with his pragmatic libertarian time served.

Jefferson was never a 'libertarian', not ever. His second term as President was in practice a military dictatorship, enforcing an embargo to boot. He had little to do with the Jay Treaty, and he was opposed to universal suffrage, hardly a 'libertarian' policy, and owned around 600 slaves, of which he would have 10 year olds in his nail factory whipped for not producing enough nails or other 'infractions' like 'disobedience'.

Obviously he was not part of the more neo-con era where Presidents can invade 2 countries at once. But none the less his politics paid dividend in the time of Imperial empires who were not that dissimilar in tactics.

His polices led directly to war; just because the war fell under the next President's watch doesn't absolve him. You seem to think those empires were letting him choose something.
 
Latest Scam? Are you looking to turn Ron Paul into a neocon?

Back up your claim/con

You don't know what a neo-con is, and you don't know the difference between the Senate and Congress and which body served in. It's doubtful you would understand anything that doesn't fit into a pithy little slogan of some sort.
 
You don't know what a neo-con is, and you don't know the difference between the Senate and Congress and which body served in. It's doubtful you would understand anything that doesn't fit into a pithy little slogan of some sort.

I didn't think you could back that claim up :lamo
 
I didn't think you could back that claim up :lamo

Go ahead and back yours up, instead of babbling more claims you can't back up, like this one. I guess you think that just because you ask something means everybody else is obligated to devote time to educating you while you do nothing but play 'I Touched You Last!!!' with one liner responses.

Of course, asking a 'libertarian' to back up anything is an exercise in futility, it's not a real political designation and doesn't exist and just a fictional collection of nonsense, but sometimes it can be mildly entertaining, especially those who are forever selectively bringing up and/or quoting Jefferson while knowing next to nothing at all about him.
 
Last edited:
Jefferson was never a 'libertarian', not ever. His second term as President was in practice a military dictatorship, enforcing an embargo to boot. He had little to do with the Jay Treaty, and he was opposed to universal suffrage, hardly a 'libertarian' policy, and owned around 600 slaves, of which he would have 10 year olds in his nail factory whipped for not producing enough nails or other 'infractions' like 'disobedience'.

His polices led directly to war; just because the war fell under the next President's watch doesn't absolve him. You seem to think those empires were letting him choose something.

Jefferson made some cruical first steps for democracy and his writing influenced Libertarian thinkers, he also:

A) Was the Author of the Declaration of Independence.
B) Passed the statute of Religious Freedom in Virginia.

All the Amercian Landowners were slave owners, its the dirty part of American History, Jefferson was no better and was a racist like the rest of them. He was not the only president or founding father to have owned slaves. In 1820 Jefferson worked with the governor of Virginia, Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr. (his son in law) on a plan to free all the newborn slaves in Virginia and send them to Haiti as free people. At this point Haiti was welcoming freed blacks emigrating from the US—over 13,000 American free blacks did emigrate there in the 1820s, so the location was attractive and there was a base for Jefferson's colony. Jefferson considered compulsory manumission and resettlement of newborn slaves to Haiti to be a practical solution to how to abolish slavery in Virginia. He wrote to U. S. minister to France Albert Gallatin: "My proposition would be that the holders should give up all born after a certain day, past, present, or to come, that these should be placed under the guardianship of the state, and sent at a proper age to S. Domingo [i.e. Haiti]. There they are willing to receive them, & the shortness of the passage brings the deportation within the possible means of [Virginia state] taxation aided by charitable contributions." The governor agreed with TJ and called on the legislature to endorse the plan but it refused.

Jefferson introduced the decimal system to the United States which was adopted and the dollar became the monetary unit instead of the British pound. He was anti-British and played a role in bringing around independence of the British colonies.

When Virginians reflect on the American Revolution, they often like to describe George Washington as its sword, Patrick Henry as its tongue and Thomas Jefferson as its pen. Jefferson expressed a sophisticated, radical vision of liberty with awesome grace and eloquence. He affirmed that all people are entitled to liberty, regardless what laws might say. If laws don’t protect liberty, he declared, then the laws are illegitimate, and people should rebel. While Jefferson didn’t originate this idea, he put it in a way that set afire the imagination of people around the world. Moreover, he articulated a doctrine for strictly limiting the power of government, the most dangerous threat to liberty everywhere.

The vital port city of New Orleans, “through which the produce of three eights of our territory must pass to market" was vital to the survival of the young US government. Napoleon said on the matter “The sale assures forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a rival who, sooner or later, will humble her pride.”

Non-Native_American_Nations_Control_over_N_America_1800.png
 
Back
Top Bottom