Ron Paul 2012 Support.

[iluv2viddyfilms]

Hello, hello. Haven't been on the site for a week or so. I went to Wisconsin on vacation with Alicia and then Saturday I supported Ron Paul in Ames at the straw poll. Hopefully Yoda doesn't care, as I know there is already a "Who will beat Obama" thread. But if it's allowed by site rules to support a candidate I want to give props to Ron Paul.

He seems more genuine than many of the other Republicans and is of course more libertarian than Republican despite running on the card.

Some of his views are...

legalizing drugs to cut national debt and prison population.
Personally against gay marriage, but doesn't want the government involved in saying who can and cannot get married.
Wants a withdraw of troops from Afghanistan
Against new taxes.
Pro-life - though I disagree with him on Americans not having the option, I do agree that it SHOULD NOT be funded by government tax payer money.

He basically tied in the Iowa Straw Poll despite what the media says. Jon Stewart did a nice piece on the bias in the media coverage and I'm not a huge Stewart fan. Anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EY5Ofcxjs0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=hF8gQfGEvsc

[Yoda]

Sure, totally allowed.

I've posted my thoughts on Ron Paul a few times. Half the things he say make me want to pump my fist, and the other half make me want to shake my fist. I think he's wrong about income taxes being unconstitutional, and I think he's really wrong to suggest an isolationist foreign policy and protectionist trade policies.

But you know what? I'm glad he's running. He's helped make the Federal Reserve a hot issue and draws attention to lots of things the eventual nominee will have to acknowledge, and that's good. That's one of the key functions of less viable candidates.

[wintertriangles]

Wants a withdraw of troops from AfghanistanI heard he wants to withdraw troops from everywhere

But yeah, even if he is against abortion, I prefer him to any of these other puppets

[Sedai]

He gets my vote!

[will.15]

How come when Huckabee came in second place in the last Ames Poll the political pundits made a big deal, but when Ron Paul does the same thing all the focus is on Bachmann who was presumed to be the favorite and actually underperformed?

[Sexy Celebrity]

My thoughts...

1.) Obama is gonna be re-elected. I have no doubt.
2.) ALL drugs legalized? Including heroin?
3.) That's fine, but gay marriage isn't?
4.) He doesn't stand a chance.
5.) Too old and unattractive.
6.) ****thoughts over, back to meditative trance****

[honeykid]

Because the media picks and chooses who's important and (more often than not) that has more influence than how people perform.

[Yoda]

I'd bet on Obama getting reelected, too, but uh, there is indeed some doubt about that.

[will.15]

At least Ron Paul is a nice politician from Texas.

[Yoda]

List of qualifications for President:

1. Being right on major issues.
2. Being generally competent.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
8,944. Being "nice."

[Sexy Celebrity]

If this guy gets elected, I guess I better start a "Drug Tab" thread so everybody can keep us informed of what currently illegal (but will be legal) drugs they're taking at the moment. I do wonder what everybody here would specialize in. We might even have to make a tournament thread where all the drugs battle against each other and we vote on which is the best.

[wintertriangles]

My thoughts...

1.) Obama is gonna be re-elected. I have no doubt.
2.) ALL drugs legalized? Including heroin?
3.) That's fine, but gay marriage isn't?
4.) He doesn't stand a chance.
5.) Too old and unattractive.
6.) ****thoughts over, back to meditative trance****1) Don't you dare jinx it
2) Why does it matter if heroin is legal? It'll root out the idiots, it's called natural selection
3) He said he wouldn't make it illegal, but is personally against it, big difference
The rest of your points aren't points

[Yoda]

2) The problem with heroin isn't what it does to the users, but what the users are willing to do to use more of it.

As for the Drug Tab; heh. If by some miracle Ron Paul is elected, he's not going to have a Congress that thinks the way he does. At most, he'd spark more debate on some of these issues, but he wouldn't have enough power to make all of this stuff a reality.

[will.15]

2) The problem with heroin isn't what it does to the users, but what the users are willing to do to use more of it.

As for the Drug Tab; heh. If by some miracle Ron Paul is elected, he's not going to have a Congress that thinks the way he does. At most, he'd spark more debate on some of these issues, but he wouldn't have enough power to make all of this stuff a reality.
The libertarian argument is if heroin was legal, it would be cheaper and the junkies wouldn't have to steal and kill to buy it. I don't know if that is true or not, but even if it was, it is not good for society to have the streets littered with heroin addicts and legalization would mean more addicts.

[Yoda]

I've heard the argument, I just don't think I believe it. At a certain level of addictiveness people seem to stop caring about things like, well, jobs or families, and when you do that it doesn't matter much if it's even a fair bit cheaper. If you're willing to give up everything you have for more, even $10 a fix is going to bankrupt you and have you doing desperate things.

[planet news]

If by some miracle Ron Paul is elected, he's not going to have a Congress that thinks the way he does. At most, he'd spark more debate on some of these issues, but he wouldn't have enough power to make all of this stuff a reality.This.

Obama had the air of fairly exciting candidate too, if all of you haven't already forgotten. But the reality of actually existing government is always a normalization of the candidate's greatest hopes. And I can assure you that, at least in relation to the status quo, Ron Paul as a candidate is much more radical than Obama ever was.

But he has no chance so your vote will, in the end, be either for or against Obama no matter who you are.

[Sexy Celebrity]

1) Don't you dare jinx it

If you can believe that heroin will root out the idiots through natural selection, why are you also believing in jinxes?

2) Why does it matter if heroin is legal? It'll root out the idiots, it's called natural selection

Alright. If people you care for start dying from being heroin addicts, keep that in mind.

[wintertriangles]

If you can believe that heroin will root out the idiots through natural selection, why are you also believing in jinxes?I was less serious there.
Alright. If people you care for start dying from being heroin addicts, keep that in mind.I don't hang out with idiots so I don't need to worry about it
legalization would mean more addicts.The only reason there's so many addicts now is because it's a "secret" thing that's "sneaky" and illegal. If it was legal, the using would peak and drop fast soon after.

[planet news]

By the way, Obama's victory/defeat is not guaranteed. The election is so far away and the economy is scary.

[DexterRiley]

List of qualifications for President:

1. Being right on major issues.
2. Being generally competent.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
8,944. Being "nice."

so Palin is Zip for 3.

How did she ever manage to get somewhat relevant?

Ron Paul on the Right is a lot like Ralph Nader on the left.

Neither have a hope in hell, but (perhaps because) they elevate the dialogue beyond issues of distraction and instead talk about the real ills plaguing the nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc

[Yoda]

Palin's 1 for 3, to my mind; she's right on major economic issues and other things like that. You can argue about how she comes by those conclusions, I suppose, or contend that she believes what she does via a less-than-investigate process, but that's another matter.

[will.15]

I would probably voe for a Democratic candidate that was that cute. A dumb Democrat doesn't bother me as much as a dumb Republican. Especially now she has the long hair.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Ron Paul seems wrong to me. He looks like a cult leader, not a president. And he wants to legalize all drugs but he's against gay marriage (but wouldn't make it illegal)? I understand he's a libertarian and I see nothing wrong with that, but he's very extreme for right now and his views aren't on course with the way the nation is going. He scares me. One day, I hope somebody like Ron Paul -- but younger and more calm -- becomes president, but he's not right for the moment.

I'm not a fan of politics at all, but I don't think I can support him. He is like the creepy grandpa that wants to taint the young. If we've got a bad economy situation right now, we don't need this manic old fart who thinks he's 20 years old running the country. I would feel more comfortable with keeping Obama in office.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

2) The problem with heroin isn't what it does to the users, but what the users are willing to do to use more of it.True. Actually, that seems to be the problem with most drugs. AND their manufacturers...

As for the Drug Tab; heh...Yeah, that's a funny idea, but I can't imagine the legalization of illicit drugs would change my stance on experimenting with them.

[Yoda]

Ron Paul isn't really against gay marriage, he's against the state having any official role in marriage at all. He doesn't think they should be "licensing" it or anything.

I dunno if his age matters, unless you mean you have concerns about his health. He seems pretty sharp and energetic for his age, though. I don't really care much about any candidate's age unless we're, I dunno, already into the 80s.

[wintertriangles]

Ron Paul seems wrong to me. He looks like a cult leader, not a president. And he wants to legalize all drugs but he's against gay marriage (but wouldn't make it illegal)? I understand he's a libertarian and I see nothing wrong with that, but he's very extreme for right now and his views aren't on course with the way the nation is going. He scares me. One day, I hope somebody like Ron Paul -- but younger and more calm -- becomes president, but he's not right for the moment. Of course his views don't parallel the nation's, that's why we need someone like him to get us out of this brainwashed mindset.

I'm not a fan of politics at all, but I don't think I can support him. He is like the creepy grandpa that wants to taint the young. If we've got a bad economy situation right now, we don't need this manic old fart who thinks he's 20 years old running the country. I would feel more comfortable with keeping Obama in office.THAT scares me more than anything Ron Paul will ever say.

[DexterRiley]

The libertarian argument is if heroin was legal, it would be cheaper and the junkies wouldn't have to steal and kill to buy it. I don't know if that is true or not, but even if it was, it is not good for society to have the streets littered with heroin addicts and legalization would mean more addicts.

There is absolutely zip zero nada evidence that point to this.

The fact is it is easier at this very moment to aquire heroin than it would be if it was a regulated product.

The fact that it is easy to access says more about the leaky border than anything else.

That and Afganistan continues to supply our shores with 90% of the heroin trade even though the opium fields are under guard by the USA military.

its mind boggling actually.

[Sexy Celebrity]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/17/128844986869948376.jpg

I was just thinking he looks like Ian McKellen and I see I'm not the first to think so.

I still say he's a bad move.

[DexterRiley]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/4/17/128844986869948376.jpg

I was just thinking he looks like Ian McKellen and I see I'm not the first to think so.

I still say he's a bad move.

basing a president based on who you'd like as friday night date maybe isn't the way to go SC.

just sayen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1lakbfqO8c&feature=related

not that it matters. he doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomonation.

[will.15]

That's why Hillary Clinton lost. She should have ran ten years ago when she was still attractive.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'm being very serious. This really has nothing to do with the candidate's looks -- although, I do believe looks do say something. The Oracle of Sexiness is warning all of you to have some faith in our current president and don't go Lady Gaga over this Ron Paul character with his promises of a different spin on American life. I sense he'll only make things worse, not better. Based on what I'm reading, I'm getting the idea that he won't know how to take care of the nation. I'm also really disturbed by the idea of legalizing all drugs. His grandpa image doesn't sell anything to me. I bet if he was much younger, nobody would take him seriously right now.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I really like how you have no freedom to even give an opinion about a Presidential candidate in here without getting a negative rep. Thanks, wintertriangles. Thanks a lot. Let's let all the heroin addicts die, like what wintertriangles wants.

[wintertriangles]

I just don't like the fact that you're making illegitimate, shallow responses about things you clearly haven't thought about...consistently. I would be happy to see an actual argument from you against Ron Paul like a couple others have provided.

[planet news]

Ron Paul's political commitment (what "extreme", "crazy", and "radical" really means) is what makes him popular as popular as he is, but paradoxically it's also the thing that will prevent him from being elected.

That's because -- and this is not even to subtly imply that the U.S. has any semblance of real democracy -- the situation chooses the man much more than the man creates the situation. The situation is a vast machinery chugging along with a very certain momentum. People like Sexy Celebrity are what make up this machinery. Anything even remotely questioning of its immediate trajectory "scares" people like him.

[Yoda]

I think there's a slight difference between an opinion about a candidate and vague things about how they look or act. Not liking Ron Paul because of his positions is totally legitimate, and it happens to be an opinion I share. But I wouldn't oppose someone because I just had a sense about them, or because they look like Ian McKellan. Heck, that last one almost sounds like a positive. ;)

[Sexy Celebrity]

I didn't say I was against him because he looks like Ian McKellen. I'm against him because he also looks like the Heaven's Gate leader.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T-qQfPBErnQ/SOKHCoYdciI/AAAAAAAAB14/gGaM4UMxj3g/s320/applewhite+is+paul.dib

[Yoda]

I stand corrected.

[DexterRiley]

I just don't like the fact that you're making illegitimate, shallow responses about things you clearly haven't thought about...consistently. I would be happy to see an actual argument from you against Ron Paul like a couple others have provided.

A never ending war is good for business. And business is booming. There is no way, no how that Ron Paul gets the nomination, mainly imo because he has been consistant in his views regardless of the audience before him.

Paul is essentially a third party candidate that calls himself a republican because 3rd parties do not have full ballot access.

Which is a shame, because this election is shaping up to be a repeat of 2004. The incumbent is ripe for the taking, but the opposition is going to field a lameduck candidate.

[will.15]

A never ending war is good for business. And business is booming. There is no way, no how that Ron Paul gets the nomination, mainly imo because he has been consistant in his views regardless of the audience before him.

Paul is essentially a third party candidate that calls himself a republican because 3rd parties do not have full ballot access.

Which is a shame, because this election is shaping up to be a repeat of 2004. The incumbent is ripe for the taking, but the opposition is going to field a lameduck candidate.
It's not never ending. We are going to be out of Iraq pretty soon.

A completely isolationist foreign policy like Ron Paul advocates is bad.

Neither Barack Obama or any Democrat would have invaded Iraq under the circumstances Bush did, but once there you can't just suddenly pull out and leave a chaotic situation that could have made Iraq a haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

[DexterRiley]

It's not never ending. We are going to be out of Iraq pretty soon.

.

How can you say that with a straight face?

it was bollocks in 2008 and its bollocks now.

Unless you mean, the troops will be pulled out save 50.000 or so hangen out in teh Green Zone while another hot spot is created for them to be sent to.

is that what you mean?

[Sexy Celebrity]

I just don't like the fact that you're making illegitimate, shallow responses about things you clearly haven't thought about...consistently. I would be happy to see an actual argument from you against Ron Paul like a couple others have provided.

Well, I am new to this Ron Paul thing, but I really do have my own argument based on the little things I've mentioned and on my observations about him just by looking at him, reading over him briefly, etc.

I am for change, but I think that Ron Paul represents too much of it too fast and I think he's a rather strange old geezer that has run out of time in his life to actually do this right. I am bothered by him being more of a libertarian posing as a republican, I am bothered by the fact that he wants all drugs to be legal (even though I'm not all anti-drug myself) and I am just bugged that he's taking this seriously and that so many people are concerning themselves with him when they should be concentrating on other people and more realistic approaches.

I almost can't get too serious about a Ron Paul argument because I feel he shouldn't be taken that seriously. He doesn't stand a chance, people, nor should he. I don't hate the guy and I don't really think he's a cult leader, but there's something about him to me that reeks of doom. It is strongly because of the legalization of drugs thing. People, how would you really feel if tomorrow everybody in our country was allowed to sell and purchase cocaine, heroin, X and all sorts of other drugs I can't even imagine? We haven't even legalized marijuana yet -- do we really want a man who believes in going to extremes and releasing it all at once? There are going to be lots of people in this country who don't like it and those people are going to be violent. Our country will fall if someone like Ron Paul becomes our leader. There will be a natural upsurge of people far worse than me who will just tear American apart, especially if we do start getting more drug addicts in the nation. Many people are not going to be okay with Ron Paul. We need time to experiment with change before we unleash a fury of it. We just got an African American president -- that was a big change for us. That was an experiment. Moving on to someone like Ron Paul next is anarchy.

I think that we should support Barack Obama now more than ever instead of tearing him apart because he might win us over in his second term. I'm not some major Obama supporter -- I really could care less about all of this -- but I do feel it's right to hold him up right now. We are at an important crossroads in history and if we make a foolish mistake, we are going to pay for a long, long time. We have Barack Obama - let's stay with Barack Obama.

[planet news]

Speaking of the R[love]ution... b*tches don't know 'bout my ARTIFICIAL LIBERTAR(D)IAN I-LANDS (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html)

It's a shame that this is only structurally possible for capitalist utopias.

[Juno MacGuff]

I like a lot of his points, but seriously all drugs being legalized is not going to even come close to getting passed. He would get my vote if I wasn't going to vote Obama in what will be my first ever eligible vote.

[Sedai]

Ah, took the disguise off, eh? Welcome back.

We always know it's you, as you have a unique way of posting - best to keep the old username, anyway.

[HitchFan97]

Have to agree with SC on this one- legalizing ALL drugs seems quite radical, and personally, I'm hoping Obama gets reelected. And I seem to be against most of Ron Paul's views; including abortion and healthcare in particular. Still, his opinions on the War in Afghanistan and the death penalty make him better than most Republicans... but not better than Obama.

Not that I'll be able to vote yet, anyways :D

[Warren'sShampoo]

Well, I am new to this Ron Paul thing, but I really do have my own argument based on the little things I've mentioned and on my observations about him just by looking at him, reading over him briefly, etc.

I am for change, but I think that Ron Paul represents too much of it too fast and I think he's a rather strange old geezer that has run out of time in his life to actually do this right. I am bothered by him being more of a libertarian posing as a republican, I am bothered by the fact that he wants all drugs to be legal (even though I'm not all anti-drug myself) and I am just bugged that he's taking this seriously and that so many people are concerning themselves with him when they should be concentrating on other people and more realistic approaches.

I almost can't get too serious about a Ron Paul argument because I feel he shouldn't be taken that seriously. He doesn't stand a chance, people, nor should he. I don't hate the guy and I don't really think he's a cult leader, but there's something about him to me that reeks of doom. It is strongly because of the legalization of drugs thing. People, how would you really feel if tomorrow everybody in our country was allowed to sell and purchase cocaine, heroin, X and all sorts of other drugs I can't even imagine? We haven't even legalized marijuana yet -- do we really want a man who believes in going to extremes and releasing it all at once? There are going to be lots of people in this country who don't like it and those people are going to be violent. Our country will fall if someone like Ron Paul becomes our leader. There will be a natural upsurge of people far worse than me who will just tear American apart, especially if we do start getting more drug addicts in the nation. Many people are not going to be okay with Ron Paul. We need time to experiment with change before we unleash a fury of it. We just got an African American president -- that was a big change for us. That was an experiment. Moving on to someone like Ron Paul next is anarchy.

I think that we should support Barack Obama now more than ever instead of tearing him apart because he might win us over in his second term. I'm not some major Obama supporter -- I really could care less about all of this -- but I do feel it's right to hold him up right now. We are at an important crossroads in history and if we make a foolish mistake, we are going to pay for a long, long time. We have Barack Obama - let's stay with Barack Obama.

You mean that you "couldn't" care less.

I concur with your concluding paragraph, but not with your fear of legalizing drugs. Most people who want to use drugs already do so; most people don't make that decision based upon legality. A greater problem is the gang-related violence stemming from drugs being illegal (and thus highly profitable via the black market) and the billions of dollars that go down the drain in feckless pursuit of an impossible goal. I would analogize the situation to that of Prohibition.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Palin's 1 for 3, to my mind; she's right on major economic issues and other things like that. You can argue about how she comes by those conclusions, I suppose, or contend that she believes what she does via a less-than-investigate process, but that's another matter.

You would turn the Amarican economy over to Sarah Palin?

Sure, totally allowed.

I've posted my thoughts on Ron Paul a few times. Half the things he say make me want to pump my fist, and the other half make me want to shake my fist. I think he's wrong about income taxes being unconstitutional, and I think he's really wrong to suggest an isolationist foreign policy and protectionist trade policies.

But you know what? I'm glad he's running. He's helped make the Federal Reserve a hot issue and draws attention to lots of things the eventual nominee will have to acknowledge, and that's good. That's one of the key functions of less viable candidates.

I don't necessarily agree with an isolationist foreign policy, but would it be worse than the interventionist foreign policy that has wasted American lives (and foreign ones) and American dollars so often in recent decades?

[Yoda]

I merged your last two posts. Just FYI.

You would turn the Amarican economy over to Sarah Palin?
This sounds like a sarcastic question, implying that the mere mention of her name is supposed to constitute an argument of how ridiculous the sentiment is.

Sarah Palin is not my first choice for President. She's probably not my tenth choice for President. I like her exactly where she is: in the role of conservative firebrand. But her stated policies on a number of economic matters are, to my mind, correct, or at least a good deal more correct than many others.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer such a broad question, because right off the bat it completely ignores the statement it's replying to, which subdivided general competency from whether or not a candidate is right on the issues.

I don't necessarily agree with an isolationist foreign policy, but would it be worse than the interventionist foreign policy that has wasted American lives (and foreign ones) and American dollars so often in recent decades?
Yes, I think it would. The willingness to intervene in foreign affairs may or may not be done wisely. I don't think there's any scenario under which isolationism can be done wisely. True, you'll have misguided or mismanaged actions. But you'll also have humanitarian actions. You'll have moral imperatives that an isolationist nation would have to stand idly by and watch.

And this is assuming it's even possible to cut ourselves off from the world and not suffer the consequences of whatever it may become. The world is a good deal smaller than it used to be. I don't think we can wall ourselves off from anything, at least not in any meaningful way.

[HitchFan97]

Yes, I think it would. The willingness to intervene in foreign affairs may or may not be done wisely. I don't think there's any scenario under which isolationism can be done wisely. True, you'll have misguided or mismanaged actions. But you'll also have humanitarian actions. You'll have moral imperatives that an isolationist nation would have to stand idly by and watch.

And this is assuming it's even possible to cut ourselves off from the world and not suffer the consequences of whatever it may become. The world is a good deal smaller than it used to be. I don't think we can wall ourselves off from anything, at least not in any meaningful way.

Exactly. It was decided a good 20 years ago that, as the lone superpower, the U.S. has a responsibility to the rest of the world to manage an interventionist foreign policy. Despite of the consequences of this decision, things could have been a whole lot worse if we had adopted an isolationist policy.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I concur with your concluding paragraph, but not with your fear of legalizing drugs. Most people who want to use drugs already do so; most people don't make that decision based upon legality. A greater problem is the gang-related violence stemming from drugs being illegal (and thus highly profitable via the black market) and the billions of dollars that go down the drain in feckless pursuit of an impossible goal. I would analogize the situation to that of Prohibition.

I can imagine us someday legalizing all drugs somehow. I really could. But I really think rushing them all out is insanity.

Wintertriangles thinks that natural selection will take care of stupid humans and kill off the idiots that use the drugs - all once they're legal - but the case can really be said for the opposite. Gang violence might as well be natural selection, too.

At least - and as terrible as this may sound - drugs are contained in some way via the black market and aren't easily accessible. I don't know all of the drugs that are even out there that would become available, but I imagine that if all drugs became legal, is it possible that we might find really scary stuff on sale at 7-Eleven if all drugs became legal? And I do believe that many more people would take drugs than those who do now while it's illegal. This could have hideous consequences for society on top of what society might turn into if we even allow it. If anything should be done, the war on drugs should strongly focus on putting less people in jail who sell it illegally and more focus on educating people about drugs and about the history of drugs and why people take them. Natural drugs from the earth, like marijuana and mushrooms, should have more tolerance than anything that's concocted in a lab or whatever -- 'cause to me the real terror is when man creates those scary pills or whatever that come out of nowhere. Anything that has a deep history of killing people through overdoses needs restriction.

I mean, I might be thinking ridiculous ideas like heroin would be sale at 7-Eleven -- probably it would all be something you'd have to get that's prescription based (maybe?) But like that's gonna satisfy everyone. Even if marijuana became legal everywhere, it might be restricted and only through prescription only -- and that will still be abused.

My main feeling about all of this, though, is that it's not time for all drugs to be legalized. I know you can look at time and think, "Well, if not now, when?" and I understand, but it doesn't look like it's time, yet. We have got to reach a new plateau collectively. All of this will come to pass, but it should come to pass at the right moment. I look at Ron Paul and I don't see the right guy. But I do think that people like Ron Paul are inspiring and will send a message to people and will probably inspire the right person whenever he shows up.

[wintertriangles]

At least - and as terrible as this may sound - drugs are contained in some way via the black market and aren't easily accessible.This is why there is gang violence

[Sexy Celebrity]

This is why there is gang violence

Well, cheer it on. You're a fan of natural selection, apparently -- if the gangs are killing each other, then natural selection is totally at work. Those people are there and they're dying away. Maybe nature prefers the gangs to die instead of the supposedly idiotic people who would take drugs and die from it.

[wintertriangles]

Natural selection doesn't include pussies with guns, I shouldn't have to explain that

[Sexy Celebrity]

Natural selection doesn't include pussies with guns, I shouldn't have to explain that

And how do you know?

How are you aware of what nature may have in store for things?

Those people in gangs are just as likely to get killed off as anybody else. They want to play with guns, they want to fight over drugs -- fine. They're going to die for it, then.

People want to take dangerous drugs? Fine. They might die for it, too.

Seems to me that drugs and death have a very strong link no matter what events occur around them.

[Juno MacGuff]

Ah, took the disguise off, eh? Welcome back.

We always know it's you, as you have a unique way of posting - best to keep the old username, anyway.
Thanks, Yoda said that was the best way and I felt it time to finally come clean.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Exactly. It was decided a good 20 years ago that, as the lone superpower, the U.S. has a responsibility to the rest of the world to manage an interventionist foreign policy. Despite of the consequences of this decision, things could have been a whole lot worse if we had adopted an isolationist policy.

But America abandoned Afghanistan twenty years ago with costly results; our country also failed to intervene to prevent genocide in Rwanda (and more recently in Darfur) and the response to Bosnia proved tardy and thus tragic. More recently, interventions if Afghanistan (which proved reactive rather than proactive) and Iraq have turned into fiascoes approaching decade-long quagmires. Somehow, we can't seem to find the correct balance and of course, American interventionism dates back well over twenty years.

The key isn't a false binary between isolationism and interventionism, but the wisdom and international knowledge needed to make better decisions. If we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world in terms of daily interest and institutional learning and then try to render almost knee-jerk reactions to explosive events in far-flung countries, we are bound to blunder.

[Warren'sShampoo]

I merged your last two posts. Just FYI.


This sounds like a sarcastic question, implying that the mere mention of her name is supposed to constitute an argument of how ridiculous the sentiment is.

Sarah Palin is not my first choice for President. She's probably not my tenth choice for President. I like her exactly where she is: in the role of conservative firebrand. But her stated policies on a number of economic matters are, to my mind, correct, or at least a good deal more correct than many others.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer such a broad question, because right off the bat it completely ignores the statement it's replying to, which subdivided general competency from whether or not a candidate is right on the issues.


Yes, I think it would. The willingness to intervene in foreign affairs may or may not be done wisely. I don't think there's any scenario under which isolationism can be done wisely. True, you'll have misguided or mismanaged actions. But you'll also have humanitarian actions. You'll have moral imperatives that an isolationist nation would have to stand idly by and watch.

And this is assuming it's even possible to cut ourselves off from the world and not suffer the consequences of whatever it may become. The world is a good deal smaller than it used to be. I don't think we can wall ourselves off from anything, at least not in any meaningful way.

I don't think that America should cut itself off from the rest of the world, either. But if we are to intervene in the world, we should also be focusing on the world through our media coverage, our educational system, and our overall sensibilities. Of course, we rarely do so, thus resulting in a schism that is bound to produce poor outcomes.

And when we intervene, we should be employing "hard power" with greater subtlety, precision, and prudence, hence reducing the prospect of "blow back" which Ron Paul has rightly discussed.

[Yoda]

I don't entirely disagree, but what you're proposing now isn't quite what Ron Paul is proposing.

And, in a very broad sense, I think it's very easy to criticize errors in intervention in hindsight. But I'm not convinced it's the kind of thing that is at all predictable. The very nature of intervention, and the number of variables involved, and the number of those variables which we do not control, implies that there might not be a way to intervene which does not produce some undesirable outcomes, and which does not open us up to some sort of criticism like this.

[HitchFan97]

But America abandoned Afghanistan twenty years ago with costly results; our country also failed to intervene to prevent genocide in Rwanda (and more recently in Darfur) and the response to Bosnia proved tardy and thus tragic. More recently, interventions if Afghanistan (which proved reactive rather than proactive) and Iraq have turned into fiascoes approaching decade-long quagmires. Somehow, we can't seem to find the correct balance and of course, American interventionism dates back well over twenty years.

The key isn't a false binary between isolationism and interventionism, but the wisdom and international knowledge needed to make better decisions. If we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world in terms of daily interest and institutional learning and then try to render almost knee-jerk reactions to explosive events in far-flung countries, we are bound to blunder.

Yes, but as Yoda said, you're bound to have SOME misguided or mismanaged actions with an interventionist policy. Someone is always going to make a mistake or error, but trying to maintain an isolationist policy when you're the world superpower is an error in and of itself.

[will.15]

On a semi related note, it looks like the end might finally be near for Gadafi with only limited United States support.

[HitchFan97]

Hm. I just noticed a Ron Paul 2012 banner ad on this thread.

[Warren'sShampoo]

I don't entirely disagree, but what you're proposing now isn't quite what Ron Paul is proposing.

And, in a very broad sense, I think it's very easy to criticize errors in intervention in hindsight. But I'm not convinced it's the kind of thing that is at all predictable. The very nature of intervention, and the number of variables involved, and the number of those variables which we do not control, implies that there might not be a way to intervene which does not produce some undesirable outcomes, and which does not open us up to some sort of criticism like this.

There is no "predictive model" (to borrow a Newt Gingrich phrase), but some quagmires can be forecasted. For example, on April 14, 1949, a U.S. State Department official privately warned that to oppose nationalist leader (and Communist) Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam would be tantamount to "follow blindly down a dead-end alley, expending our limited resources—in money and most particularly in prestige—in a fight which would be hopeless." [See Gary R. Hess, [I]Vietnam and the United States: Origins and Legacy of War (Boston, Twayne, 1990), p. 39, 50.] But in an enormous bureaucracy where knowledge and insight often fail to flow to the top or take a backseat to power relations and overweening, misguided ambitions (both nationalistic and personal), such wisdom often goes unheeded.

Our interventions often reflect ignorance and hubris marked by the fallacy that American imperatives are readily transferable to other parts of the world. Countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, emerged not through organic development, but imperial contrivance. Therefore, when the U.S. makes heavy-handed, bombastic intrusions with the notion of rallying those peoples behind the ideals of collective nationalism and a federal government, we are employing an inappropriate paradigm born from arrogance. In Iraq, the schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, seemingly ignored by the Bush administration, meant that the sudden, foreign disposal of Saddam Hussein would create the explosive potential for civil war or at least nihilistic civil strife. In Afghanistan, the remote, tribal, splintered nature of the so-called society meant that any "nation-building" mission would prove implausible, as the British and Soviets learned when they falteringly left that country (not to mention previous groups that had failed, namely the Greeks, Persians, Arabs, and Mongols). American hubris, however, convinced our leaders that we could anomalously enjoy success and that the lessons of history were scarcely applicable. Indeed, these quagmires should have been easy to predict.

So while there are no guarantees, closer study of history and international affairs can produce more prudent decisions and a more cautious, limited exercise of power. A country such as America cannot ignore its homework and then hope to ace the test.

[Yoda]

I don't think they can be reliably forecasted, and the fact that someone seems to have forecasted it doesn't really show that they can. There are plenty of people in every single administration opposing any given foreign excursion, and it will always be possible to point to them after the fact and make it appear that the situation was a good deal more foreseeable than it actually was. But of course, there are usually perfectly plausible arguments in the other direction, and sometimes those are the ones that win. It is tempting and easy to point to people with the benefit of hindsight, but how do you identify those people to begin with? And if every situation is unique (which is true), how are they supposed to help us the next time?

I doubt that our failures in foreign policy as the result of ignorance. If anything, I'd guess (for neither of us really knows) that the problem of most Presidents is sifting through the mountain of information and variables put in front of them. I don't see any serious evidence to suggest that a mountain of data or a purview of history is going to make decisions any more obvious. If anything, it could produce just as much error or decision-making. This is not to specifically argue for ignorance, but if presented with a situation with so many variables as to render forecasting it basically impossible, at that point I don't see why more data would necessarily lead to better outcomes. And if there's one thing I don't think modern Presidents lack, it's data.

"We just have to try to make better choices" may not be a very satisfying conclusion, but I'm pretty sure it's the correct one.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Yes, but as Yoda said, you're bound to have SOME misguided or mismanaged actions with an interventionist policy. Someone is always going to make a mistake or error, but trying to maintain an isolationist policy when you're the world superpower is an error in and of itself.

I don't believe in sheer isolationism, but my point is that when interventionism is practiced too flagrantly and loosely, it can prove even more costly. Just recognize how Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden both constituted American "allies" in the 1980s; here is the video of Don Rumsfeld's now infamous meet-and-greet with Hussein in Iraq in 1983.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42oejmpkgw

And those relationships and the power that they granted those shady individuals ultimately came back to haunt us for years to come.

Of course, Hussein likely would have never assumed power in the first place except for an American-fueled coups in Iraq in 1963 and 1968.

http://www.fantompowa.org/cia_coups_iraq.htm

Indeed, there is evidence suggesting that both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden served as CIA agents at points in their lives.

[Yoda]

True or false: the danger of someone turning against us after we've allied with them in some degree exists as long as we ally ourselves with any moderately significant number of people.

[will.15]

Bin Laden never was a CIA agent. That is a load of crap.

[Warren'sShampoo]

I don't think they can be reliably forecasted, and the fact that someone seems to have forecasted it doesn't really show that they can. There are plenty of people in every single administration opposing any given foreign excursion, and it will always be possible to point to them after the fact and make it appear that the situation was a good deal more foreseeable than it actually was. But of course, there are usually perfectly plausible arguments in the other direction, and sometimes those are the ones that win. It is tempting and easy to point to people with the benefit of hindsight, but how do you identify those people to begin with? And if every situation is unique (which is true), how are they supposed to help us the next time?

I doubt that our failures in foreign policy as the result of ignorance. If anything, I'd guess (for neither of us really knows) that the problem of most Presidents is sifting through the mountain of information and variables put in front of them. I don't see any serious evidence to suggest that a mountain of data or a purview of history is going to make decisions any more obvious. If anything, it could produce just as much error or decision-making. This is not to specifically argue for ignorance, but if presented with a situation with so many variables as to render forecasting it basically impossible, at that point I don't see why more data would necessarily lead to better outcomes. And if there's one thing I don't think modern Presidents lack, it's data.

"We just have to try to make better choices" may not be a very satisfying conclusion, but I'm pretty sure it's the correct one.

Your theory seems to be that since nothing can be guaranteed or predicted with one hundred percent accuracy, we might as well not worry about the matter and just intervene as we please while the chips fall where they may. Likewise, you seem to believe that since our leaders and citizens and species prove inherently fallible, we shouldn't be too harsh on them or demand higher standards, or believe that such demands could make a positive difference. I disagree; we need to take a harder look at ourselves and improve, even if we will always fall short of perfection.

And I'm not talking about reams of misleading data, but a better sense of historical understanding and respect for the different histories and prerogatives of other peoples and countries. Clearly, ignorance has existed in these regards or the U.S. Government would not have indulged many of its risky interventions in the first place, at least not in such cavalier fashion.

Nor am I simply speaking to hindsight; as I showed in the case of Vietnam, the warnings existed years in advance. Such was also the situation with Iraq, where George H.W. Bush refused to depose Hussein in 1991 precisely for the reasons that I've cited. However, the next-generation, neo-conservative Bush White House lacked his discretion, his knowledge, or both.

As for "the perfectly plausible arguments in the other direction," they frequently exist (Libya would constitute an example), but they just as often reflect a nearly drunken desire for protecting and perpetuating power, wealth, or unrealistic idealism as opposed to a sounder rationale.

[Warren'sShampoo]

True or false: the danger of someone turning against us after we've allied with them in some degree exists as long as we ally ourselves with any moderately significant number of people.

See my previous post. The existence of inherent risk should engender greater discretion, not greater indulgence.

[Yoda]

Your theory seems to be that since nothing can be guaranteed or predicted with 100% accuracy, we might as well not worry about the matter and just intervene as we please while the chips fall where they may.
Nope. My theory (if that's the right word) is that our failures are not generally the result of ignorance, but a product of how ridiculously hard it is to forecast these things. It doesn't follow from this that we should not try, or that we should just do random things.

Likewise, you seem to believe that since our leaders and citizens and species prove inherently fallible, we shouldn't be too harsh on them or demand higher standards, or believe that such demands couldn't possibly make a positive difference.
Nope, not saying that either. Just against pretending this stuff is easier than it is.

Nor am I simply speaking to hindsight; as I showed in the case of Vietnam, the warnings existed years in advance.
I think you've misunderstood what I said about hindsight. The hindsight is in knowing which warning or suggestion is the right one. Of course the actual warning/advice comes before the event. The "hindsight" benefit is in being able to pick that one now, today, to make your point about Vietnam, whereas at the time there were undoubtedly a chorus of competing voices, all with perfectly plausible sounding arguments.

As for "the perfectly plausible arguments in the other direction," they frequently exist (Libya would constitute an example), but they just as often reflect a nearly drunken desire for protecting and perpetuating power, wealth, or unrealistic idealism as opposed to a sounder rationale.
I'm not sure I agree with this, and I'm not sure how one would go about proving it. But I do know that if our actions in Libya have some ripple effect that leads to some terrible terrorist act in 25 years, people will be posting on holographic forums in their flying cars about how obvious it was that we should've never intervened in Libya.

See my previous post. The existence of inherent risk should exercise greater discretion, not greater indulgence.
So...true? :)

My question is not an argument for greater indulgence. It is simply a retort to the idea that people like Hussein or Bin Laden inherently invalidate a given foreign policy. Even the most obvious intrusions into foreign affairs carry this sort of risk with them.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Bin Laden never was a CIA agent. That is a load of crap.

How do you know?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html

Regardless of whether he actually served as a CIA agent, bin Laden indisputably worked with the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1980s in the battle against the invading and occupying Soviets. One can defend that covert American mission and the relationship with bin Laden that developed, but the connection certainly existed and helped turn him into a mythic figure in the Muslim world. He then used that power, of course, to successfully turn on us in the 1990s.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Nope. My theory (if that's the right word) is that our failures are not generally the result of ignorance, but a product of how ridiculously hard it is to forecast these things. It doesn't follow from this that we should not try, or that we should just do random things.


Nope, not saying that either. Just against pretending this stuff is easier than it is.


I think you've misunderstood what I said about hindsight. The hindsight is in knowing which warning or suggestion is the right one. Of course the actual warning/advice comes before the event. The "hindsight" benefit is in being able to pick that one now, today, to make your point about Vietnam, whereas at the time there were undoubtedly a chorus of competing voices, all with perfectly plausible sounding arguments.


I'm not sure I agree with this, and I'm not sure how one would go about proving it. But I do know that if our actions in Libya have some ripple effect that leads to some terrible terrorist act in 25 years, people will be posting on holographic forums in their flying cars about how obvious it was that we should've never intervened in Libya.


So...true? :)

My question is not an argument for greater indulgence. It is simply a retort to the idea that people like Hussein or Bin Laden inherently invalidate a given foreign policy. Even the most obvious intrusions into foreign affairs carry this sort of risk with them.

But this sort of "blow-back" did not occur, for example, after the Second World War.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the emergence of former allies Hussein and bin Laden as arch-antagonists of America necessarily "invalidates" anything. But their existence does suggest the risks involved and the need for caution, discipline, and discretion. Indeed, Hussein and bin Laden emerge not as isolated aberrations, but flashing signposts within a seamy historical maze. Consider, for example, the following chain.

In 1953, the CIA (with President Dwight Eisenhower's approval) engaged in bribery and subterfuge to upend Iranian premier Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil fields and refineries. Restored was the Shah of Iran, friendly to Western oil and economic interests along with the West's Cold War politics. But the Shah constituted a brutal dictator who committed all manner of repressive human rights violations in an effort to protect his power. Animosity towards him and understandable resentment towards the US for its covert role in the 1953 coup resulted in the Iranian Revolution of 1979, in which an anti-American theocracy ascended to power. Indeed, the result proved far more threatening than what might have occurred in 1953 had the US supported Mossadegh in the first place (thus heading-off his turn to the Soviets for economic assistance) or at least refrained from the kind of intervention that would come back to haunt our nation a generation later when the Iranians grabbed American hostages and held them for over a year.

This anti-American turn at the end of the 1970s thus encouraged the US to throw its weight behind the thuggish Saddam Hussein, the new autocrat of Iran's neighboring nation to the west, Iraq. So when Hussein initiated a brutal war against Iran in 1981 that would last eight years and cost thousands of lives on both sides, he received American military support, including the chemical weapons that he used in the genocidal gassing of the Kurds (to which our government turned a blind eye). Conversely, if the US had not undermined Iran's government back in 1953, then that country probably would not have turned in such a theocratic and virulently anti-American direction a quarter-century later, in which case there would have been less incentive to support a massacring megalomaniac like Iraq's Hussein.

Emboldened and empowered by America, Hussein roguishly decided to invade Kuwait in 1990 in order to seize the tiny nation's rich oil supplies. When Saudi Arabia allowed the US (perhaps a little too eager for war) to establish military bases in the Holy Land, a maverick religious Saudi named Osama bin Laden became outraged at what he perceived as an act of blasphemy. And in part because of the CIA’s support in Afghanistan in the 1980s, bin Laden had helped lead the mujahidin guerillas to victory over the Soviet Union. Therefore, bin Laden—like Hussein—had become empowered and could attract a following within the Arab-Muslim world, leading to his successful formation of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda and all the mass murders that it would commit in the coming years. One can thus trace 9/11 to Hussein’s decision to invade Kuwait, which (through several steps) can be traced all the way back to the CIA-supported coup in Iran in 1953. Crossing chains of American intervention through the decades thus created a web in which terroristic monsters could thrive. And frankly, none of this intervention was necessarily necessary, instead the product of corporate economic interests (read: oil), a desire for military power and leverage, and overwrought concerns about national security. And by over-intervening constantly, the US inadvertently created the "blow-back" that resulted in far worse and far more real national security concerns years down the line.

I'm well aware that these decisions are frequently difficult (i.e. Libya), but precisely for that reason, they demand greater scrutiny, learning, and caution. Unfortunately, competing voices often don't receive a worthwhile platform or aren't considered with equal volume (the early, often buried dissent on Vietnam constitutes a case in point). Therefore, a sense of ignorance often proves pervasive, not because greater knowledge and acuity fail to exist, but because they fail to enjoy the same channeling and voicing. If they did, then America wouldn't have intervened so many times in ways that ultimately made matters worse, for us or for many people in foreign countries (who became victims of dictatorial or military oppression or of our bombs and guns). The list is long: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and on and on. So while I don’t believe in inflexible isolationism (the Nixon-Kissinger outreach to the Soviet Union and China proved commendable), Ron Paul is certainly correct to observe the fallaciousness, imperiousness, and recklessness coursing through our foreign policy history.

As for ascribing motivation for these interventions, the matter certainly comes down to interpretation and usually there are multiple motivations, inextricably intertwined and with varying degrees of self-consciousness and subconsciousness. Still, any study of history and lack of naïveté would create the awareness that power, economic ambition (often of the kind favored by corporate, wealthy interests), and unrealistic idealism have played major roles. The interventions in Iran and Iraq probably would not have occurred without the underlying bounty of oil, Iran and Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the notion of spreading democracy behind American bombs and guns is contradictory and delusional. And certainly, what Dwight Eisenhower labeled the "military-industrial complex" during his farewell address in 1961 also explains much of the motivation for persistent American intervention.

[Warren'sShampoo]

I can imagine us someday legalizing all drugs somehow. I really could. But I really think rushing them all out is insanity.

Wintertriangles thinks that natural selection will take care of stupid humans and kill off the idiots that use the drugs - all once they're legal - but the case can really be said for the opposite. Gang violence might as well be natural selection, too.

At least - and as terrible as this may sound - drugs are contained in some way via the black market and aren't easily accessible. I don't know all of the drugs that are even out there that would become available, but I imagine that if all drugs became legal, is it possible that we might find really scary stuff on sale at 7-Eleven if all drugs became legal? And I do believe that many more people would take drugs than those who do now while it's illegal. This could have hideous consequences for society on top of what society might turn into if we even allow it. If anything should be done, the war on drugs should strongly focus on putting less people in jail who sell it illegally and more focus on educating people about drugs and about the history of drugs and why people take them. Natural drugs from the earth, like marijuana and mushrooms, should have more tolerance than anything that's concocted in a lab or whatever -- 'cause to me the real terror is when man creates those scary pills or whatever that come out of nowhere. Anything that has a deep history of killing people through overdoses needs restriction.

I mean, I might be thinking ridiculous ideas like heroin would be sale at 7-Eleven -- probably it would all be something you'd have to get that's prescription based (maybe?) But like that's gonna satisfy everyone. Even if marijuana became legal everywhere, it might be restricted and only through prescription only -- and that will still be abused.

My main feeling about all of this, though, is that it's not time for all drugs to be legalized. I know you can look at time and think, "Well, if not now, when?" and I understand, but it doesn't look like it's time, yet. We have got to reach a new plateau collectively. All of this will come to pass, but it should come to pass at the right moment. I look at Ron Paul and I don't see the right guy. But I do think that people like Ron Paul are inspiring and will send a message to people and will probably inspire the right person whenever he shows up.

Currently illegal drugs wouldn't become available at a 7-Eleven-type store because insufficient demand and stigmatization would preclude commercialization. Your fears are worthy of consideration, but again, I don't believe that most people take drugs or refrain from doing so based upon legality. I do strongly believe in anti-drug education and propaganda and if we ended the police-oriented War on Drugs, we could pour more money into drug education in the schools and in media. Indeed, we need to wage this "war" in a sensible and efficient manner that is less repressive, wasteful, and counterproductive. Creating a bogus black market that turns drugs into lucrative commodities is not the answer, for we just overflow prisons that should be used primarily to contain violent criminals and spur gang violence in which innocent people are caught in the crossfire, all the while still failing to eliminate the distribution and circulation of drugs for those who really want them. The problem with seeing gang violence as a matter of "natural selection" is that it stems not from individual choice regarding intake, but artificial market conditions created by arbitrary governmental regulation.

By the way, at the same time as I would legalize drugs, I would also stiffen criminal punishment for driving under intoxication of any kind. If individuals want to risk or abuse their own health, they should possess that right, but we must crack-down on those individuals who jeopardize the safety of other individuals and the overall public.

Ultimately, Ron Paul is too ideological—especially on economic issues—to constitute a victorious presidential candidate or even a major party nominee. The most that he could hope for would be a Ross Perot-type showing with about a fifth of the vote, but he would need to go outside the Republican Party, a prospect that he has disavowed in recent years. Yet while I don’t agree with him on everything and deem him too inflexible and impractical ideologically, much of what he says makes sense. Therefore, I welcome his continuing voice and candor amidst the national discourse.

[Yoda]

Well, first off, you don't need to list the various ways in which these things go wrong. I'm sure most of us are aware of them, and their existence is not under dispute. So, there, I just saved you the trouble of having to type so much. ;)

Second, if you don't really agree with Ron Paul, that kind of settles the matter, no? And it's consistent with something I notice about people who support or defend him: a striking number of them have serious disagreements with the guy. But some just dislike the idea of the status quo so badly that they're willing to tolerate someone they disagree with on major issues just to shake up the political snowglobe and see what happens.

Third. Re: military-industrial complex. That gets tossed around a lot and abused just as often. It's often used to suggest that Eisenhower was worried about war as an engine for profit, but what he was actually referring to was the revolving door between politics and defense contractors that led to the awarding of defense contractors to inferior weapons. His was a concern related to the quality of military contracts. But it's vague enough that some elements of the left have managed to appropriate it for their own rhetoric.

Anyway, we agree on the central idea: Ron Paul's isolationism is too extreme, and it's really hard to know when to intervene and when not to. We might, however, still disagree about the causes. But that's probably not resolvable.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Well, first off, you don't need to list the various ways in which these things go wrong. I'm sure most of us are aware of them, and their existence is not under dispute. So, there, I just saved you the trouble of having to type so much. ;)

Actually, I think that most Americans are rather or completely clueless on such matters, but apparently, you aren't. ;)

Second, if you don't really agree with Ron Paul, that kind of settles the matter, no? And it's consistent with something I notice about people who support or defend him: a striking number of them have serious disagreements with the guy. But some just dislike the idea of the status quo so badly that they're willing to tolerate someone they disagree with on major issues just to shake up the political snowglobe and see what happens.

I feel that Ron Paul speaks the truth on some issues, especially regarding foreign policy dynamics. Naturally, I'm not going to completely concur with anyone, but the gist of much of what he says (at least foreign policy-wise) is spot-on in my view.

Third. Re: military-industrial complex. That gets tossed around a lot and abused just as often. It's often used to suggest that Eisenhower was worried about war as an engine for profit, but what he was actually referring to was the revolving door between politics and defense contractors that led to the awarding of defense contractors to inferior weapons. His was a concern related to the quality of military contracts. But it's vague enough that some elements of the left have managed to appropriate it for their own rhetoric.

The text of Eisenhower's speech explicitly encompasses much more than just the awarding of defense contracts for inferior weaponry (something that he never actually addresses in that speech). I re-read it this morning and he's speaking to the possibility of American democracy becoming subordinate to a de facto military state that fosters a climate of international belligerence. Eisenhower specifically fears "the power of money," " the disastrous rise of misplaced power," and a global "community of dreadful fear and hate."

[Sexy Celebrity]

The problem with seeing gang violence as a matter of "natural selection" is that it stems not from individual choice regarding intake, but artificial market conditions created by arbitrary governmental regulation.

Well, to begin with, the "natural selection" argument isn't a tool I care to talk about here, but I feel we should not judge whatever kind of conditions have been set up by the government to determine what is true natural selection. The genes of all of the people who made it into the government, who set up the government and established all of its rules were the powerful ones that led to certain members of the human species having to grow up in certain places and enter into gangs and such -- this kind of force began a long time ago and it's going to take the right people - the right genes - to turn everything around, if it ever happens.

There is no setup for natural selection, I believe -- you don't get assigned to a certain area and try to be the best one who defeats all the others -- actually, you do, but it happens naturally - you're born into it. And people are being born into violence and gangs because of the government, because of the rules, and because of other factors as well. The human species will just have to deal with it until it is over, until it is defeated and removed from the areas.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Well, to begin with, the "natural selection" argument isn't a tool I care to talk about here, but I feel we should not judge whatever kind of conditions have been set up by the government to determine what is true natural selection. The genes of all of the people who made it into the government, who set up the government and established all of its rules were the powerful ones that led to certain members of the human species having to grow up in certain places and enter into gangs and such -- this kind of force began a long time ago and it's going to take the right people - the right genes - to turn everything around, if it ever happens.

There is no setup for natural selection, I believe -- you don't get assigned to a certain area and try to be the best one who defeats all the others -- actually, you do, but it happens naturally - you're born into it. And people are being born into violence and gangs because of the government, because of the rules, and because of other factors as well. The human species will just have to deal with it until it is over, until it is defeated and removed from the areas.

Unfortunately, politics don't really represent a meritocracy. Some politicians of power and prominence, such as Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon before him), are relatively self-made people, but nepotism and wealth are probably more predominant factors than ingenuity and intelligence (i.e. "genes"). Moreover, success in politics often depends not on intellectual superiority or even strength of character, but a willingness to appease the masses and pander to lower common denominators or else a natural tendency to reflect those lower common denominators. In politics, ironically enough, the ticket to power is sometimes to not be that smart or intellectually vigorous.

[Yoda]

Actually, I think that most Americans are rather or completely clueless on such matters, but apparently, you aren't. ;)
Thankfully, by the time you get to this forum a lot of the less curious folks have been weeded out. :) They learn pretty quick they're not really in the right place. We've got a smart bunch of people here, to be sure.

The text of Eisenhower's speech explicitly encompasses much more than just the awarding of defense contracts for inferior weaponry (something that he never actually addresses in that speech). I re-read it this morning and he's speaking to the possibility of American democracy becoming subordinate to a de facto military state that fosters a climate of international belligerence. Eisenhower specifically fears "the power of money," " the disastrous rise of misplaced power," and a global "community of dreadful fear and hate."
Re: Eisenhower's speech. The first two quotes you list are perfectly consistent with what I'm suggesting. You note he talks about the disastrous rise of misplaced power (not just power in general), and the corrupting influence of money, both entirely in keeping with his fear of business interests overriding sound military decisions. You'll notice that, in the very next paragraph after using the famous phrase, he talks about the importance of research and development, and then says this:

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."

He is unmistakably worried that defense will become just another industry, subject to the same lobbying influences and watering down as every other area that government oversees.

[Warren'sShampoo]

Thankfully, by the time you get to this forum a lot of the less curious folks have been weeded out. They learn pretty quick they're not really in the right place. We've got a smart bunch of people here, to be sure.

I don't doubt it. But even with smart people, many aren't going to possess a great grasp of this kind of history because it fails to receive sufficient attention in the media.

Re: Eisenhower's speech. The first two quotes you list are perfectly consistent with what I'm suggesting. You note he talks about the disastrous rise of misplaced power (not just power in general), and the corrupting influence of money, both entirely in keeping with his fear of business interests overriding sound military decisions. You'll notice that, in the very next paragraph after using the famous phrase, he talks about the importance of research and development, and then says this:
"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."
He is unmistakably worried that defense will become just another industry, subject to the same lobbying influences and watering down as every other area that government oversees.

In that quotation, Eisenhower is worried not about the national defense, but rather that the defense industry and it collusion with government represents a threat to the democratic ideal of independent academic scholarship. Here is the fuller context of the quotation:

... In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, projection allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.

... we must also be alert to the ... danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. …

He feared that "a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" and a huge "defense establishment" with million of employees could create a nexus of power and money that effectively bought-off America's democratic experiment, including its universities, scholars, scientists, and legislators. As Eisenhower explained, the premise of his speech constituted the newfound emergence of a "peacetime" weapons industry that colluded with a newly expansive defense apparatus, resulting in "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power," with "grave implications" such as "the acquisition of unwarranted influence" in government, the academy, US society, and the world.

[Yoda]

I know, I read the whole thing. :) But what part of this is supposed to contradict what I'm saying? To be worried about the state of the defense industry is to be worried about our national security.

Heck, when you say things like "the defense industry and its collusion with government," you're almost agreeing with me! This is exactly what I'm saying he's saying. He is definitely concerned about the revolving door and the favor-trading that goes on between the two. But he's worried about it as a military man who sees politics trumping sound military policy. He's not worried about the military, he's worried about what government can do to it. This is why he speaks so disparagingly about how "Federal employment" may come to dominate the nation's scholars. This is why this quote...

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."

...is so salient. You're absolutely right that he worries about the relationship between defense and government. But he's worried about what government will do to defense, and not the other way around. This is why he makes several references to the way the political process snuffs out innovation, and no reference to wars for profit or, as far as I can see, any explicit references to the military becoming far too large. To the contrary, he trumpets the size and strength of the military and says it must always be "mighty."

At one point you even specifically quote the line "permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" in order to make your point, but the context of that line is that he says we've been "compelled" to do so. He's not saying it in a negative fashion, so it can't be cited for the conclusion you make in the rest of the sentence.

[Dog Star Man]

Ron Paul has my vote. I've been a Ron Paul supporter for years.

[Warren'sShampoo]

I know, I read the whole thing. :) But what part of this is supposed to contradict what I'm saying? To be worried about the state of the defense industry is to be worried about our national security.

Heck, when you say things like "the defense industry and its collusion with government," you're almost agreeing with me! This is exactly what I'm saying he's saying. He is definitely concerned about the revolving door and the favor-trading that goes on between the two. But he's worried about it as a military man who sees politics trumping sound military policy. He's not worried about the military, he's worried about what government can do to it. This is why he speaks so disparagingly about how "Federal employment" may come to dominate the nation's scholars. This is why this quote...

"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."

...is so salient. You're absolutely right that he worries about the relationship between defense and government. But he's worried about what government will do to defense, and not the other way around. This is why he makes several references to the way the political process snuffs out innovation, and no reference to wars for profit or, as far as I can see, any explicit references to the military becoming far too large. To the contrary, he trumpets the size and strength of the military and says it must always be "mighty."

At one point you even specifically quote the line "permanent armaments industry of vast proportions" in order to make your point, but the context of that line is that he says we've been "compelled" to do so. He's not saying it in a negative fashion, so it can't be cited for the conclusion you make in the rest of the sentence.

Clearly, Eisenhower was a man who comprehended complexity, paradox, and brutal irony. He understood that the Cold War and America's leadership position after the Second World War had created a different context that "compelled" a newly expansive weapons industry and defense establishment. ("Compelled" in this case seemed to possess a neutral, matter-of-fact connotation.) But he also feared (and sounded the alarm about) the darker consequences of this growth and collusion between the war-oriented private and public sectors. Their nexus—the "military-industrial complex"—could, in Eisenhower’s eyes, corrupt or negate American democracy, the academy, government ("public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite"), and international stability or trust. He is worried that two bastions with mirroring ambitions, the publicly-funded defense apparatus and the private munitions-makers, are forming an incestuous relationship with its own imperatives that are not in the interests of a free society at home or peace abroad. His speech is concerned with values beyond military defense, for Eisenhower interprets national defense as virtually a given in light of such growth. His fear is that a sprawling defense establishment, now backed by and braided with a profit-making industry, could become hegemonic and counterproductive.

Eisenhower concludes his address by warning that the conference table of peace, "though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield." Transparently, he is worried that the "military-industrial complex," if left unchecked, could thwart diplomacy and promote war instead. And as I showed with the broader quotation in my previous post, Eisenhower is referring not to the defense establishment's "intellectual curiosity," but to that of America's universities and their scholars. He fears that instead of conducting independent research and formulating independent ideas that are consonant with and beneficial to a free society, scholars and scientists will become tools of the private-public defense nexus. Eisenhower is taking the side of neither private industry nor public institutions (i.e. "the government," which includes the defense establishment) in this area. Rather, he is deploring the potential repercussions of their intertwining, the "revolving door" that you correctly noted. He laments that this "revolving door" fosters a behemoth that harms academic scholarship, society's non-defense prerogatives, public policy, and international diplomacy.

Eisenhower constituted a military man, to be sure, but the defense establishment that he is describing proved vaster than just the military proper. The Department of Defense (the Pentagon) had not existed until after World War II and even during that conflict, he fretted over what he later labeled (in the 1961 speech) "a scientific-technological elite." Although his voice proved rather irrelevant since he was involved in the European theater as opposed to the Pacific, Eisenhower in 1945 opposed the prospective droppings of the atomic bombs on Japan, sharing his "grave misgivings" with Secretary of War Henry Stimson because he felt that such detonations would be "completely unnecessary." [See Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956: The White House Years (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963), 312-13.] In a way, those sentiments foreshadowed his critique of the "military-industrial complex" a decade-and-a-half later.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I've made a decision:

If Ron Paul is the Republican candidate next year, I will vote for him.

So, y'all better fight for him.

[HitchFan97]

He had better get the nomination. If it's Rick Perry, then he might actually win the whole damn thing, in which case i'm moving to Canada.

[will.15]

Unless Rick Perry stops being Rick Perry it is clear he is a sure loser if he gets the nomination. While it is still possible he gets the nomination, the fact so many conservative pundits are trying to draft the New Jersey Governor because they are disenchanted with Perry shows how much his star has fallen. It is looking more like the Republicans are going to nominate another candidate they are unenthusiastic about. Last time it was McCain, this time Romney.

I am going to say it again, Perry is not a Bush sound alike. I heard Perry say "y'all!" How white trash can you get? Bush just has a Texas accent, he doesn't talk like he came out of the gutter. No Southerner that ever ran for President is as low class as Rick Perry. May not matter in the South, but us Northerners are not going to put in the White House Jeb Clampett.

[Yoda]

Unless Rick Perry stops being Rick Perry it is clear he is a sure loser if he gets the nomination.
No, it isn't clear. This is a reasonable guess, not a fact. It's not even a very, very strong probability. It is a guess. People way smarter and more informed than either of us think he's a plausible candidate.

This contradiction is not an invitation to repeat all the same things you've said about him a dozen times before, by the way, since a) I've heard them and b) none of them really contradict what I'm trying to convey to you here.

I am going to say it again Perry is not a Bush sound alike. I heard Perry say "y'all!" How white trash can you get? Bush just has a Texas accent, he doesn't talk like he came out of the gutter. No Southerner that ever ran for President is as low class as Rick Perry. May not matter in the South, but us Northerners are not going to put in the White House Jeb Clampett.
I saw you post this elsewhere, and I'm not sure I see the point. Voters uninformed and casual enough about their choice to let the accent affect them at all are going to be uninformed and casual enough not to recognize gradations between Texas accents.

And calling Perry "low class" and comparing him to a hillbilly because of the way he talks is downright bigoted. You really lose whatever political perspective you might otherwise have whenever you try to talk about this guy. I dunno if he took your mom out for a nice steak dinner and then never called her again, or if he poured sugar in your gas tank, but the scorn you heap on him is dramatically out of proportion and feels like a personal vendetta more than dispassionate analysis.

[HitchFan97]

Unless Rick Perry stops being Rick Perry it is clear he is a sure loser if he gets the nomination. While it is still possible he gets the nomination, the fact so many conservative pundits are trying to draft the New Jersey Governor because they are disenchanted with Perry shows how much his star has fallen. It is looking more like the Republicans are going to nominate another candidate they are unenthusiastic about. Last time it was McCain, this time Romney.

I am going to say it again, Perry is not a Bush sound alike. I heard Perry say "y'all!" How white trash can you get? Bush just has a Texas accent, he doesn't talk like he came out of the gutter. No Southerner that ever ran for President is as low class as Rick Perry. May not matter in the South, but us Northerners are not going to put in the White House Jeb Clampett.

You're right, Perry would make an even worse president than Bush.

[Yoda]

I'm sure that last post serves some kind of purpose, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is.

Should I just be, like..."no"? 'Cause I can do that. We can just trade statements, if that's what you wanna do.

[Fiscal]

I had no idea this thread existed. I just donated to Ron's campaign, this is the first time I've ever donated to any campaign. If he doesn't get the nod, his message reaching more people is still worth it to me.

[Yoda]

Yeah, back on topic: I'm glad he's doing what he does. Won't vote for him, but bringing more attention to the Federal Reserve (and letting various debate moderators know that such a thing as libertarianism exists) is valuable.

The things he says, even if people find them extreme, force people to confront what liberty actually means and think about long-term implications, rather than just blindly insist that we make it the government's business to right all wrongs and prioritize now over later. There's a degree to which he's taking one for the team by speaking so bluntly about these things.

[planet news]

Let's say by some miracle he is actually nominated and then elected president.

Do you really think he will be able to carry out even, say, 10% all his desires considering how much they deviate from the current situation?

And considering the continuing trend of divided government, who's to say liberals won't have congressional power? The best case scenario is that he fights liberals while still looking strong and passionate instead of like Obama looking weak. Nevertheless, I doubt that in the end he will get even a small amount of what he claims to want to do.

Government does not actually work that way and it never has. That's just a myth. The so-call checks and balances pull towards a single, well-defined situation. The whole machine has to move forward incrementally.

No election is a revolution. Let alone a r[love]ution.

[will.15]

As far as I am concerned liberty means civil liberties. Ron Paul is opposed to the Civil Rights Act

[Yoda]

Aye. But his election would shift the debate substantially.

It's also a weird premise because it's hard to imagine an electorate that shifts enough to elect him, yet not enough to elect more libertarian candidates in general.

[planet news]

It's also a weird premise because it's hard to imagine an electorate that shifts enough to elect him, yet not enough to elect more libertarian candidates in general.Yeah, exactly.

But elections are also contingent in that random stuff might throw people off at the last minute, etc. Maybe people aren't REALLY ready for Paul but something makes them hate Obama at the last minute...

Stuff like that is certainly possible.

All I wanted to say is that the situation is actually very, very stable despite being composed of a huge amount of moving parts.

[7thson]

Unless Rick Perry stops being Rick Perry it is clear he is a sure loser if he gets the nomination. While it is still possible he gets the nomination, the fact so many conservative pundits are trying to draft the New Jersey Governor because they are disenchanted with Perry shows how much his star has fallen. It is looking more like the Republicans are going to nominate another candidate they are unenthusiastic about. Last time it was McCain, this time Romney.

I am going to say it again, Perry is not a Bush sound alike. I heard Perry say "y'all!" How white trash can you get? Bush just has a Texas accent, he doesn't talk like he came out of the gutter. No Southerner that ever ran for President is as low class as Rick Perry. May not matter in the South, but us Northerners are not going to put in the White House Jeb Clampett.


I will have y'all know I have an above average IQ and by gosh I reckon my white trashyness never got in my way when I wanted to see what the sam-hell was going on on Sam's Hill other then Miss Judy Joe Ray Bobby Sue Becky's cow et fo dinner bitch!

[John McClane]

I really need to respond to some stuff in here, but I don't have the time right now. I will definitely be sure to do so soon, though.

[will.15]

I will have y'all know I have an above average IQ and by gosh I reckon my white trashiness never got in my way when I wanted to see what the sam-hell was going on on Sam's Hill other then Miss Judy Joe Ray Bobby Sue Becky's cow etf dinner bitch!
I don't know what Rick Perry's IQ is, but his college GPA depending how you add it up was either D plus or C minus with a D in Principles of Economics. When you run for President of the United States, I would advise you not to use 'Y'all" when you campaign up North. American like people running for President who came from humble backgrounds. They don't like ones who haven't lost their humble background accent.

[wintertriangles]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d95_1317522136

Is it wrong to say the media doesn't exist anymore? Is it also wrong to say I wouldn't care if Bill died?

[Dog Star Man]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d95_1317522136

Is it wrong to say the media doesn't exist anymore? Is it also wrong to say I wouldn't care if Bill died?

The mainstream media is a dead outlet. I think they are beginning to realize that. In the information age, and with the advent of the internet, they no longer have a monopoly on what people should think or do. Bill is apart of their dying dinosaur, and one could only hope in this age of information that Ron Paul gets his chance... because people are listening... just not to them anymore.

[Sedai]

Definitely count me IN.

Ron Paul 2012

[Dog Star Man]

As far as I am concerned liberty means civil liberties. Ron Paul is opposed to the Civil Rights Act

Explain this please. He's opposed to gay marriage, which I too think is a shame, but he believes states should have a right to choose whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, same with abortion. He's not making this a federal case where no one in the land is allowed to have either. It's boiled down to a states right to choose. Or is that he opposed the Civil Right Act when it was put up before Congress? If that's the case, the ideas behind it he wasn't against, however he felt that market forces would work themselves out and force people to give up their old ways. Businesses couldn't afford to support rampant racism at the cost of their own dollar. They would loose half of they're market if they did so. That's why he felt the bill was unnecessary. It had nothing to do with being against civil rights and more to do with being against the market.

[Yoda]

I doubt there's much to explain. I assume Will's just deciding, for whatever reason, that not being discriminated against is a basic right, but choosing who you hire and why is not. Everything you say in response is completely correct, though. People should have the right to be wrong about race or sex or religion if they want, and for their bigotry they will lag behind firms that hire based on merit.

That said, I think he's not so much making an argument as just listing something which sounds bad, politically, which he has often regarded as the same thing. I've had many discussions with Will where he appeared entirely uninterested in whether or not something was actually defensible on principled or policy grounds, but cared only about is political viability at the moment, or its susceptibility to demagoguery. So you might be wasting your time in trying to explain why something is technically wrong; it's not clear he cares.

[Sedai]

I heard Perry say "y'all!" How white trash can you get? Bush just has a Texas accent, he doesn't talk like he came out of the gutter. No Southerner that ever ran for President is as low class as Rick Perry. May not matter in the South, but us Northerners are not going to put in the White House Jeb Clampett.

This is some elitist, entitled horse **** right here. Actually, it's downright ignorant. Have you ever left the state you live in even once? Worldly, you are not. I'm from the west...but I live in the Northeast. I've traveled to most of the Southern states at this point in my life, and have met some of the nicest and smartest people I have ever met.

Shows what you know.

[Yoda]

Just don't talk to him about Perry. There is no profit in it. He cannot see the man straight.

If Perry were anything other than white, and Will were talking this way about his accent, he'd be shunned in an instant, but I guess it's okay to say bigoted things about him because he's just some Southern white guy, so it's all fair game.

[Sedai]

Explain this please. He's opposed to gay marriage, which I too think is a shame, but he believes states should have a right to choose whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, same with abortion. He's not making this a federal case where no one in the land is allowed to have either. It's boiled down to a states right to choose. Or is that he opposed the Civil Right Act when it was put up before Congress? If that's the case, the ideas behind it he wasn't against, however he felt that market forces would work themselves out and force people to give up their old ways. Businesses couldn't afford to support rampant racism at the cost of their own dollar. They would loose half of they're market if they did so. That's why he felt the bill was unnecessary. It had nothing to do with being against civil rights and more to do with being against the market.

This!

It's an extremely important distinction to understand that one can have certain personal views that don't necessarily jibe with their political stance and political actions. Mr. Paul understands that he has to protect the right to choose while having already made his choice.

[Dog Star Man]

I doubt there's much to explain. I assume Will's just deciding, for whatever reason, that not being discriminated against is a basic right, but choosing who you hire and why is not. Everything you say in response is completely correct, though. People should have the right to be wrong about race or sex or religion if they want, and for their bigotry they will lag behind firms that hire based on merit.

That said, I think he's not so much making an argument as just listing something which sounds bad, politically, which he has often regarded as the same thing. I've had many discussions with Will where he appeared entirely uninterested in whether or not something was actually defensible on principled or policy grounds, but cared only about is political viability at the moment, or its susceptibility to demagoguery. So you might be wasting your time in trying to explain why something is technically wrong; it's not clear he cares.

Now, now, I appreciate the support Yoda-man, but lets try to avoid poo-slinging at one another. All's fair in giving him an opportunity to explain himself. Though I try to avoid political discussions, and haven't really been in one on here to see how Will presents himself in economical-philosophical-political debates. I'd still like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Nothing against either one of you, I just want a level playing field you know? We really need a referee in here...:p

[Yoda]

I have given him the benefit of many doubts. I promise you, he has had a generous doubt-giving benefits package. ;) On to the severance pay.

[Pyro Tramp]

Who?

[will.15]

This is some elitist, entitled horse **** right here. Actually, it's downright ignorant. Have you ever left the state you live in even once? Worldly, you are not. I'm from the west...but I live in the Northeast. I've traveled to most of the Southern states at this point in my life, and have met some of the nicest and smartest people I have ever met.

Shows what you know.
I wasn't talking about Southerners or Southern accents. We have had Southern presidents. The last Bush and Clinton for example and a Texan named Lyndon Johnson who came from even more modest beginnings than Perry. None of them had that backwoods hick sound. People my age and older you hear that accent and you see George Wallace and Lester Maddox and all those Deep South Southern politicians who were racist demagogues during the Civil Rights era. It is a scary sound. In this age of television modifying regional accents (listen to fellow Texan Ron Paul) it is real jarring to hear such a throwback like Rick Perry, especially with him talking about states' rights more than any presidential candidate since George Wallace. It doesn't look like it is going to happen now, but can you imagine Rick Perry with that accent and yelling at one time about succession and obsessing on states rights and Confederate flags on Texas license plates and now NH Ranch over his head debating Obama?

[Yoda]

You do realize that, often in the process of calling Perry ignorant, you misspell "secession" basically every single time?

Also, you're not really addressing with Seds said at all. The fact that you're making fun of a subsect of a Southern accent rather than Southern accents in general is irrelevant. You're talking about political optics, and it in no way defends your "trash" that comes "out of the gutter." That's just ugly.

[Dog Star Man]

Explain this please. He's opposed to gay marriage, which I too think is a shame, but he believes states should have a right to choose whether or not gay marriage should be allowed, same with abortion. He's not making this a federal case where no one in the land is allowed to have either. It's boiled down to a states right to choose. Or is that he opposed the Civil Right Act when it was put up before Congress? If that's the case, the ideas behind it he wasn't against, however he felt that market forces would work themselves out and force people to give up their old ways. Businesses couldn't afford to support rampant racism at the cost of their own dollar. They would loose half of they're market if they did so. That's why he felt the bill was unnecessary. It had nothing to do with being against civil rights and more to do with being against the market.

A-Bump!

[will.15]

I doubt there's much to explain. I assume Will's just deciding, for whatever reason, that not being discriminated against is a basic right, but choosing who you hire and why is not. Everything you say in response is completely correct, though. People should have the right to be wrong about race or sex or religion if they want, and for their bigotry they will lag behind firms that hire based on merit.

That said, I think he's not so much making an argument as just listing something which sounds bad, politically, which he has often regarded as the same thing. I've had many discussions with Will where he appeared entirely uninterested in whether or not something was actually defensible on principled or policy grounds, but cared only about is political viability at the moment, or its susceptibility to demagoguery. So you might be wasting your time in trying to explain why something is technically wrong; it's not clear he cares.
I make distinctions between political reality and morality. Sometimes I look at something from a political standpoint and sometimes from a moral standpoint.

And being opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is morally repugnant and also politically stupid to say you were opposed to it then and still are.

To say an employer has a right to discriminate against someone based on religion or skin color is wrong, to say he can refuse to serve or wait on a customer because of his color is wrong, or can make him sit at a separate counter is wrong, or prevent them from going to a private university. If this is the "freedom" conservatives or libertarians are really interested in, it is encroaching on the rights and freedom of others. It is a false, evil, and phony liberty. It isn't limiting liberty or freedom at all, anymore than going over the speed limit is limiting your freedom or yelling "fire" in a crowded building.

[will.15]

You do realize that, often in the process of calling Perry ignorant, you misspell "secession" basically every single time?

Also, you're not really addressing with Seds said at all. The fact that you're making fun of a subsect of a Southern accent rather than Southern accents in general is irrelevant. You're talking about political optics, and it in no way defends your "trash" that comes "out of the gutter." That's just ugly.
So I'm ignorant to, so what? I am not running for President.

Of course I was addressing what he said because he broadened the discussion to Southerners and Southern accents in general. The reality is Perry has chosen (and it is his choice) to keep a regional accent associated with the worst demagogues of the Civil Rights era and has compounded the connection by using their rhetoric by harping on states' rights to the exclusion of practically else. All the Southern presidents post the sixties including Bush were said to represent a different era, the New South, and had a less harsh sound. And here comes old style Southerner Rick Perry talking about states' rights the way Wallace did (Wallace never mentioned blacks when he ran for president).

[Dog Star Man]

I make distinctions between political reality and morality. Sometimes I look at something from a political standpoint and sometimes from a moral standpoint.

And being opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is morally repugnant and also politically stupid to say you were opposed to it then and still are.

To say an employer has a right to discriminate against someone based on religion or skin color is wrong, to say he can refuse to serve or wait on a customer because of his color is wrong, or can make him sit at a separate counter is wrong, or prevent them from going to a private university. If this is the "freedom" conservatives or libertarians are really interested in, it is encroaching on the rights and freedom of others. It is a false, evil, and phony liberty. It isn't limiting liberty or freedom at all, anymore than going over the speed limit is limiting your freedom or yelling "fire" in a crowded building.

You're missing the point entirely. What is the antithesis to "choice"? No choice right? The markets give people a "choice" to choose for themselves who they support with their dollar, (democracy in the form of currency). Think of a business as a political candidate, if you will, is it wise of a business to discriminate against a certain group of people? No, it's not! They loose not votes, but money! This is how racism was indeed being defeated prior to, and during the formation of, the Civil Rights Act. So again, Ron Paul feels it wasn't necessary, much like he feels the Civil War wasn't necessary, because, (like much of the rest of the world), people were giving up slavery and racism through voluntary action. The results seem to be however, that since we in the country seem to "force" change without "choice" or "coercion" there seems to be lingering negative sentiment toward both sides afflicted rather than a gradual understanding of wrong doings made of the behalf of certain parties.

[will.15]

Ron Paul is an idiot and a racist if he thinks the Civl War was unecessary. It wasn't the North who started the Civil War, it was the South simply because Lincoln was elected whose only intent was to not allow any more territory to become states as slave states. That would have altered the South's power and that is why they separated from the Union so they could perpetuate slavery.

[Yoda]

To say an employer has a right to discriminate against someone based on religion or skin color is wrong, to say he can refuse to serve or wait on a customer because of his color is wrong, or can make him sit at a separate counter is wrong, or prevent them from going to a private university.
Of course it's wrong, that's not the issue. Lying to your family is wrong. Sleeping with your best friend's wife is wrong. And yes, using bigoted hiring practices is wrong. Not everything that is wrong necessitates a law.

If this is the "freedom" conservatives or libertarians are really interested in, it is encroaching on the rights and freedom of others. It is a false, evil, and phony liberty.
The "phony" liberty is the idea that anyone is entitled to have anyone else serve them or hire them. No one is entitled to that, for any reason. It is absolutely morally repugnant to refuse something to someone because of their race, but it is not an encroachment on any base freedom, and certainly not to the degree that dictating how someone runs a business--even if that person is a bigot--is.

[argh.pirate]

He gets my vote!
This explains a lot.

[Yoda]

Of course I was addressing what he said because he broadened the discussion to Southerners and Southern accents in general. The reality is Perry has chosen (and it is his choice) to keep a regional accent associated with the worst demagogues of the Civil Rights era
First off, the idea that he "chose" to keep an accent sounds flawed right from the get-go. That's not a choice in the way an ideological position is a choice. You can't just flip a switch, nor should you have to. Second, the idea that you can link him to legacy racism because it is "associated" with people decades ago who sounded the same is a joke. You might as well say someone is "associated" with Nazism because they're tall or blonde. If it dovetails with certain things well, that's a reflection of people's superficiality and ignorance, not an actual strike against the man.

Judging someone based on their accent is bigotry, period.

[Yoda]

This explains a lot.
I assume this is some swipe at him disagreeing with you in the other thread. If so, it's way off base, and explains nothing. You know why? Because I'm not voting for Ron Paul and I agreed with him in that other thread. And Holden's a liberal. So so much for that.

Anyway, please restrict your disagreements with Seds about that thread to that thread. Thanks. :)

[will.15]

First off, the idea that he "chose" to keep an accent sounds flawed right from the get-go. That's not a choice in the way an ideological position is a choice. You can't just flip a switch, nor should you have to. Second, the idea that you can link him to legacy racism because it is "associated" with people decades ago who sounded the same is a joke. You might as well say someone is "associated" with Nazism because they're tall or blonde. If it dovetails with certain things well, that's a reflection of people's superficiality and ignorance, not an actual strike against the man.

Judging someone based on their accent is bigotry, period.
Rick Perry comes from a part of the country where segregation was legal pre 1965.

The justification for it by Southern politicians was states' rights.

That is practically all Perry talks about. That is his emphasis. No Republican presidential candidate has made state's right their central theme.

I certainly wouldn't equate being tall and blonde with being a Nazi because I can't think of any important tall, blonde Nazis. Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and Himmler certainly didn't fit the Aryan mode of the master race. But some contemporary people who deny Nazi sympathies but talk about Jewish bankers controlling the world are suspect.

Many actors were born in the South deliberately lost or lessened the sound to make it in Hollywood. There is a great deal of variety in accents in Texas. Perry with his background and education certainly could have gotten the rural sound modulated. Many Texans have. The combination of angry attack dog speech, threatening to leave the Union, putting confederate flags on license plates, and screaming about states' right in an accent resembling deep South demagogues from the pre civil rights era presents a disturbing image for people who don't live in the South. Is it bigotry to be afraid of the bigots? And this is a man who has had a ranch with a racial slur with disputes when the sign was painted over, and who defended a political appointee who was accused of using the N'" word in a racist context and continued to defend him after he resigned because of the controversy.


.

[will.15]

Of course it's wrong, that's not the issue. Lying to your family is wrong. Sleeping with your best friend's wife is wrong. And yes, using bigoted hiring practices is wrong. Not everything that is wrong necessitates a law.


The "phony" liberty is the idea that anyone is entitled to have anyone else serve them or hire them. No one is entitled to that, for any reason. It is absolutely morally repugnant to refuse something to someone because of their race, but it is not an encroachment on any base freedom, and certainly not to the degree that dictating how someone runs a business--even if that person is a bigot--is.
I'm speechless.

Not quite.

It should be legal to prevent a qualified person from getting a job or being watied on or keep from going to a university because of his color or religion? I guess we won't be seeing Yoda run for political office anytime soon. This is an extreme position even for the most conservative Republicans.

[Sedai]

How do the mechanisms of the actual right enforcement work? How can you force (all the government has the power to do) someone to give someone else a job?

[Yoda]

Rick Perry comes from a part of the country where segregation was legal pre 1965.

The justification for it by Southern politicians was states' rights.

That is practically all Perry talks about. That is his emphasis. No Republican presidential candidate has made state's right their central theme.

I certainly wouldn't equate being tall and blonde with being a Nazi because I can't think of any important tall, blonde Nazis. Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and Himmler certainly didn't fit the Aryan mode of the master race. But some contemporary people who deny Nazi sympathies but talk about Jewish bankers controlling the world are suspect.

Many actors were born in the South deliberately lost or lessened the sound to make it in Hollywood. There is a great deal of variety in accents in Texas. Perry with his background and education certainly could have gotten the rural sound modulated. Many Texans have. The combination of angry attack dog speech, threatening to leave the Union, putting confederate flags on license plates, and screaming about states' right in an accent resembling deep South demagogues from the pre civil rights era presents a disturbing image for people who don't live in the South. Is it bigotry to be afraid of the bigots? And this is a man who has had a ranch with a racial slur with disputes when the sign was painted over, and who defended a political appointee who was accused of using the N'" word in a racist context and continued to defend him after he resigned because of the controversy.
This in no way defends your statement. If you want to make the argument that you think Rick Perry is racist, or tolerant of racism, then you can make that argument. If you want to make the argument that some people will think this, fair or not, you can make that argument as well. But that's not what you did. You went after his accent, specifically, and called him "trash" who comes from the "gutter" based on the accent. That's completely indefensible, and I'm amazed that you're actually defending it anyway, particularly by defending different ideas than you actually put forward.

Judging someone based on their accent is bigotry. True or false?

[Yoda]

I'm speechless.

Not quite.

It should be legal to prevent a qualified person from getting a job or being watied on or keep from going to a university because of his color or religion?
Were you planning on explaining what part of what I said was wrong?

I guess we won't be seeing Yoda run for political office anytime soon. This is an extreme position even for the most conservative Republicans.
Except that I actually haven't taken a position, I've simply presented the standard libertarian argument, if only because you sound as if you've never even heard of or considered it. You made a statement about it and I'm asking you to defend it. So far, despite posting several times, you haven't. At this point you're just repeating the statement back to people in disbelief.

[Yoda]

How do the mechanisms of the actual right enforcement work? How can you force (all the government has the power to do) someone to give someone else a job?
Yeah, that's the practical argument, which is also worth considering. Laws about discriminatory hiring practices, even if justified in a hypothetical sense, would seem to just force most discrimination beneath the surface.

[Dog Star Man]

Ron Paul is an idiot and a racist if he thinks the Civl War was unecessary. It wasn't the North who started the Civil War, it was the South simply because Lincoln was elected whose only intent was to not allow any more territory to become states as slave states. That would have altered the South's power and that is why they separated from the Union so they could perpetuate slavery.

Did you even read my reason as to why it was unnecessary? And I quote myself again:

...the Civil War wasn't necessary, because, (like much of the rest of the world), people were giving up slavery and racism through voluntary action. The results seem to be however, that since we in the country seem to "force" change without "choice" or "coercion" there seems to be lingering negative sentiment toward both sides afflicted rather than a gradual understanding of wrong doings made of the behalf of certain parties.

I don't feel it was necessary either knowing what I know about not only American, but world history. Does that make me a ignorant, racist, "white-trash-country-bumpkin" as well. (According to you?) I'd really like to know.

[will.15]

What was different about the rest of the world and the United States is in other countries slavery happened in colonial countries, not on native soil. By the time of the Civil War the rest of the Western countries had ended slavery decades earlier, not for economic reasons, but on moral grounds, but having a mixed economy not totally dependant on slavery made that decision easier. The South developed an agrarian economy totally dependent on slavery. All Lincoln wanted to do, and he was a moderate, not an abolitionist, was to do exactly what Ron Paul claims he wanted, to let it die out. The Civil War became necessary and unavoidable because the South insisted future territories becoming states being at least balanced between slave and free soil states to maintain their political power to perpetuate slavery and left the Union because the days of slavery would eventually wither with the ascendancy of the Republican Party, not because the institute was in immediate danger. What makes Ron Paul's comments suspect is he is implying the South should have been allowed to separate from the Union, that eventually (how long?) slavery would have died out. Yes. of course, slavery was doomed, but how long would that have taken?. As a separate nation which at the time was entirely dependant on slavery without an industrial base, it could have been a few decades into the twentieth century as the society eventually developed manufacturing. Lincoln and the Republican Party had what was essentially a libertarian position on slavery, let it die, and it was the South who insisted otherwise making conflict and war inevitable unless you accept the notion individual states should have the right to leave the Union.

[will.15]

This in no way defends your statement. If you want to make the argument that you think Rick Perry is racist, or tolerant of racism, then you can make that argument. If you want to make the argument that some people will think this, fair or not, you can make that argument as well. But that's not what you did. You went after his accent, specifically, and called him "trash" who comes from the "gutter" based on the accent. That's completely indefensible, and I'm amazed that you're actually defending it anyway, particularly by defending different ideas than you actually put forward.

Judging someone based on their accent is bigotry. True or false?
No, not when you are running for political office.

Television has reduced regional accents and candidates running for national office who sound too regional may have difficulty connecting in areas outside of their region. Accents are fair game. Kerry was criticized by some because he had lost his Boston accent, very clear in clips when he was much younger, and was used as evidence he was a phony or something, but I doubt Kerry with his original accent would have gotten the nomination. It made him harder to listen to.

And regional accents outside of your region may be a hiring impediment for certain jobs outside of your region. Many broadcasters born in places like Texas (Dan Rather) or New York (Howard Stern) made deliberate effort to adjust their sound.

[will.15]

How do the mechanisms of the actual right enforcement work? How can you force (all the government has the power to do) someone to give someone else a job?
No, if you can't prove there is discrimination you can't enforce it.

But under a truly libertarian system, you could do what was common in many states in the forties and earlier, not just in the South, and put up in front of an apartment building "For Rent" and under it "No Mexicans." California passed a referendum in the sixties making it legal to not sell your home to minorities until the court threw it out as unconstitutional. Is that what libertarians think is acceptable, to create segregated neighborhoods that keep minorities in ghettos as long as the segregation comes from realtors and homeowners instead of the government?

And you could blatantly discriminate in hiring practices, put it in the personnel guide, and it would be legal and permissible. The argument ecconomic factors would change the policy may or may not be true, but it is assuming modern attitudes which were shaped by making segregation and discrimination illegal would have developed on their own and at the same time frame which is doubtful.

[Dog Star Man]

What was different about the rest of the world and the United States is in other countries slavery happened in colonial countries, not on native soil. By the time of the Civil War the rest of the Western countries had ended slavery decades earlier, not for economic reasons, but on moral grounds, but having a mixed economy not totally dependant on slavery made that decision easier. The South developed an agrarian economy totally dependent on slavery. All Lincoln wanted to do, and he was a moderate, not an abolitionist, was to do exactly what Ron Paul claims he wanted, to let it die out. The Civil War became necessary and unavoidable because the South insisted future territories becoming states being at least balanced between slave and free soil states to maintain their political power to perpetuate slavery and left the Union because the days of slavery would eventually wither with the ascendancy of the Republican Party, not because the institute was in immediate danger. What makes Ron Paul's comments suspect is he is implying the South should have been allowed to separate from the Union, that eventually (how long?) slavery would have died out. Yes. of course, slavery was doomed, but how long would that have taken?. As a separate nation which at the time was entirely dependant on slavery without an industrial base, it could have been a few decades into the twentieth century as the society eventually developed manufacturing. Lincoln and the Republican Party had what was essentially a libertarian position on slavery, let it die, and it was the South who insisted otherwise making conflict and war inevitable unless you accept the notion individual states should have the right to leave the Union.

This assumes that colonies aren't representative of their own respective country, which is wholly flawed. Many of these colonies gave up slavery because it was in their best incentives to do so. That's how market's work, it's based on incentives, it is not in ones best incentive to keep slavery if they cause one to lose market value. This is how slavery should, (could and was to the degree outside this nation), defeated. The lasting result is people in those nations got over their hatred of one another and lived peacefully. Now I've been all over the South and had mixed feelings, one is that the people where intelligent, however, they still have lingering negative sentiment towards blacks, (or if one was black, whites). Hell I even saw Confederate Flag boogie boards all over North Carolina beach shops. It's still all there. Why? Because we didn't give people the incentive to let old, horrible, ways go.

[will.15]

The colonies didn't voluntarily give up slavery in Great Britain, the country I am most familiar with. There was a political struggle in the British House of Commons and the anti slavery people won and ended it, period. Slavery just was not a major thing there like it was in the United States. It took place in areas with little white populations on islands with plantations much larger than in the South and far fewer of them. It was morality first, and secondly the economic reality it wasn't going to affect Britain very much by ending it. Ron Paul's comments assume if they are to make any kind of sense the North as represented by the policies of Lincoln were trying to force the South to end slavery and it is false. The only way to have avoided the Civil War was to let the South go. The South wasn't allowed to do that, thus establishing for all time the limitations of states' rights.The reason for lingering Southern resentment in the South is racism created to justify slavery. It would still linger if they voluntarily ended slavery. And even when slavery ended they imposed Jim Crow laws to keep blacks in their place.

[Warren'sShampoo]

What was different about the rest of the world and the United States is in other countries slavery happened in colonial countries, not on native soil. By the time of the Civil War the rest of the Western countries had ended slavery decades earlier, not for economic reasons, but on moral grounds, but having a mixed economy not totally dependant on slavery made that decision easier. The South developed an agrarian economy totally dependent on slavery. All Lincoln wanted to do, and he was a moderate, not an abolitionist, was to do exactly what Ron Paul claims he wanted, to let it die out. The Civil War became necessary and unavoidable because the South insisted future territories becoming states being at least balanced between slave and free soil states to maintain their political power to perpetuate slavery and left the Union because the days of slavery would eventually wither with the ascendancy of the Republican Party, not because the institute was in immediate danger. What makes Ron Paul's comments suspect is he is implying the South should have been allowed to separate from the Union, that eventually (how long?) slavery would have died out. Yes. of course, slavery was doomed, but how long would that have taken?. As a separate nation which at the time was entirely dependant on slavery without an industrial base, it could have been a few decades into the twentieth century as the society eventually developed manufacturing. Lincoln and the Republican Party had what was essentially a libertarian position on slavery, let it die, and it was the South who insisted otherwise making conflict and war inevitable unless you accept the notion individual states should have the right to leave the Union.

... good stuff, you know this history well.

Although I must say that I appreciate Paul's willingness to think outside the box, especially on matters of war, and his idea of buying the slaves and then releasing them is intriguing.

Of course, I imagine that the South would have never gone for it.

[planet news]

The markets give people a "choice" to choose for themselves who they support with their dollar, (democracy in the form of currency).Everyone has equal voice in a democracy; this is its definition. On the other hand, capital flows require inequality, since all transactions are made for the sake of personal gain. The trickle-down theory -- which I'm sure you espouse -- writes this inequality into the very structure of capitalism itself; it declares inequality has the very engine of the market.

In short, what you say is nonsense, though I can see your confusion.

It is true that the consumer always plays a certain mediating role in the markets and the behavior of businesses, but it is not true that this role can be construed as anything even slightly analogous to a democracy. If one wants to make an argument for capitalism, it cannot be on the grounds of some family resemblance to democracy. To claim so would be to claim an oxymoron.

Finally, is it not an old cliche for the boss to remind his workers that his business is, indeed, precisely not a democracy?

[Yoda]

Hey, stop saying new things. There are old things you still need to say new things to. Some on the same topic, even.

Everyone has equal voice in a democracy; this is its definition. On the other hand, capital flows require inequality, since all transactions are made for the sake of personal gain. The trickle-down theory -- which I'm sure you espouse -- writes this inequality into the very structure of capitalism itself; it declares inequality has the very engine of the market.
Say what? You're saying there's no such thing as a mutually beneficial transaction?

Also, inequality (in terms of ability, remember; people like to drop the extra words when they rail against capitalism because "inequality" sounds far more insidious without qualifiers) is the very structure of reality. Capitalism reveals a situation where some people are better at some things, but it doesn't create it.

It is true that the consumer always plays a certain mediating role in the markets and the behavior of businesses, but it is not true that this role can be construed as anything even slightly analogous to a democracy. If one wants to make an argument for capitalism, it cannot be on the grounds of some family resemblance to democracy. To claim so would be to claim an oxymoron.

Finally, is it not an old cliche for the boss to remind his workers that his business is, indeed, precisely not a democracy?
The analogy is off: the business is not a democracy, but the mass of all businesses together is like one. The correct analogy would be one in which each business is like a candidate for public office: the inside of a candidate's mind is also not a democracy, but the ability to vote for one candidate over another is what makes the selection democratic. Similarly, while each business is not a democracy, the ability to "vote" for one or another with your time or money is very democratic.

This is not to say they're identical. It's just an analogy, after all. But if it breaks down it breaks down further along, at higher levels of specificity, and not for the reasons you're saying.

[Yoda]

No, not when you are running for political office.
This doesn't follow. Something is bigoted in general, but not when you say it about someone running for office? What?

Television has reduced regional accents and candidates running for national office who sound too regional may have difficulty connecting in areas outside of their region. Accents are fair game. Kerry was criticized by some because he had lost his Boston accent, very clear in clips when he was much younger, and was used as evidence he was a phony or something, but I doubt Kerry with his original accent would have gotten the nomination. It made him harder to listen to.

And regional accents outside of your region may be a hiring impediment for certain jobs outside of your region. Many broadcasters born in places like Texas (Dan Rather) or New York (Howard Stern) made deliberate effort to adjust their sound.
1) The fact that people did this is irrelevant. I'm talking about what's fair to use to judge someone for. The fact that some people will do it whether it's fair or not, and that some public figures account for this, means absolutely nothing of import here.

2) Saying "accents are fair game" to discuss in some level is not a justification to use them to call someone "trash."

[Yoda]

Also, I hate to harp on this, but here's my last post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770546) about the Civil Rights act. I'm drawing attention to it because I'm pretty sure it's going to be ignored otherwise, and as I pointed out in it, so far you don't seem to have really attempted to engage the libertarian position on discrimination at all.

[will.15]

What you posted there is not an argument, it is a reference to an earlier post. Until you clarify what you are talking about I will assume I uderstood what you said and adequately replied. (I certainly understood Ron Paul). If you are trying to narrow his position on civil rights to a very narrow position about employer rights it negates the broader ramification of his opposition to the law. Do private citizens and businesses have the right to openly discriminate based on religion and skin color? Libertarians like to select arguments for narrow positions they can defend, ignoring the fact that their over all approach to government would mean a society most people would find odious if they understood it. Try to read about something Libertarians don't emphasize, their opposition to all public roads and see if they make any sense at all.

It is not bigotry if you don't like the way a person talks. Al Smith with his thick New York City working class act couldn't connect with voters in 1928. The accent is still a problem. Can you imagine a President that sounded like the Nanny? Or a mobster?

[Yoda]

What you posted there is not an argument, it is a reference to an earlier post.
...which contained an argument.

Until you clarify what you are talking about I will assume I uderstood what you said and adequately replied. (I certainly understood Ron Paul).
You didn't. Here is my post (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770496). Your response was to say you were "speechless," and then to just restate the position back to me. How is that adequate? You didn't address anything.

If you are trying to narrow his position on civil rights to a very narrow position about employer rights it negates the broader ramification of his opposition to the law. Do private citizens and businesses have the right to openly discriminate based on religion and skin color? Libertarians like to select arguments for narrow positions they can defend, ignoring the fact that their over all approach to government would mean a society most people would find odious if they understood it. Try to read about something Libertarians don't emphasize, their opposition to all public roads and see if they make any sense at all.
One of the reasons I'm not a libertarian. But 1) we're talking about a specific argument against a specific piece of legislation. There's no reason to extrapolate from that argument unless you want to do so because you think you'll have an easier time arguing against something broader, and 2) libertarianism is not binary. One can be libertarian and not believe absolutely everything little thing should be done without government, so it's a bit of a straw man, anyway.

You chose the example of the Civil Rights Act. You dismissed Paul based on that alone. So I'm asking questions about it and advancing arguments, and your response so far has just been to repeat them in disbelief.

It is not bigotry if you don't like the way a person talks.
Replace "talks" with "looks." Is it bigoted now?

Also, you keep defending a position that does not reflect the severity of what you said. You called him "trash" from the "gutter," yet when I ask you to account for such bigotry (and I'm sorry, dude, but that's what it is), you end up defending some innocuous version of it, by saying it's not bigotry to "not like" how someone talks. As if not liking the way someone talks and calling them trash for it are the same thing.

Al Smith with his thick New York City working class act couldn't connect with voters in 1928. The accent is still a problem. Can you imagine a President that sounded like the Nanny? Or a mobster?
As I said before, this is irrelevant. The fact that people are like this is in no way a defense of it, let alone a defense of what you said, specifically.

When you offer up explanations like this, though, you're really just reinforcing what I mentioned awhile back: that you have, at best, a passing interest in what is actually fair or defensible, and are willing to dismiss positions not because you have any objection based on policy or sound reasoning, but only because they're outside the mainstream. Many of your responses suddenly make sense when viewed in this light.

Conflating what's right or true with what's politically salable will inevitably lead to confused thinking and an inconsistent, ad-hoc ideology.

[will.15]

I pretty much answered it here:


Originally Posted by Sedai http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770537#post770537)
How do the mechanisms of the actual right enforcement work? How can you force (all the government has the power to do) someone to give someone else a job?

No, if you can't prove there is discrimination you can't enforce it.

But under a truly libertarian system, you could do what was common in many states in the forties and earlier, not just in the South, and put up in front of an apartment building "For Rent" and under it "No Mexicans." California passed a referendum in the sixties making it legal to not sell your home to minorities until the court threw it out as unconstitutional. Is that what libertarians think is acceptable, to create segregated neighborhoods that keep minorities in ghettos as long as the segregation comes from realtors and homeowners instead of the government?





And you could blatantly discriminate in hiring practices, put it in the personnel guide, and it would be legal and permissible. The argument ecconomic factors would change the policy may or may not be true, but it is assuming modern attitudes which were shaped by making segregation and discrimination illegal would have developed on their own and at the same time frame which is doubtful.

[Yoda]

I pretty much answered it here:

Originally Posted by Sedai http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770537#post770537)
How do the mechanisms of the actual right enforcement work? How can you force (all the government has the power to do) someone to give someone else a job?

No, if you can't prove there is discrimination you can't enforce it.

But under a truly libertarian system, you could do what was common in many states in the forties and earlier, not just in the South, and put up in front of an apartment building "For Rent" and under it "No Mexicans." California passed a referendum in the sixties making it legal to not sell your home to minorities until the court threw it out as unconstitutional. Is that what libertarians think is acceptable, to create segregated neighborhoods that keep minorities in ghettos as long as the segregation comes from realtors and homeowners instead of the government?
This doesn't answer it. This is just you talking about people discriminating, and then asking if that's what libertarians believe. It's the exact same way I described your response before: repeating the position in disbelief.

This reply doesn't explain why this form of immorality needs a law more than the many, many things are that blatantly wrong, yet clearly ought to be legal (which you implied, by making the "argument" that it was wrong, as if that were in dispute or somehow settled the matter).

And it definitely doesn't defend your claim that it somehow violates anyone's freedom to have people decide to not hire them. It especially doesn't explain how this is somehow the same sort of violation of freedom as specifically telling someone (yeah, even bigots; they get rights, too) what criteria they're allowed to use to hire someone. Equating these two is a false parallel. In terms of freedom, it's not even close.

And you could blatantly discriminate in hiring practices, put it in the personnel guide, and it would be legal and permissible. The argument ecconomic factors would change the policy may or may not be true, but it is assuming modern attitudes which were shaped by making segregation and discrimination illegal would have developed on their own and at the same time frame which is doubtful.
No, it does not assume that at all, for two reasons:

1) The market-based punishment is only contingent on some people not being bigoted. Those people will have a distinct advantage because they'll be hiring on merit whereas others are dismissing based on superficial things. All that is required from that point forward are the perfectly reasonable assumptions that this naturally-occuring integration will have a positive effect over time (which is common to both sides of the argument, by the way), and that businesses desire to compete and be profitable will, over time, override their bigotry. No leap of faith or unreasonable assumption necessary on either count.

2) Even if this assumption were crucial to the argument you mention, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the justification for the law itself. There are two arguments: the one that suggests this sort of thing will happen naturally (which doesn't have to involve saying it will happen on the same time frame at all; where on earth are you getting that?), and the idea that we just don't have a right to do it, regardless of whether or not it will slow things down. That's the technical argument: people have a right to be bigots, the same way they have a right to be jerks, or rude to people around them. That's freedom, man. It allows things we don't like, the same way freedom of speech lets people say stupid, hateful things.

[Sedai]

No, if you can't prove there is discrimination you can't enforce it.

But under a truly libertarian system, you could do what was common in many states in the forties and earlier, not just in the South, and put up in front of an apartment building "For Rent" and under it "No Mexicans." California passed a referendum in the sixties making it legal to not sell your home to minorities until the court threw it out as unconstitutional. Is that what libertarians think is acceptable, to create segregated neighborhoods that keep minorities in ghettos as long as the segregation comes from realtors and homeowners instead of the government?

And you could blatantly discriminate in hiring practices, put it in the personnel guide, and it would be legal and permissible. The argument ecconomic factors would change the policy may or may not be true, but it is assuming modern attitudes which were shaped by making segregation and discrimination illegal would have developed on their own and at the same time frame which is doubtful.


Uh, what? No, that's not what we want...

Also - What about my question? How do you enforce a right for one citizen if it involves forcing another citizen (in this case a business owner) to give you a job?

[will.15]

There is no point in even discussing this because your idea of freedom is not mine or most Americans. You are saying it should be legal to discriminate. Your idea of freedom is trouncing on the freedom of others and it is the kind of freedom that prevents people from improving themselves, from getting a better job or moving into neighborhood they can afford, but the neighbors want to keep them out because of their skin color. You are going beyond the standard conservative argument against affirmative action and actually condoning racism.

[Yoda]

Well, it won't, for one, because not everyone is a bigot. So right off the bat, that's a problem with what you're saying. See point 1) in my post above for an elaboration.

For another, you still haven't explained why it should be legal to tell someone what criteria they can use to hire. If it's okay to tell someone who to hire because they might act based on bigotry, why isn't it okay to tell someone what they can or cannot say because they might say something bigoted? Also, how on earth is it "condoning racism"? Do you really not get the difference between supporting something and defending someone's right to do it? Does defending free speech mean you "condone" anything anyone says? Because that's the corner you just argued yourself into.

Also, trying to couch this discussion in terms of defending freedom is completely backwards. Your definition of "freedom" is the one that advocates dictating to people how they're allowed to make choices. The argument you're attacking is the one that affords people more freedom--even if they sometimes use that freedom to be a**holes. But as I said, that's how freedom works.

[will.15]

Uh, what? No, that's not what we want...

Also - What about my question? How do you enforce a right for one citizen if it involves forcing another citizen (in this case a business owner) to give you a job?

How isn't it what you want? That is the implication and it is consistent with Ron Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The standard Libertarian argument, in case you don't know it, is it should be illegal for government to discriminate (pass Jim Crow laws), but okay for private businesses to do it, the part of the law that prevents businesses from serving Blacks is wrong or make them eat at separate counters from whites.

You cannot prevent Joe Blow from hiring a white guy to mow his lawn instead of a Mexican. But if Joe Blow has a lawn mowing business and hires only whites and has a history of refusing to hire qualified non whites he could be sued or face legal problems for his hiring practices.

[Sedai]

Try to read about something Libertarians don't emphasize, their opposition to all public roads and see if they make any sense at all.


I wonder what the Libertarian stance is on a current President murdering some of his own citizens without a trial...

Say, do you have some flimsy defense of your idol, the murdering president?

[will.15]

Well, it won't, for one, because not everyone is a bigot. So right off the bat, that's a problem with what you're saying. See point 1) in my post above for an elaboration.

For another, you still haven't explained why it should be legal to tell someone what criteria they can use to hire. If it's okay to tell someone who to hire because they might act based on bigotry, why isn't it okay to tell someone what they can or cannot say because they might say something bigoted? Also, how on earth is it "condoning racism"? Do you really not get the difference between supporting something and defending someone's right to do it? Does defending free speech mean you "condone" anything anyone says? Because that's the corner you just argued yourself into.
Of course it is condoning racism because if you support someone's right to discriminate you are condoning it. It is not the same thing as standing up for a Nazi's right to publicly say hateful things. That is free speech protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. But I am sure as hell not going to justify or defend a Nazi's right to put a sign in front of his business that says "No Jews." Words are protected free speech. But even free speech has some limitations, when it directly infronges on the rights of others, such as provoking a riot. Discrimination is not a protected right in the Constitution and violates someone else's civil liberites. No, you are the one with a skewed idea about what freedom involves. There are two freedoms involved here, one is the freedom of employers to discriminate, and the other is the freedom to live or move where you want and to allow racist employers to refuse to hire you based on the color of your skin.

Also, trying to couch this discussion in terms of defending freedom is completely backwards. Your definition of "freedom" is the one that advocates dictating to people how they're allowed to make choices. The argument you're attacking is the one that affords people more freedom--even if they sometimes use that freedom to be a**holes. But as I said, that's how freedom works.
They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.

[will.15]

I wonder what the Libertarian stance is on a current President murdering some of his own citizens without a trial...

Say, do you have some flimsy defense of your idol, the murdering president?
I'm all for that and he is not my idol. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. And, no, I am not a big fan of her either. The American citizen was in a foreign land, a member of an evil organization that has declared war on us and in war you kill the enemy if circumstances make it difficult to take them alive.

[Sedai]

They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.

No they aren't!!

This is what I was talking about when I posted a couple of days ago. There is a distinction between making a choice on an issue, and trying to force others to make that same choice because you think it's the right choice to make.

Also, I totally support someone's right to make the choice to be racist, but I would never make that choice for myself. That is not me condoning racism - I am condoning freedom of choice and my own PERSONAL views on racism are a different story altogether.

[Sedai]

I'm all for that and he is not my idol. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. And, no, I am not a big fan of her either. The American citizen was in a foreign land, a member of an evil organization that has declared war on us and in war you kill the enemy if circumstances make it difficult to take them alive.

Equivocation nation...

Your alright, Will. A nice thick skin and you stand up for what you believe... Kudos for that.

[will.15]

No they aren't!!

This is what I was talking about when I posted a couple of days ago. There is a distinction between making a choice on an issue, and trying to force others to make that same choice because you think it's the right choice to make.

Also, I totally support someone's right to make the choice to be racist, but I would never make that choice for myself. That is not me condoning racism - I am condoning freedom of choice and my own PERSONAL views on racism are a different story altogether.
If government with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not prohibit both government and private segregation in the South private business segregation would have continued.

[Yoda]

Of course it is condoning racism because if you support someone's right to discriminate you are condoning it.
Good grief, are you hearing yourself? This makes zero sense. Defending the right to do something is not the same as condoning it. You and I both believe many things we personally disapprove of should be legal, yes? Therefore, the statement above is false.

It is not the same thing as standing up for a Nazi's right to publicly say hateful things. That is free speech protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. But I am sure as hell not going to justify or defend a Nazi's right to put a sign in front of his business that says "No Jews." Words are protected free speech.
This is a circular argument. You're saying the two are different because one is protected by law, and one isn't. Well, no duh. We're arguing about why that is and whether or not it should be.

You are not providing a single reason here why the freedom to hire who you want is potentially reprehensible and must be restrained by law, but freedom of speech is necessary and therefore we must tolerate evils in the name of preserving it. You're just saying that you treat them differently (why?), and then reiterating that one is legal (not under dispute). Seriously, please re-read that quote. I defy you to tell me where the argument is.

But even free speech has some limitations, when it directly infronges on the rights of others, such as provoking a riot. Discrimination is not a protected right in the Constitution and violates someone else's civil liberites.
Again, circular. Also, if you're advancing the idea that anything not specifically protected in the Constitution is therefore okay to impede, you're going to find yourself defending a whole lot of ridiculous things really quickly. To pick a completely random example: the right to a specific job is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The right to be hired by anyone for any reason isn't, either.

No, you are the one with a skewed idea about what freedom involves. There are two freedoms involved here, one is the freedom of employers to discriminate, and the other is the freedom to live or move where you want and to allow racist employers to refuse to hire you based on the color of your skin.
The "freedom to live or move where you want" is not a thing. Probably because it only sounds good if you describe in that vague way. What that statement actually describes is making someone hire you even if they don't want to, or making someone sell you something they don't want to sell you. When described like that (that is to say, specifically and accurately), it becomes obvious that you absolutely do not have that right, and that it directly conflicts with someone else's right.

They are not just being a-holes for crying out loud. They are preventing other people from being free.
No, it isn't, for one simple, undeniable reason:

Nobody has the right to be hired for any particular job.

That's the whole ballgame. Unless you want to somehow insist that people have the right to a particular job, then there is no way to argue that discrimination violates people's freedoms. You can't stop someone from being free when their freedom does not inherently contain the thing you're denying them. This is why you're not limiting people's freedom when you ignore them (because nobody has the right to be listened to), or when you stare at them in public (because nobody has the right not to be looked at). You have to possess an actual right to something for someone to be violating your freedom when they don't give it to you. You don't have the right to a particular job, or a particular job interview criteria, ergo nobody's "preventing [you] from being free" when they decide not to give it to you. It's that simple.

Basically, what you're suggesting is analagous to saying that the freedom of speech means I have to lend you my megaphone, or that I have to give a certain kind of reason if I don't want to.

[Kitsch]

I've spent almost all day watching Ron Paul debates and interviews. He's the only politician in recent years to make any sense.

[will.15]

Good grief, are you hearing yourself? This makes zero sense. Defending the right to do something is not the same as condoning it. You and I both believe many things we personally disapprove of should be legal, yes? Therefore, the statement above is false.

Reply below:
(In the case of saying it is permissible for private businesses to discriminate based on religion and skin color it is pretty much condoning it because you don't consider the evil it causes great enough for minorities to be protected by the law.)


This is a circular argument. You're saying the two are different because one is protected by law, and one isn't. Well, no duh. We're arguing about why that is and whether or not it should be.

Reply below:

I didn't say that at all. They are both protected by the law, but one is a specific constitutional protection. The specific reason for it is to protect minorities by abuses from the majority. It is not as you are implying the rights of one minority over another. It is an attempt to combat racism that took place predominantly but not exclusively in the South focused primarily on blacks by both government and the private sector. If private businesses were allowed to continue to discriminate even if the practice was outlawed for government, blacks would still have been second rate citizens. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, the right to subjugate and suppress the rights of the minority. And, yes, it is very much the responsibility of government to prevent that.

You are not providing a single reason here why the freedom to hire who you want is potentially reprehensible and must be restrained by law, but freedom of speech is necessary and therefore we must tolerate evils in the name of preserving it. You're just saying that you treat them differently (why?), and then reiterating that one is legal (not under dispute). Seriously, please re-read that quote. I defy you to tell me where the argument is.

Reply below:
We are not talking about the freedom to hire who you want. We are not talking about interpreting the civil rights laws with regard to hiring practices with regard to affirmative action. We are talking about a fundamental right that a person seeking employment not be prevented from being hired for the sole reason he has the wrong skin color. And your narrow casting the argument, a popular libertarian approach, ignores the broader implications, that it would allow discrimination on other levels than hiring, like realtors preventing minorities from moving into white neighborhoods.


Again, circular. Also, if you're advancing the idea that anything not specifically protected in the Constitution is therefore okay to impede, you're going to find yourself defending a whole lot of ridiculous things really quickly. To pick a completely random example: the right to a specific job is not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The right to be hired by anyone for any reason isn't, either.

I didn't say that at all. And it is not something completely alien in the constitution either to prevent certain discriminatory practices. The Civil Rights law is simply an extension of the fourteenth amendment, specifically the equal protection clause.


The "freedom to live or move where you want" is not a thing. Probably because it only sounds good if you describe in that vague way. What that statement actually describes is making someone hire you even if they don't want to, or making someone sell you something they don't want to sell you. When described like that (that is to say, specifically and accurately), it becomes obvious that you absolutely do not have that right, and that it directly conflicts with someone else's right.

Of course freedom of movement is a fundamental right. To prevent someone from moving out of a slum neighborhood, not because he can't afford to live elsewhere, but because neighborhoods and realtors conspire to keep minorities out is a suppression of rights. If someone wants to move because they don't like who is moving in based on their skin color they can move out, that is their right. But they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in.


No, it isn't, for one simple, undeniable reason:

Nobody has the right to be hired for any particular job.

That's the whole ballgame. Unless you want to somehow insist that people have the right to a particular job, then there is no way to argue that discrimination violates people's freedoms. You can't stop someone from being free when their freedom does not inherently contain the thing you're denying them. This is why you're not limiting people's freedom when you ignore them (because nobody has the right to be listened to), or when you stare at them in public (because nobody has the right not to be looked at). You have to possess an actual right to something for someone to be violating your freedom when they don't give it to you. You don't have the right to a particular job, or a particular job interview criteria, ergo nobody's "preventing [you] from being free" when they decide not to give it to you. It's that simple.

Basically, what you're suggesting is analogous to saying that the freedom of speech means I have to lend you my megaphone, or that I have to give a certain kind of reason if I don't want to.
You keep creating analogies not based on anything I wrote. What you are saying with regard to rights is completely contradictory to the law even as it is interpeted by conservatives. Again, I never said anyone had a right to a job. I said they had a right not to be discriminated based on their skin color or religion. You avoid that language because you know what you are saying goes against even what mainstram conservatives advocate. Would any of the Supreme Court judges, even Republican nominees, agree with your interpatation of whose rights are being violated when when one group disciminates over another? Answer: No, they wouldn't, none of them.

[John McClane]

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9531/dsc02462w.jpg

[Sedai]

^^^^ woot!

[Yoda]

In the case of saying it is permissible for private businesses to discriminate based on religion and skin color it is pretty much condoning it because you don't consider the evil it causes great enough for minorities to be protected by the law.
No, it is not "pretty much condoning it." Defending something's legality is not defending it morally, ethically, or in any other way. Defending the right to be a bigot is not defending bigotry, just as defending someone's right to say crazy, stupid crap isn't the same as defending its content.

I didn't say that at all. They are both protected by the law, but one is a specific constitutional protection. The specific reason for it is to protect minorities by abuses from the majority. It is not as you are implying the rights of one minority over another. It is an attempt to combat racism that took place predominantly but not exclusively in the South focused primarily on blacks by both government and the private sector. If private businesses were allowed to continue to discriminate even if the practice was outlawed for government, blacks would still have been second rate citizens. What you are advocating is tyranny of the majority, the right to subjugate and suppress the rights of the minority. And, yes, it is very much the responsibility of government to prevent that.
You're expending all these words and none of them are responding to the arguments being presented to you.

There are two components to this:

1) Is there a sound legal basis for outlawing discrimination?
2) What would happen (or have happened) if we hadn't outlawed it?

Personally, I think you're probably wrong about both, but the problem is that you're basically arguing about the 2nd point, even though I've been asking you about the 1st. So I ask you about legality, and you go on some spree about what you think would hve happened without civil rights legislation. It doesn't answer the argument, it's pretty much entirely speculation, and what's worse, it completely ignores everything that's been said about market-based punishment. You can find some of it right here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=771438). I believe it went unanswered.

We are not talking about the freedom to hire who you want.
Of course we are. Laws telling you what criteria you're allowed to use to hire someone (or not hire someone) are restricting people's freedom to hire who they want. How is this arguable?

We are not talking about interpreting the civil rights laws with regard to hiring practices with regard to affirmative action. We are talking about a fundamental right that a person seeking employment not be prevented from being hired for the sole reason he has the wrong skin color.
Do you think calling it a "fundamental right" makes it so? Whether or not it's a right--and/or conflicts with the employer's rights--is the entire point of the argument. Yet you keep assuming the thing being disputed, and then you present that assumption as if it were an argument.

And your narrow casting the argument, a popular libertarian approach, ignores the broader implications, that it would allow discrimination on other levels than hiring, like realtors preventing minorities from moving into white neighborhoods.
I haven't ignored this in the slightest. The arguments I'm making apply to all of these scenarios, as far as I can see. Legally it's the same idea, though I also disagree with your speculation about what it would lead to.

I didn't say that at all. And it is not something completely alien in the constitution either to prevent certain discriminatory practices. The Civil Rights law is simply an extension of the fourteenth amendment, specifically the equal protection clause.
The Equal Protection Clause simply affords equal protection under the law. The dispute here is about what should BE law. Again, you assume the thing being disputed.

Of course freedom of movement is a fundamental right. To prevent someone from moving out of a slum neighborhood, not because he can't afford to live elsewhere, but because neighborhoods and realtors conspire to keep minorities out is a suppression of rights.
Whoa, hold up. I didn't say anything about preventing someone from moving out, I said prevent someone from moving in. Legally, they're completely different. You sure can't stop someone from leaving your house, but you can absolutely tell them they can't come in.

Trying to equate the two, apart from just being flat-out-wrong in a legal sense, would also require you to assume some completely implausible things, like that everyone selling decent housing would engage in unthinkably widespread collusion to sut out minorities. Which requires you to believe that they'd all be able to agree on this, that absolutely no one would be enterprising enough to spot the tremendous money to be made in breaking ranks (or for starting a new business, if they're already outside the industry), that no one would be willing to sublet property or housing, and/or that minorities would somehow not be allowed to start their own housing businesses.

So, not only does none of this address the freedom/legal angle, but it requires some completely implausible world where bigotry completely overwhelms self-interest with nary an exception or anyone taking advantage of their collective, bigoted stupidity. It's a ridiculous notion.

If someone wants to move because they don't like who is moving in based on their skin color they can move out, that is their right. But they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in.
They do if they own the land or the house.

Seriously, please stop replying with things like "they have a fundmeantal right" or "they don't have a right to prevent them from moving in." That's not arguing or debating or discussing, that's just insisting.

You keep creating analogies not based on anything I wrote.
Not at all: it's based on your opinion. In my analogy, you're telling me I can't decide who uses my property unless I can demonstrate that my criteria for deciding that is not racially motivated. It's perfectly analagous to the examples of employment or housing.

What you are saying with regard to rights is completely contradictory to the law even as it is interpeted by conservatives. Again, I never said anyone had a right to a job. I said they had a right not to be discriminated based on their skin color or religion. You avoid that language because you know what you are saying goes against even what mainstram conservatives advocate. Would any of the Supreme Court judges, even Republican nominees, agree with your interpatation of whose rights are being violated when when one group disciminates over another? Answer: No, they wouldn't, none of them.
I do not care what you or anyone else regards as mainstream, extreme, or what percentage of any group of people would say about this. I keep saying this, and yet you keep trotting out references to something's political viability or popularity as if it were an argument.

We're not in a campaign here. You can't "win" by trying to make someone or something look extreme. You can't just ignore an argument because you don't think it has any political momentum. If you want to dispute something, you have to actually explain why it's wrong, not why a majority of this group or that group thinks so.

[will.15]

I want to understand something here before I reply to this: Are you opposed to all aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 including ending Jim Crow laws or only that which prevents discrimination by private employers because the previous post does not make that clear?

And I have news for you. What I describe with regard to realtors, the massive conspiracy you find so implausible, was very common prior to the mid sixties. It isn't a fictional scenario at all.

[Yoda]

I want to understand something here before I reply to this: Are you opposed to all aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 including ending Jim Crow laws or only that which prevents discrimination by private employers because the previous post does not make that clear?
I'm surprised you feel this was left unclear, but I'll gladly clarify: I am only talking about the provisions concerned with private employers. The rest was inarguably necessary; racial prejudice has absolutely no place in government. My comments are entirely about whether or not it's our place (let alone really plausible) to try to outlaw it in private.

This is Ron Paul's position, as well: he said he would have voted against the bill, but "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws." (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/)

And I have news for you. What I describe with regard to realtors, the massive conspiracy you find so implausible, was very common prior to the mid sixties. It isn't a fictional scenario at all.
Except that your argument about equating moving out with moving in hinges on it being all-encompassing. And even if it were, that still wouldn't address the market-based punishment. It leaves them wide open to anyone who values self-interest more than bigotry, or even to any enterprising minority individual of means.

[will.15]

I gotta go, but here is a link showing what you seem to think should be legal.

http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm

I am aware of Ron Paul's distinction, but your previous post was ambiguous when you mentioned the Civil Rights Act.

[will.15]

I found this which does a better job of explaining why it is government's responsibility.

Following his tea-party insurgent Senate primary victory over the establishment Republican candidate in Kentucky, Rand Paul created waves when Rachel Maddow forced him, uncomfortably, to admit his opposition to parts of the Civil Rights Act (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/20/rand-paul-taking-heat-for-civil-rights-act-comments/). To many in the civil rights community, and to the political center, this comes as a shock.
It shouldn’t be.
For years, libertarians opposed government interference with private business, whether that means opposition to environmental regulation, labor laws, or anti-discrimination laws. The son of libertarian presidential candidate, Ron Paul, it’s not surprising that Rand Paul also believes those things. Rand Paul has made it clear that he’s not in favor of a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that he supports the vast majority of it. What’s the problem then? He specifically opposes the provisions that prohibit discrimination in what are known as ‘public accommodations,’ which are really private businesses such as hotels, movie theaters, or lunch counters.
His view is that, while private racial discrimination is anathema and despicable, it’s not something that the government should regulate. His argument, a libertarian argument, is that regulating private discrimination goes beyond the sphere of government authority. In addition, he argues, private discrimination is better regulated by market forces. In his view, and in the view of many libertarians, the private market would regulate and weed out businesses that discriminate, since business with what economists call a ‘taste for discrimination’ would lose patrons.
They are wrong.
They are wrong, first and foremost, because they miss the point. Discrimination isn’t about economic efficiency; it’s about morality, fairness, and a basic conception of equality; it’s about justice.
There is a broad literature in economics about the efficiency of slavery, and whether, in time, the institution of slavery would have withered and died, as it did in many northern states. This literature, while fascinating, is beside the point. The abolition of slavery was a moral imperative, not an economic one. The abolitionist movement emphasized the contradiction between the values of the young nation and the institution of slavery, a contradiction which the founding fathers struggled with.
Similarly, the prohibition of private discrimination in ‘public accommodations’ is a moral issue, as are a host of regulations we impose on business. For example, we prohibit businesses from exploiting child labor based on a moral judgment which says that it is wrong. At the turn of the 20th Century, growing opposition to child labor in the North caused many factories to move to the South, until national child labor laws were passed.
Rand Paul’s viewpoint, that private discrimination on the basis of race should not be illegal, would seem to suggest that he opposes the 1968 Civil Rights Act (aka the Fair Housing Act) in its entirety, since, unlike the Voting Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act targeted private individuals, not states. And, his position would also seem to permit discrimination not just on the basis of race, but on the basis of sex, religion, familial status, and disability. Someone should ask him if he would repeal the Fair Housing Act, since that is the logical consequence of his position. Then, he wouldn’t be able to hide behind state-targeted provisions.
But there are also other reasons which make it wrong. Rand Paul claims that “intent of the legislation… was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.” He’s wrong. The Civil Rights Act was not simply targeted at state sponsored behavior. After all, the Jim Crow laws and the public segregation and discrimination embodied in them were a manifestation of the values of the society, and the individuals within it.
In the South, segregation and Jim Crow were an expression of the values of the society, of the extant social norms and mores. Those values were also present in the north, except that segregation was more a matter of practice and custom than legislation. The Civil Rights Act targeted those laws, without question, but it also targeted the practices, values, norms, and prejudices from which those institutional forms of discrimination were an expression. It targeted the North, not simply the South. Rand Paul and other libertarians are attempting to rewrite history by suggesting that the Civil Rights Acts were merely targeting the institutionalized expression of these values. The Fair Housing Act (aka Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act), which targeted private housing discrimination, belies this point.
But even more deeply, the private/public distinction at the heart of the libertarian argument is flawed. As Justice Kennedy put it in his concurrence in Parents Involved: “The distinction between government and private action, furthermore, can be amorphous both as a historical matter and as a matter of present-day finding of fact. Laws arise from a culture and vice versa. Neither can assign to the other all responsibility for persisting injustices” (emphasis added).
He’s absolutely right.
In fact, the relationship between individual racist attitudes and law is at the heart of Chief Justice Taney infamous Dred Scot opinion. Chief Justice Taney held that persons of African descent were not – and could never be – citizens of the United States because white folks, not simply white governments, regarded them as inferior. It was the way in which white people in their private pursuits regarded black folk, not simply how states and white governments regarded them that was decisive:
“[Persons of African descent] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”

[wintertriangles]

I don't see any of the above coming into affect even if he's president for 8 years, so it doesn't matter. Hell it doesn't matter if it did because people are getting better at not being prejudice against race or sex.

[will.15]

It doesn't matter so much now, it would have mattered in 1964. And we wouldn't have gotten where we are now without that civil rights act passed.

[will.15]

On page 8 on this thread they have an ad at top that says "Help Ron Paul secure our borders." What the heck is Ron Paul's plan ? It is this total load:


A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.
If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.


Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/) reform proposals.
(What is he saying there exactly? Nothing. And he is lying. Whatever it takes would include building a fence and he somehow forgets to mention in his manifesto he is against that. I am not for a fence, but he said whatever it takes, and a fence as expensive as it would be to build and maintain certainly would be a big factor in controlling the border.)
Enforce visa rules. Immigration (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/) officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
Reply below:


(Very nice, and that is already government policy. And what steps would he take to make enforcement more effective? Oh, my, he left that part out!)
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
Okay, nothing new there, but doesn't in itself do anything to control the border.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
Very extreme position and not the no welfare part, they don't qualify for it in the first place. But what he says as explanation goes beyond that. He wants to keep them out of public schools. We're not talking about in-state tuition to universities here We are talking about putting thousands of immigrant children on the streets instead of going to public schools. And what do you think they would be doing on the streets instead of going to school? You won't see I bet too many at the public library (where Ron Paul won't let them check out books). But you might see them on the street pushing drugs or breaking into grandma's house.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
So Ron Paul who normally interprets the Constitution literally now wants to violate it because there is an amendment that flatly says if you are born on American soil you are an American citizen. Apparently Ron Paul is not the strictest of Libertarians after all.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
What exactly is he saying here? Nothing except he is against what he calls current reform proposals, doesn't discuss them, and advocates "true immigration reform." And never says what it is!

[Fiscal]

Dr. Paul is killing this debate!

Also, Perry and Romney are like children up there, it is embarassing. Mitt was on the verge of straight up yelling at one point.

[Yoda]

You Paulites always think he kills. ;) He often does well, but I think he was only so-so in this one. Criticizing all our bases around the world is a bit much. A good case can be made for scaling things back, but really? He wants to know why we have a presence in Korea? That doesn't take a lot of thought.

I thought Romney behaved fine: he was mad that he was continually interrupted. He had every right to be.

[will.15]

When Cain crashes it will be Ron Paul's turn to challenge Romney.

[Fiscal]

You Paulites always think he kills. ;) He often does well, but I think he was only so-so in this one. Criticizing all our bases around the world is a bit much. A good case can be made for scaling things back, but really? He wants to know why we have a presence in Korea? That doesn't take a lot of thought.

I thought Romney behaved fine: he was mad that he was continually interrupted. He had every right to be.

Dude, right now I am in a squadron who's contingency operation focus is North Korea. Our presence in South Korea right now is completely pointless. If North Korea attacks, they are wiping out Seoul immediately. It will be bombs and drones that have first impact with North Koreans, then boots on the ground deployed from the states after the fact. Getting out of Korea will not only save money, but save lives if there is a contingency.

[Fiscal]

THIS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIAVKUqeuQw&feature=player_embedded

[will.15]

Dude, right now I am in a squadron who's contingency operation focus is North Korea. Our presence in South Korea right now is completely pointless. If North Korea attacks, they are wiping out Seoul immediately. It will be bombs and drones that have first impact with North Koreans, then boots on the ground deployed from the states after the fact. Getting out of Korea will not only save money, but save lives if there is a contingency.
I don't think your scenario is necessarily what they would do. Our presence there is a deterrent. It saves lives because it makes an attack by NK less likely. With American troops there a strike would also be an attack on the United States. It definitley saves lives in my book.

[Fiscal]

SK would be trampeled especially if NK wanted to attack the US large scale.

[will.15]

But they don't want to, they don't want to provoke a nuclear confontation (not yet anyway).

Our presence keeps NK out of SK and has since the fifties.

[Yoda]

I believe you, but who says the absolutely only reason to have a presence in South Korea is to repel an invasion?

[Fiscal]

So lets continue to let South Korea cut their military (drastically I might add) and invest in their broken economy. We can just continue to be the majority military in the country, afterall, there is no relationship like a guardian/dependent relationship, right?

Look, we should totally be their friend, and we should totally discourage North Korea from an invasion. But, at what point does being a country with independence mean that they should actually have said independence and defend themselves?

[Yoda]

A fair question, but it's one I wonder if Ron Paul is as thoughtful about as you are. It's true that some degree of military presence encourages a country to become dependent...but that sounds like an argument for having moderate or contingency-based presences, not shutting them all down, or gutting most of them. Ron Paul didn't ask last night why we had so many troops in South Korea, he asked why we had to have a presence there at all.

I'd really like to like Ron Paul more, but his ideological cohesion (which is impressive, no doubt) has a cost, and that cost is that he only seems to hold absolute principles, even on issues that are difficult enough that a half-measure might be most prudent.

I do think there is one significant flaw that underpins most of his foreign policy: that it might work if it were employed from the start, and consistently, throughout our history. But as a change, I'm not so sure. I don't believe in isolationism, regardless, but I believe in it even less as a sudden shift.

[Fiscal]

cough...non interventionism...cough :)

I don't know man, this is the point I come across with a lot of people. So, Republicans think he is extreme. I'd like to think I am a Republican, at least conservative - but probably fall more in line with Libertarian. Whatever all those words mean. Anyway, I realize that some just believe his foreign policy could be damaging. Me, on the other hand, I think the foreign policy beliefs of people like Santorum, Perry, and other far right conservatives to be straight up frightening. I mean, there are so many countries that fit their mold of anti american, I don't want to end up deploying to, what is it now, Uganda? Christ.

[wintertriangles]

Dude, right now I am in a squadron who's contingency operation focus is North Korea. Our presence in South Korea right now is completely pointless. If North Korea attacks, they are wiping out Seoul immediately. It will be bombs and drones that have first impact with North Koreans, then boots on the ground deployed from the states after the fact. Getting out of Korea will not only save money, but save lives if there is a contingency.I'm hoping NK never thinks about it. A world without SK would be a very sad one. I think, assuming Ron Paul gets the bill, depending on the method of the attack by NK, that being a nuke or something similar, we would aid them. I don't think he would just ignore it. Though, assuming he may ignore it, are there any countries, Japan, China, someone from Europe, who would help them if we didn't? Actually, would we be helping in tandem with any other country?

[Sedai]

You Paulites always think he kills. ;) He often does well, but I think he was only so-so in this one. Criticizing all our bases around the world is a bit much. A good case can be made for scaling things back, but really? He wants to know why we have a presence in Korea? That doesn't take a lot of thought.

I thought Romney behaved fine: he was mad that he was continually interrupted. He had every right to be.

My understanding is that the presence we do have is nothing but a mere speed bump for the North Koreans if they actually decided to invade. More of a show of support than an effective military wedge...

EDIT
Ah, should have kept reading - Fiscal beat me to it.

@Chris - At what point do we draw the line though? If our own country is deteriorating, at some point, we need to pull all the oars in and take care of our own. What good is a US presence in SK if we overextend ourselves so much that we can't effectively do...anything.

[Yoda]

I found this which does a better job of explaining why it is government's responsibility.
(snip)
I have read this entire thing twice. It really only seems to make one thing that approximates an argument: it says that discrimination is really bad, and that we should make it illegal in a number of areas based on that alone. Seriously, that's the only argument it makes that has any bearing on our discussion. It makes it with lots of historical context, but that's the only specific argument here. It does this by saying "hey, slavery was awful and we made that illegal. So why not discrimination?" The easy answer is that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that slavery contradicts this. So, when we acknowledge that African-Americans are also men, we have no legal grounds to deny them these rights. There is no corresponding right to be sold a property, a product, or to be granted a job.

This is how the law works: your right to swing your first ends where the other man's nose begins. Your freedoms extend as far as they can without contradicting someone else's. When someone is holding you hostage, they are violating a basic freedom. When someone refuses to sell something to you because they're a bigoted tool, they are not violating your freedom, because the ability to purchase that thing is not among your basic rights. Thus, there is no comparison.

I also want to point out something else: I'm fine with arguing with whatever you want to toss out here, but at some point you need to start exhibiting some discretion about your arguments. Because, initially, you said discrimination should be illegal because it's "wrong." When I pointed out (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770496) that lots of things are morally wrong but not illegal (and shouldn't be illegal), you called the idea "extreme" and ignored it, moving on to something else. It was a nonsense argument.

Now, I don't want to be that guy who wants to score cheap argumentative points at the expense of pursuing the real truth of the matter. If you want to abandon one line of argument for another that you now believe is better, that's fine. But I'd like the occasional acknowledgement if you're going to do that, or at least a bit more caution about what you advance to begin with. Because right now, you're basically making me mop up after these very ill-considered lines of arguments, shooting down things that should never have been suggested because they're so easily refuted, only to have it glossed over when you move on to something else. That's pretty weak sauce, dude.

All that said, if you wish to continue, the last unanswered post is right here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=771767).

[Yoda]

cough...non interventionism...cough :)

I don't know man, this is the point I come across with a lot of people. So, Republicans think he is extreme. I'd like to think I am a Republican, at least conservative - but probably fall more in line with Libertarian. Whatever all those words mean. Anyway, I realize that some just believe his foreign policy could be damaging. Me, on the other hand, I think the foreign policy beliefs of people like Santorum, Perry, and other far right conservatives to be straight up frightening. I mean, there are so many countries that fit their mold of anti american, I don't want to end up deploying to, what is it now, Uganda? Christ.
The idea that an overly aggressive foreign policy can be just as dangerous as an isolationist one is a reasonable position, but it's not much of a defense of Paul specifically; it's more a condemnation of others. I'd rather not choose, ya' know?

I mean, we can pick or choose what we agree with here. You can maintain that Paul's foreign policy is better overall, for you, than someone like Santorum, while acknowledging that his "who cares if Iran has nukes?" position is a genuinely worrisome stance. The problem, if I may be blunt, is that Paul inspires such loyalty that people seem very loathe to parse out what they do or don't agree with him with, and it leads to them defending the entirety of a position that they probably don't entirely agree with. I think Paul's views on foreign policy go too far in a few issues like Iran. Do you agree?

[Yoda]

My understanding is that the presence we do have is nothing but a mere speed bump for the North Koreans if they actually decided to invade. More of a show of support than an effective military wedge...

EDIT
Ah, should have kept reading - Fiscal beat me to it.

@Chris - At what point do we draw the line though? If our own country is deteriorating, at some point, we need to pull all the oars in and take care of our own. What good is a US presence in SK if we overextend ourselves so much that we can't effectively do...anything.
Not much good at all, but I don't feel that's a choice we actually face. There's probably some fat to cut in military spending, but there's way more elsewhere, and Paul's rhetoric about budget problems, while totally accurate, does not inevitably lead to his conclusions about withdrawal from all over the world. They're an argument for a cutback, but whether or not that means getting out of basically everywhere or not is an area where we still have plenty of discretion.

We draw the line as best we can, of course. But Paul draws the line with pretty much everything on the other side.

[Yoda]

My understanding is that the presence we do have is nothing but a mere speed bump for the North Koreans if they actually decided to invade. More of a show of support than an effective military wedge...

EDIT
Ah, should have kept reading - Fiscal beat me to it.

@Chris - At what point do we draw the line though? If our own country is deteriorating, at some point, we need to pull all the oars in and take care of our own. What good is a US presence in SK if we overextend ourselves so much that we can't effectively do...anything.
Not much good at all, but I don't feel that's a choice we actually face. There's probably some fat to cut in military spending yet, but there's way more elsewhere. The main thing, though, is that Paul's fact does not lead to his conclusion. He is good and right to put out that we can't pay for everything, and that cutbacks are necessary, perhaps even in this area. But there's no logical reason that premise must lead him to the conclusion that we need to withdraw from pretty much everywhere.

[will.15]

I have read this entire thing twice. It really only seems to make one thing that approximates an argument: it says that discrimination is really bad, and that we should make it illegal in a number of areas based on that alone. Seriously, that's the only argument it makes that has any bearing on our discussion. It makes it with lots of historical context, but that's the only specific argument here. It does this by saying "hey, slavery was awful and we made that illegal. So why not discrimination?" The easy answer is that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that slavery contradicts this. So, when we acknowledge that African-Americans are also men, we have no legal grounds to deny them these rights. There is no corresponding right to be sold a property, a product, or to be granted a job.

This is how the law works: your right to swing your first ends where the other man's nose begins. Your freedoms extend as far as they can without contradicting someone else's. When someone is holding you hostage, they are violating a basic freedom. When someone refuses to sell something to you because they're a bigoted tool, they are not violating your freedom, because the ability to purchase that thing is not among your basic rights. Thus, there is no comparison.

I also want to point out something else: I'm fine with arguing with whatever you want to toss out here, but at some point you need to start exhibiting some discretion about your arguments. Because, initially, you said discrimination should be illegal because it's "wrong." When I pointed out (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=770496) that lots of things are morally wrong but not illegal (and shouldn't be illegal), you called the idea "extreme" and ignored it, moving on to something else. It was a nonsense argument.

Now, I don't want to be that guy who wants to score cheap argumentative points at the expense of pursuing the real truth of the matter. If you want to abandon one line of argument for another that you now believe is better, that's fine. But I'd like the occasional acknowledgement if you're going to do that, or at least a bit more caution about what you advance to begin with. Because right now, you're basically making me mop up after these very ill-considered lines of arguments, shooting down things that should never have been suggested because they're so easily refuted, only to have it glossed over when you move on to something else. That's pretty weak sauce, dude.

All that said, if you wish to continue, the last unanswered post is right here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=771767)..
Make that argument to Rand Paul who suddenly decided during a campaign for the Senate, doing an about turn in 24 hours, that he wasn't for private segregation after all and specifically endorsed what that argument I linked is about, that all types of segregation, both private and public, had become such a serious problem in the South it was necessary for government to step in and make both kinds illegal.

[Yoda]

If you produce Rand Paul, I will gladly make that argument to him. But he's not here, so I'm presenting it to you, and I'm fairly certain that his flip-flop has no bearing on its validity.

[will.15]

The validity is you cannot get elected to the Senate even in the South anymore by taking that position. His father gets away with it because he is Ron Paul in a safe long held House seat and it is consistent with libertarian ideology, which is what he really is. But you are not a libertarian and to cherry pick one of the more extreme libertarian positions while rejecting others that are in the same thought process I don't get. I answered your questions and you chose not to accept them so I am not going to the dance anymore of debating something both mainstream parties have rejected. That is as close as you can get to truth in political thought, when an idea becomes anathema to both main political parties. It is like talking about bringing Prohibition back.

[Yoda]

You replied to them, but I don't think you answered them. The overwhelming majority of your responses simply say that racial discrimination is really bad (no argument there), merely insist that people have a right not to be discriminated against (assuming the point of contention), and repeat again and again that you think the view is out of the mainstream (no argument there, either).

At no point in this process did I suggest that any of these ideas were popular, so it's bizarre to try to argue about them for awhile and then introduce that lack of popularity as a disqualifier. You knew that to begin with, yet you made some half-hearted attempts to go back and forth anyway. Nothing has changed, yet suddenly this lack of plausability means there's no reason to discuss it? That's pretty odd.

My position is that I don't think most people ask themselves these questions, and therefore they're caught completely off-guard by them. They write off having to think about them precisely because they're outside of the mainstream, but that is decidedly not the same thing as saying there are intellectually defensible arguments for them. The argument for Civil Rights wasn't mainstream at one point, either, yet clearly it is correct independent of that. This relativist approach to any political issue doesn't really wash, regardless of which position you take.

[will.15]

I said more than your summation and the last link I posted certainly said more, addressing specific libertarian arguments, and as far as I can tell the ones you were also making, but when a position like this has so thorougly been rejected by the public and both political parties, when a political candidate makes a quick repudiation of comments supporting your position because of fear the controversy it generated would doom his chances, it hardly seems a point worth debating. It has been settled.

[Yoda]

As I said, I read the article you posted, and the only thing it really tackles is Paul's suggestion as to where the legislation was targeted. That's not addressing a libertarian argument on this issue, just fact-checking a quote, and not one that these arguments are contingent on. And then it sweeps every else under the rug with "well, it's really wrong." I'm serious, I read the thing twice, and that's the whole argument.

To say the issue is "settled" is confusing: it was "settled" in the other direction before, but that was wrong, yes? And yet you could have used the same logic to dismiss early Civil Rights activists. And, again, it's been "settled" during the whole discussion, so I'm not sure what that's just now become relevant.

[will.15]

As I said, I read the article you posted, and the only thing it really tackles is Paul's suggestion as to where the legislation was targeted. That's not addressing a libertarian argument on this issue, just fact-checking a quote, and not one that these arguments are contingent on. And then it sweeps every else under the rug with "well, it's really wrong." I'm serious, I read the thing twice, and that's the whole argument.

To say the issue is "settled" is confusing: it was "settled" in the other direction before, but that was wrong, yes? And yet you could have used the same logic to dismiss early Civil Rights activists. And, again, it's been "settled" during the whole discussion, so I'm not sure what that's just now become relevant.
It wasn't settled before, it was settled the same way slavery was settled, opinion kept evolving and eventually the status quo, the existing view lost. There is no struggle now about what you are talking about. There is no serious discussion, just what some libertarian types (and most libertarians avoid this discussion) may mumble about when no one is listening. It is really silly to equate this issue with the civil rights debate.There is no serious debate regarding this, no movement at all to bring back private discrimination. Even when Rand Paul got into trouble he conceeded it was settled law. Then when he got into big doo-doo trouble he went even further and said he actually supported the legislation, all of it, and would have voted for it if he was around then. Do you realize what an enormous turnaround he did? Was he sincere? I doubt it, but he was under enormous pressure by fellow Republicans to get the hell away from arguing private discrimination was okay. Nobody finds your arguments persuasive except libertarians and some old unrepentent racists. Let the marketplace deal with racism? That's the best approach? Much better than passing laws. Har! Har! Har!

[Yoda]

It wasn't settled before, it was settled the same way slavery was settled, opinion kept evolving and eventually the status quo, the existing view lost. There is no struggle now about what you are talking about. There is no serious discussion, just what some libertarian types (and most libertarians avoid this discussion) may mumble about when no one is listening.
If you're suggesting that there was no point in the entire history of slavery and civil rights where the issue was relatively static for a time, I seriously doubt it. At some point, it was settled and uncontroversial. It's looking back over a much broader sweep of history that it becomes obvious there was support over time. But that's neither here nor there, because the point is that just because something has no immediate political viability, it doesn't mean it isn't right, and the only time anything significant ever changes is when someone challenges something that appears settled. To brush away an unpopular or unusual idea because it's unpopular or unusual is circular. It's a non-argument.

There is no serious debate regarding this, no movement at all to bring back private discrimination. Even when Rand Paul got into trouble he conceeded it was settled law. Then when he got into big doo-doo trouble he went even further and said he actually supported the legislation, all of it, and would have voted for it if he was around then. Do you realize what an enormous turnaround he did? Was he sincere? I doubt it, but he was under enormous pressure by fellow Republicans to get the hell away from arguing private discrimination was okay.
Yet again, another long paragraph that just says "this is outside of the mainstream." You spend way more time saying this sort of thing than you do explaining why something is supposed to be wrong.

Nobody finds your arguments persuasive except libertarians and some old unrepentent racists. Let the marketplace deal with racism? That's the best approach? Much better than passing laws. Har! Har! Har!
As I pointed out in another thread (though you made me chase you around in a couple of pointless circles first), viability and persuasiveness have no relation to validity. I can link you to those again, but it's a pretty inarguable premise.

You get to ignore arguments you don't feel are worth having, but you don't get to brush them off and pretend you've addressed them. So, really, post an argument or move on, please.

[will.15]

Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=774495#post774495)
It wasn't settled before, it was settled the same way slavery was settled, opinion kept evolving and eventually the status quo, the existing view lost. There is no struggle now about what you are talking about. There is no serious discussion, just what some libertarian types (and most libertarians avoid this discussion) may mumble about when no one is listening.
If you're suggesting that there was no point in the entire history of slavery and civil rights where the issue was relatively static for a time, I seriously doubt it. At some point, it was settled and uncontroversial. It's looking back over a much broader sweep of history that it becomes obvious there was support over time. But that's neither here nor there, because the point is that just because something has no immediate political viability, it doesn't mean it isn't right, and the only time anything significant ever changes is when someone challenges something that appears settled. To brush away an unpopular or unusual idea because it's unpopular or unusual is circular. It's a non-argument

It's a non argument because you don't have an argument worth debating. The issue of segregation and slavery, even when it was more accepted, always had some real meaningful opposition. There were always important voices speaking out against it. There was never a time when opposition was as marginalized as the issue of private discrimination. Your argument exists in a little room with locked doors and bars on the widows.. It is irrelevant today and has zero chance of changing its status. Rand Paul found that out.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Read more things about Ron Paul -- don't want to get into it right now, but, yeah, totally for this man now. Forget all I said about supporting Barack Obama.

[will.15]

Now that they found new dirt about Newt Ron Paul might be new flavor of the month. Yeah, Republicans nominate him because you don't want Romney.

[Yoda]

Never noticed this reply before. Thankfully, responding to it won't take much time.

It's a non argument because you don't have an argument worth debating. The issue of segregation and slavery, even when it was more accepted, always had some real meaningful opposition. There were always important voices speaking out against it. There was never a time when opposition was as marginalized as the issue of private discrimination.
I can't imagine how you're quantifying this, but I suspect it's with some very nebulous definition of "meaningful opposition." The point is the same, regardless: it was "settled" in the sense that it had no chance of changing anytime soon. Almost every idea is like this at some point. But whether you can acknowledge this basic fact or not is irrelevant, because the viability of something, as I've explained in excruciating detail in several threads, has zero to do with whether or not it is rational or defensible. I am running out of ways to say this to you.

Your argument exists in a little room with locked doors and bars on the widows.. It is irrelevant today and has zero chance of changing its status. Rand Paul found that out.
I am completely uninterested in appeals to authority. They are not arguments. We are not in a campaign. We are not trying to convince an audience. Therefore, attempts to dismiss ideas based on whether or not you can make the case that they are outside the mainstream do not work. It's really that simple. I realize this is probably a position that you never thought you'd have to defend, but now you're in a position where someone is asking you to defend it. So either defend it, or please move on. But finding a dozen ways to express the same disbelief that you're in such a position is a big waste of time for all involved.

[will.15]

There is nothing to defend at this point. It is settled. Nobody except on the fringe accepts your position. I already stated the reasons for laws against it and you rejected it. Just because you don't like the reasoning doesn't mean I haven't addressed the question. And there was always real opposition to slavery in the North. I assume you are talking about American slavery and not what was going on thousands of years ago. I don't know why you think this is important enough to debate. It is a very extreme position way out of the mainstream of political thought for conservatives as well as liberals. You say defend it or move on. The last post on the subject was three weeks ago so I already moved on until you just revived it.


EDIT
I just looked at a timeline for the anti slavery movement in the United States and there was one from almost as soon as it was introduced and in fact slavery quickly died out in the North because of it and remained in the South because of economic factors, but the anti slavery movement remained trying to end it there. It was always a real issue. The reality is your debate was already settled in 1964, just as the Civil War ended the slavery debate. Where is the make private discrimination legal movement in the United States? There isn't one, just a talking point for some Libertarians. Even Rand Paul before his flip-flop said it was settled law.

[Yoda]

There is nothing to defend at this point. It is settled. Nobody except on the fringe accepts your position.
...and again. Do you understand that this is a logical fallacy? That's not a rhetorical question, I am literally asking you that, because you employ it constantly. If you do understand that it's a logical fallacy (and why), then why do you invoke it so incredibly often? Please explain the thought process to me.

I already stated the reasons for laws against it and you rejected it. Just because you don't like the reasoning doesn't mean I haven't addressed the question.
But you haven't. The discussion went like this: you made a few attempts early on which consisted almost entirely of saying the belief wasn't mainstream. I kept pressing, you kept dodging, and eventually you gave up (leaving specific questions still unanswered) and pasted someone else's article. As lame as that is, I read it anyway and extracted the only thing resembling an argument from it, and reiterated my contentions right here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=774271). You then replied with a completely naked evasion referencing Rand Paul's flip-flop. When I pressed you again, you said exactly what you're saying now: that you felt no need to reply to something which is "settled." You did that two or three times in a row. 95% of your responses have consisted of saying you don't have to defend your position. The other 5% have been stalling and failing to answer even simple questions. I am not spinning or exagerating here: I can easily link you to specific examples of everything I've summarized above.

As I said two posts ago: if you decide that a "settled" political issue is not something you care to discuss, that's fine. But you don't get to simultaneously maintain the fiction that you've addressed the arguments here, too.

And there was always real opposition to slavery in the North. I assume you are talking about American slavery and not what was going on thouands of years ago. I don't know why you think this is important enough to debate. It is a very extreme position way out of the mainstream of political thought for consevatives as well as liberals. You say defend it or move on. The last post on the subject was three weeks ago so I already moved on until you just revived it.
I "revived" it because I didn't notice your reply before now. A reply which did nothing more than invoke the exact same logical fallacy I've been calling you out for for literally months now.

[will.15]

It is an unpleasant thing to go back and forth on, to argue for the legality of racism as long as it isn't being done by government. What is the point when only a very tiny percentage of people advocate it, and while it comes out of Libertarian thought, it is hardly something most Libertarians think is worth debating. You mischaracterize many of the things I said earlier. I reiterate, just because you don't think I didn't address the issue doesn't mean I didn't. And what I posted from another site made many of the same points I did. I posted it because they were making the same arguments more articulately and you decided they were not. That is your choice. But if that is the case, people who think the way I do, the overwhelming majority today, are wrong, then why is it your sides' position has been so soundly rejected in the world of public opinion?

[Yoda]

It is an unpleasant thing to go back and forth on, to argue for the legality of racism as long as it isn't being done by government.
Well, sure it is. But it would also be an unpleasant thing to defend the KKK's right to exist based on Freedom of Speech. Freedom means tolerating a lot of seemingly intolerable things. It is not as superficially clean as fascism.

That's the more abstract part of this argument: the idea that something is just wrong is not a defense of making it illegal. You made this very point to someone else in the abortion thread, so I know you understand the concept. The argument has to consist of more than that. But so far, it hasn't.

What is the point when only a very tiny percentage of people advocate it, and while it comes out of Libertarian thought, it is hardly something most Libertarians think is worth debating.
The point is to think clearly about issues and form a coherent, consistent ideology. Thinking clearly should be its own reason, but if you need a more practical one, it is simply this: the more clearly you think about even the issues on the fringe of the mainstream, the less likely you are to contradict yourself. When people dismiss ideas for superficial reasons different parts of their beliefs end up colliding with one another.

Also, it's not as if there's any "point" to having any other political discussion, necessarily. If you hold up the ability to effect change as the only reason to have these conversations, then I'm not sure you'd find a sufficient reason to have any of them, regardless of whether or not they were mainstream.

You mischaracterize many of the things I said earlier. I reiterate, just because you don't think I didn't address the issue doesn't mean I didn't. And what I posted from another site made many of the same points I did. I posted it because they were making the same arguments more articulately and you decided they were not. That is your choice.
I assure you, it is not a choice, it's a simple fact. If you're actually going to make me show you the arguments and explain the actual mechanics of how they were not answered, I absolutely will. But that shouldn't be necessary, if only because most of those arguments were ultimately just ignored. Borrowing someone else's articulation is fine, but in this case it just side-stepped all the specific issues we were talking about. And on top of that, it made only one argument, and it was purely a moral plea supplemented by fact-checking a quote.

But if that is the case, people who think the way I do, the overwhelming majority today, are wrong, then why is it your sides' position has been so soundly rejected in the world of public opinion?
Because racism is terrible and it's tempting and easy to think we can and should fight it with legislation, even if that means we have to trample on someone else's property rights to do it. Because we've become accustomed to the idea that, when something is wrong, the government must swoop in and make it right. Because nobody likes defending bigots, so it's very easy for the law to overreach when it harms them.

It's an understandable error. I get why otherwise reasonable people make it. But I still think it's generally an error. That said, it's still not entirely accurate to call it "my sides' position." I am highly sympathetic to the libertarian position on this, but largely because I find the arguments against it to be pretty terrible. But I'm not married to it, so I'm trying to have a (potentially interesting) discussion about whether or not the position is valid, and why/why not. And 95% of what I'm getting back are reasons why you don't have to give me any reasons because you don't think the idea is popular enough.

But since you brought up public opinion: what of the questions I asked about appeals to authority? I have to ask again, because it's pretty clear to me that you're just going to keep invoking it. So what's the issue? Do you not understand that it's a logical fallacy? Do you not care? Do you want to somehow try to argue that it really isn't? If not, why do you keep invoking it?

[will.15]

Nobody's property rights are affected when it says you can't discriminate any more than zoning laws that restict what you can build on your property or how to maintain it. (And actually much less)

Free speech is a protected constitutional right. Preventing a white person from renting to a person because of skin color or selling property to them isn't.

[Yoda]

First off, zoning laws restrict where you can build things. Laws against discrimination attempt to restrict the reason for doing something. It attempts to codify and control thought and purpose. But moreover, you can make a good argument that zoning laws are a form of government overreach, too. They certainly create new avenues for abuse, constrain efficient use of land, and there have been successful court cases challenging some of them. They are hardly a paragon of unobjectionable property regulation.

You know what else is in the Constitution, by the way? This:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
They specifically inserted an article to guard against people trying to use the absence of a specifically enumerated right to infer that those rights did not exist. We have a right to property, so unless you dispute that, I don't see what your distinction is meant to accomplish. I am not making a Constitutional argument, nor have I aspired to.

Also, you've ignored the majority of my post, including my direct, repeated request for an explanation about appeals to authority. Please tell me why I should continue answering the questions you ask when you a) ignore most of the answers and b) never respond to the questions posed to you with anything approaching regularity.

[Sedai]

What is the point when only a very tiny percentage of people advocate it, and while it comes out of Libertarian thought, it is hardly something most Libertarians think is worth debating.

Yes, because racism, which has been around for like, ever, was caused by a modern political movement.

What a keen insight!

Nobody's property rights are affected when it says you can't discriminate any more than zoning laws that restict what you can build on your property or how to maintain it. (And actually much less)

Free speech is a protected constitutional right. Preventing a white person from renting to a person because of skin color or selling property to them isn't.

Listen up closely to this one, kids. It's all about the only clearly obvious racists: Those mean ol' white people! Only white people are racist, because no one has ever, and I mean EVER discriminated against a white person for the color of THEIR skin...NO WAY.

Racist much? Either that, or the self-loathing is through the roof.

And you are RIGHT - People can choose to do whatever they want with their own property no matter WHAT the reason. People don't have a right to rent someone's property.

Myself? I'd not rent from a racist, personally; I hate racists.

[DexterRiley]

Ron Paul getting trolled on Face the Nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQGpr1ERamA

[Yoda]

Looking forward to checking that out when I get back.

I do like the guy more than I did four years ago. There's an interesting theory about the consequences of being literal that comes from one of Chuck Klosterman's Eating the Dinosaur--he uses it to describe Ralph Nader, but I think it might describe Paul, too, despite their vastly different ideologies.

Really wish he had different stances on foreign policy, but I'm glad he's moving the debate, if nothing else. Still hysterical listening to news anchors ask him questions that basically have him tutoring them about what libertarianism is.

[DexterRiley]

Ironically his stance on Foreign policy is probably what i like best.

[Yoda]

Ron Paul brings very strange groups of people together. His must be the only political rallies where the supporters fight with each other.

[Sedai]

I'm strange

[DexterRiley]

well thats what happens in a 2 party system that orally sounds different, but in practise not so much.

It creates a ginormous opening for a 3rd voice. In truth Paul isnt a Republican, he is a libertarian. But because the Repubs and Democrats control the national TV debates and 3rd parties aren't welcome, he had no choice.

Its an interesting time to be a Republican i would think. On the one hand, Give Paul the nomination and get behind him, and with the independents voting, Obama is toast.

On the other hand, Paul will kill the golden goose that is War profiteering not to mention closing up loopholes in the financial system and Obama wholly owned by Goldman Sachs will do no such thing.

[will.15]

well thats what happens in a 2 party system that orally sounds different, but in practise not so much.

It creates a ginormous opening for a 3rd voice. In truth Paul isnt a Republican, he is a libertarian. But because the Repubs and Democrats control the national TV debates and 3rd parties aren't welcome, he had no choice.

Its an interesting time to be a Republican i would think. On the one hand, Give Paul the nomination and get behind him, and with the independents voting, Obama is toast.

On the other hand, Paul will kill the golden goose that is War profiteering not to mention closing up loopholes in the financial system and Obama wholly owned by Goldman Sachs will do no such thing.
Give him the nomination and the Republican Party is toast. He may carry the deeply Southern states and some farm states with few electoral votes, but he would lose everywhere else. But there is no way he will get the nomination. He might fluke out with all the Tea Party candidates flaming out and the aversion to Romney from them and actually barely win Iowa, but that would be about it. He won't win any primary states.

The idea there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a joke.

[Fiscal]

Give him the nomination and the Republican Party is toast.

http://i54.tinypic.com/se4kua.jpg

[DexterRiley]

The idea there isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a joke.

ideolgies are different. In practise though, tell me what are the huge differences?

Both love the war
Both cater to the richest of the rich when tax cuts are in play.
Both like to pander to main street until elected anyway.

[will.15]

Republicans love war a little more than Democrats.

Democrats don't cater to the rich as much as Republicans when it comes to taxes, Far, far less, which is why that not so super supercommitte can't get anything done. But Dems are not socialists (despite what some Reoublicans think). They don't want to over tax even the very wealthy.

They both pander to Main Street, that's right.

[DexterRiley]

Republicans love war a little more than Democrats.

They do? Explain the Vietnam War if you would. That was a Democrat lying to the American Public about the lil Fabrication of the gulf of Tonkin incident was it not?
Democrats don't cater to the rich as much as Republicans when it comes to taxes, Far, far less, which is why that not so super supercommitte can't get anything done. But Dems are not socialists (despite what some Reoublicans think). They don't want to over tax even the very wealthy.
Are you splitten hairs here Will? And of course Dems arent socialist. thats loony tune foxnews speak.

They both pander to Main Street, that's right.

so in closing, not a whole bunch of difference.

Ron Paul would be a whole lotta different.

[will.15]

You gotta go all the way back to the Viet Nam war to prove Democrats like war? They turned against it rather quick, which is why Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for a second term, Eugene McCarthy was against it, Bobby Kennedy was against it, and in 1972 George McGovern was against it. Dems got real doveish after Viet Nam. Repubs were yelling about peace with honor. Dems message, just leave.

There is a big differnce between increase taxes for the rich, and cut taxes for the rich and slash entitlement programs to pay for them.

[MrPink]

I read about him and I saw some of his speeches, and in my opinion the man will destroy the world.

[DexterRiley]

You gotta go all the way back to the Viet Nam war to prove Democrats like war?

All the way back to Vietnam?

Nope, Obama will do just fine. Drone strikes on libya, Pakistan, increased action in Afghanistan..

yeah Obama is a dove.

lulz

[Sedai]

I read about him and I saw some of his speeches, and in my opinion the man will destroy the world.

How would he destroy the world? Say, aren't we destroying the world now? That's what people keep saying, anyway.

[DexterRiley]

The World will be fine. It has survived better than us. It doesnt need us. We need it.

[MrPink]

How would he destroy the world? Say, aren't we destroying the world now? That's what people keep saying, anyway.

The man against any US intervention in the world. It's a disaster, especially for Israel (must admit that the war in Iraq occurred only because of Israel, lucky that the american public sure it because oil), but still a disaster to the world.

because of things like these happened the Second World War, if USA / UK / France would intervene in Germany in the 30s, the lives of tens of millions of people would not end.

[wintertriangles]

The man against any US intervention in the world. It's a disaster, especially for Israel (must admit that the war in Iraq occurred only because of Israel, lucky that the american public sure it because oil), but still a disaster to the world.

because of things like these happened the Second World War, if USA / UK / France would intervene in Germany in the 30s, the lives of tens of millions of people would not end.Your cherry picking of the most convenient time in history of our intervention says how ignorant you are.

[Sedai]

Ah, I see. So, The Holocaust is all America's fault. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

You ever consider that this type of thinking is why your country is in constant strife?

Hopefully the American people choose a leader that is good for our country, and not some strip of land thousands of miles away.

[DexterRiley]

The man against any US intervention in the world. It's a disaster, especially for Israel (must admit that the war in Iraq occurred only because of Israel, lucky that the american public sure it because oil), but still a disaster to the world.

because of things like these happened the Second World War, if USA / UK / France would intervene in Germany in the 30s, the lives of tens of millions of people would not end.

:facepalm:

[MrPink]

Ah, I see. So, The Holocaust is all America's fault. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

You ever consider that this type of thinking is why your country is in constant strife?

Hopefully the American people choose a leader that is good for our country, and not some strip of land thousands of miles away.

no, where did you see the word "holocaust" My response?
I was talking about World War II, the cowardice of Chamberlain etc..

Look, the United States most powerful country in the world, the U.S. military strength than all countries in the world combined. U.S. must to help the world when he needed them.

hope the Americans, as a good citizens of the world's only superpower, would choose a leader who is good for the world.

[Yoda]

I know we have a lot of Paulites in here, and that's fine, but cherry-picking or not, WW2 is a perfectly decent test of Paul's foreign policy. It's reasonable to ask how (or if) it can be reconciled with foreign atrocities, because while the war itself was exceptional, similarly horrible things on smaller scales take place far more frequently. So the man deserves a straight answer on that, I think.

[DexterRiley]

Ron Paul Served in the Military. How come its allways teh chickenhawks that bang the war drum the loudest?

[Yoda]

I don't grant the premise, for one. And for another, the "chickenhawk" designation is all kinds of goofy, unless we want to start saying only the families of police deserve protection, or have a right to have opinions on it. It's also ad hominem, besides.

Regardless, it's a fair question to ask how Paul's foreign policy would react to other situations in history. Not sure why everyone's brushing it off.

[DexterRiley]

so u can cherry pick, but a Chickenhawk can't be introduced into the conversation?

how does that work?

What makes you so uncomfortable about dealing with teh reality of today and want to play the hypothetical games of yesteryear?

Replublicans dont want anyone to bring up the War Crimes of Bush/Cheny and that was less than a decade ago for cripes sake, but you are all for dissecting 60 years ago?

seriously?

lest you have forgotten,


In his documentary feature, UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001. The film deconstructs the administration's case for war through interviews with U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors -- including a former CIA director, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even President Bush's Secretary of the Army. Their analyses and conclusions are sobering, and often disturbing, regardless of one's political affiliations.
Since this film was first released in November 2003 via thousands of house parties organized by MoveOn.org, the issues addressed have become well known, and the arguments made by the experts in the film have been proven. Most recently, by the Downing Street Memos.

This is an important film documenting exactly how the Bush administration hoodwinked the American people into supporting an unnecessary war. A war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives, and continues today.

I assume you won't watch the entire documentary, however a few minutes of your time will see the opening which introduces all the contributors, whose integrity and intelligence and military background should hold more sway than a Dirty Canadian Hippy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_f_Z3DoCCM

[Yoda]

so u can cherry pick, but a Chickenhawk can't be introduced into the conversation?

how does that work?
It works quite easily. :) One is an ad hominem argument which doesn't hold together in other areas, and the other is a real-world test of an ideology. And I don't actually think it is cherry-picking, besides, because there are all sorts of other foreign atrocities that human decency will tempt us to put an end to. It's not a question of if a President Paul would face such a choice, but merely when.

What makes you so uncomfortable about dealing with teh reality of today and want to play the hypothetical games of yesteryear?

Replublicans dont want anyone to bring up the War Crimes of Bush/Cheny and that was less than a decade ago for cripes sake, but you are all for dissecting 60 years ago?
I didn't say we can't talk about the war, I just don't think the "chickenhawk" designation has any argumentative weight or value, for a few reasons.

We've established that you like Ron Paul's position as it relates to our current situation, but it's not the only situation the next President will find themselves in. So it's a perfectly fair question: how does an isolationist foreign policy react to foreign atrocities?

[MrPink]

hope choose mitt Romney or newt Gingrich.

[Fiscal]

Yoda, I'm on a mobile right now, so I can't say everything Id like. I truly believe calling his foreign policy isolationism is unfair. I know you've probably heard this argument, but there is a significant difference between his non intervention policies and calling him an isolationist. Also, you can make the WW2 challenge, sure, but I can make the argument that Paul's policies would of been way more effective in the early days of today's war(s).

[Fiscal]

...and really pink? Gingrich? The guy that had to release a comprehensive list of political regrets and mistakes?

[MrPink]

Yoda, I'm on a mobile right now, so I can't say everything Id like. I truly believe calling his foreign policy isolationism is unfair. I know you've probably heard this argument, but there is a significant difference between his non intervention policies and calling him an isolationist. Also, you can make the WW2 challenge, sure, but I can make the argument that Paul's policies would of been way more effective in the early days of today's war(s).

Iran, the terrorist organizations, and other Muslims who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

[Fiscal]

Iran, the terrorist organizations, and other Muslims who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

wut

[Yoda]

Aye, but that's pretty much exactly my point: that Paul gets a swell of support because his policies fit the zeitgeist and (perhaps) the current situation, but that doesn't mean they're sensible ideologies in other circumstances. Supporting him for that reason alone is about as selective as opposing him based on examples from the past, because neither represents the totality of what a President's foreign policy must contend with. Asking how a belief is supposed to work in other common scenarios is a very basic part of evaluating its merit.

As for whether or not it's "isolationist"--well, it depends on how far he takes it. Has he enumerated any exceptions to his general hands-off approach? It's hard to imagine what kind of exceptions he would actually support if he's said that he's fine with Iran having nukes. If he hasn't, then there's no argument: he's an isolationist. If he has, then it depends on what they are.

I also want to highlight, again, that the "WW2 challenge" is not limited to WW2. Many Presidents since have faced the decision of whether or not to intervene in foreign affairs when it was obvious that human rights and lives were being trampled on. On a smaller scale, sure, but it raises the same questions.

[MrPink]

...and really pink? Gingrich? The guy that had to release a comprehensive list of political regrets and mistakes?

frankly my dear , i don't give a damn about the political regrets and mistakes he has done , he at least did not will destroy the world.

[MrPink]

wut

IRAN , THE TRRORIST ORGANIZATIONS , and - other - Muslims - who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

[Yoda]

Gingrich is a brilliant tool. And I don't mean he's brilliant at being a tool. I mean he's both things, simultaneously. Probably a good President, definitely a bad candidate, and guess which people care more about these days? Yeah, that second one.

[wintertriangles]

Look, the United States most powerful country in the world, the U.S. military strength than all countries in the world combined. U.S. must to help the world when he needed them.Says who? No country in the world has any money.

hope the Americans, as a good citizens of the world's only superpower, would choose a leader who is good for the world.And since Ron Paul is the bringer of armageddon with his silly ideas of peace and common sense, let's hope for political puppet Mitt Romney!

[MrPink]

Says who? No country in the world has any money.

And since Ron Paul is the bringer of armageddon with his silly ideas of peace and common sense, let's hope for political puppet Mitt Romney!
LOL! ommon sense?!?!

The man said it was legitimate to Iran to have nuclear weapons. A country that says Israel and US should be annihilated in every chance she gets, it really is legitimate it would hold a mass destruction?

iran is a state that prevents only through religion, through the Koran, it is impossible to reason with her and would never to give her hold nuclear weapons.
It's not a threat only to Israel, that threaten to the world.

[will.15]

I don't grant the premise, for one. And for another, the "chickenhawk" designation is all kinds of goofy, unless we want to start saying only the families of police deserve protection, or have a right to have opinions on it. It's also ad hominem, besides.

Regardless, it's a fair question to ask how Paul's foreign policy would react to other situations in history. Not sure why everyone's brushing it off.
I think chickenhawk is a fine designation for those who are particularly aggressively warlike and never served like Frank Miller telling OWS to join the military when he never did and Dick Cheney's endless deferments.

It is one thing to think America should avoid foreign entanglements as much as possible, it is another thing to be an isolationist like Ron Paul. It is a recipe for disaster because instead of avoiding war the United States could end up in a much larger war as was the case with World War II, or a nuclear confrontation we lose. Done right American involvement avoids wars or wars that are too large.

As for Obama, Afghanistan can't be walked away from because of the threat of terrorism, Libya we played a secondary role in as part of NATO, and the Iraq conflict is ending. If McCain had become President we would still be fighting in Iraq and would probably have troops in Libya and moving to get directly involved in Syria.

For an isolationist there may be no difference between Dems and Repubs. But it is also the difference between seeking international cooperation and under Republicans like the second Bush an aggressive anti UN stance and my way or the highway, either with us or against us.

[will.15]

Aye, but that's pretty much exactly my point: that Paul gets a swell of support because his policies fit the zeitgeist and (perhaps) the current situation, but that doesn't mean they're sensible ideologies in other circumstances. Supporting him for that reason alone is about as selective as opposing him based on examples from the past, because neither represents the totality of what a President's foreign policy must contend with. Asking how a belief is supposed to work in other common scenarios is a very basic part of evaluating its merit.

As for whether or not it's "isolationist"--well, it depends on how far he takes it. Has he enumerated any exceptions to his general hands-off approach? It's hard to imagine what kind of exceptions he would actually support if he's said that he's fine with Iran having nukes. If he hasn't, then there's no argument: he's an isolationist. If he has, then it depends on what they are.

I also want to highlight, again, that the "WW2 challenge" is not limited to WW2. Many Presidents since have faced the decision of whether or not to intervene in foreign affairs when it was obvious that human rights and lives were being trampled on. On a smaller scale, sure, but it raises the same questions.
I don't believe you ever put American fighting soldiers on foreign soil for the primary purpose of human rights. We would be fighting all over the world for that.

Kuwait is a good example of a war that had to be fought. Letting Sadam Hussein get away with invading another country is how Hitler started. Dems who were opposed to sending troops there were wrong.

[will.15]

Gingrich is a brilliant tool. And I don't mean he's brilliant at being a tool. I mean he's both things, simultaneously. Probably a good President, definitely a bad candidate, and guess which people care more about these days? Yeah, that second one.
You apparently think Perry would be a good president if he somehow could get elected so your asessment of Gingich is suspect.

Gingrich might make a good president or at least not be a disaster. I have a suspicious he would be more moderate and less confrontational than when he was Speaker, but there is no way to know for sure.

[will.15]

IRAN , THE TRRORIST ORGANIZATIONS , and - other - Muslims - who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.
An even greater threat than Nazi Germany? You're nuts.

[Yoda]

I think chickenhawk is a fine designation for those who are particularly aggressively warlike and never served like Frank Miller telling OWS to join the military when he never did and Dick Cheney's endless deferments.
I think it's just that: a designation. It's not an argument for or against anything. It's basically just namecalling, and it also assumes a level of knowledge about a person's bravery that is pretty ridiculous to speculate about in all but the most ridiculous of circumstances. It also ignores the possibility of one's willingness to serve being contingent on the action in question. The difference between conscientious objector and coward is largely a product of preexisting ideology.

But really, the main point is that it's useless for purposes of talking about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of a given war. There are cowards and brave men who cheer on every war, and it's not as if people would change their minds about Cheney's positions if he'd happened to have served, which makes it just another tool for partisan rousing.

You apparently think Perry would be a good president if he somehow could get elected so your asessment of Gingich is suspect.
Everything you say about Perry is suspect. But it's moot, because I don't think I've ever said he'd be a good president; just that I think he's right on many issues, and that that ought to matter more. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that communication affects a president's effectiveness. The balance between the two is wildly out of whack, and I've said as much, but that doesn't mean I think pointing this out magically changes it, either.

Gingrich might make a good president or at least not be a disaster. I have a suspicious he would be more moderate and less confrontational than when he was Speaker, but there is no way to know for sure.
Yup, no way to know. I'd expect him to be less confrontational partly because I think he thinks a lot about legacy and would have (presumably) learned a few lessons from past failings, but who knows. All I know is he's a smart, informed guy who likes to focus on policy, and I'd like to see the electorate reward that sort of thing from time to time, even if only with a temporary surge.

[Yoda]

I don't believe you ever put American fighting soldiers on foreign soil for the primary purpose of human rights. We would be fighting all over the world for that.
I disagree with this conclusion, but I don't want to hijack the thread. The question was for Paul supporters. Anyone can throw their two cents in, so I'm not trying to suggest you can't answer it anyway, but that was the intent.

[DexterRiley]

IRAN , THE TRRORIST ORGANIZATIONS , and - other - Muslims - who take religion too seriously, are might greater danger from Nazi Germany.

Iran was fine until the CIA decided to oust the democratically elected Mossadeq because he made the unconscionable decision to restrict foreign ownership of oil in his country.

A dictator is much easier to control, and so the Shah was installed, the supression under that regime led to an overthrow by the Ayotalla Komemi folks.

http://pinkie.ponychan.net/chan/files/src/132185755238.gif

[will.15]

This exchange shows Ron Paul is not as prinipled as he claims.

He is a politican after all.

And actually worse in some ways because putting earmarks in a bill for his district than voting against it knowing it is going to pass anyway is being a blatant hypocrite. If he somehow became President, who wants to take bets he would find more ways to talk like a Libertarian and act like a typical opportunist politician?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY&feature=related

[Yoda]

C'mon now, Paul-people. When MrPink asked about WW2, three people jumped all over him in just 16 minutes. I asked how Paul's foreign policy responds (if it responds at all) to foreign atrocities over a week ago, and nobody's tried to answer.

I like Paul in plenty of ways, but this tendency of his supporters to dogpile and dismiss claims like this isn't exactly encouraging. It's a fair question to ask how a given ideology responds to a very simple foreign policy situation: so what's the answer? What does Paul say, and if you're not sure, what do each of you say?

[Sedai]

Well...I am not the best guy for that, because whenever I talk about Paul in conversation, I make sure to mention that his Foreign Policy is an area where his hard line stances don't make quite as much sense, so I tend to kind of agree with you on that... That's the area where I disagree with Paul to some extent...

Also, the education stance of The Libertarian Party doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

Hence my lean to right when finance is concerned, and my lean to the left where education/police etc. is concerned.

[Yoda]

Fair enough. :) Thanks for clarifying.

[MrPink]

the policy "everyone looks for his own ass" led by Ron Paul will plunging the world into World War III.

[will.15]

You don't have to worry about Ron Paul. He won't win any primaries and he is leaving Congress.

[MrPink]

You don't have to worry about Ron Paul. He won't win any primaries and he is leaving Congress.

http://images.cryhavok.org/d/18918-1/Colbert+Epic+Win.jpg