Ron Paul: Stop the Wars, Quit Blaming Islam for 9/11...

[Al Publican]

Ron Paul seems to be a among few Americans that sees "blowback" from our foreign policy as being the basis for the September 11th attacks. And I concur. I am not a so-called "paulie," but I am in agreement with his takes on the folly of our interventionism in many countries. See his takes at ronpaul.com
Ron Paul: End the Wars, Stop Blaming Islam for 9/11

53 ResponsesBy RonPaul.com on September 7, 201

[Whitehouse]

Ookay...

But as for the rst of his policies.... And his cookoo son of course....


And this being no-Detroit.....


What's this post doing here??

[MCP-001]

Ookay...

But as for the rst of his policies.... And his cookoo son of course....


And this being no-Detroit.....


What's this post doing here??

So what exactly is "cookoo" about him?

[Whitehouse]

Rand Paul:

...drinks too much tea...

...has his campaign is funded by ...........

[[Edit: Seems St0rmfr0nt is a curseword in this forum. This is the link. )

... is endorsed by quittter in chief Palin.

...is in the pocket of Big Oil.

...thinks civil rights should be abolished.

Do I need to go on?

I'm not an American citizen but I know some things that go on over there. I'm not un-educated, you know.

[MCP-001]

"How conservative is he? The 47-year-old Paul - who trounced establishment candidate Trey Grayson in Kentucky's GOP Senate primary Tuesday - wants to abolish the federal departments of education, commerce and energy, as well as the income tax.

...

But in a libertarian twist, he also favors legalizing medical marijuana."


What's wrong with this?


Your second link is not working.


Sarah Palin's endorsements mean nothing to me. She endorsed John McCain in his bid to become permanently ensconced in his Senate seat.


I've watch the Maddow interview.

Rand Paul did agree with most of the aspects of the civil rights bill.

What he did not agree with was government telling people what they should do with their own businesses [[i.e. segregated seating)

This is a direct violation of property rights.

He also acknowledged that he did not agree with people who would not serve blacks or had segregated accommodations.

OABTW, I didn't state that you were un-educated.

But I would recommend that you try decaf in the morning.

[Whitehouse]

Your second link is not working.

Sorry, my bad. Hope this one works.

The word "St0rmfr0nt" is filtered by this forum. There must be reasons for that, I don't know. But it makes the link defect.

I like this, a nice political discussion. But what's your opinion about his remarks that Obama's criticism on how BP handled the Gulf disaster, was un-American?

If I was American I would be leaning to the left side. Not extreme left, but I might seem that way in extreme right eyes. Not everything left is holy. Let's talk about the tax thing. I know this is a hot item in the US. No one wants to see their hard earned buck cut to pieces and parts shifted to Washington. But look at what tax cuts brought America. There's a massive deficit, and most of it is caused under Republican rule. So much was spent the past decade on wars. Does anyone realize someone has to pay for that?

Same thing about education, infrastructure, communication, housing.... I think Detroit would have looked much different with more government involvement.

[jiminnm]

Whitehouse, the original post was about Ron Paul and you're running on about Rand Paul. Do you realize that they're not the same person?

[oladub]

Whitehouse, You are in over your head on this. First, this thread is about Ron Paul, not Rand Paul. Even regarding Rand Paul, you are behind the curve. He is more conventionally Republican than Ron Paul. That said and as the first article said, he doesn't support the Federal Reserve, wants to abolish the federal departments of education, commerce and energy, as well as the income tax. He wants states to determine their own marijuana policies. He wants to end the mid-east wars, bring the troops home now, and even remove US troops from Europe for that matter. I guess you are more of a Cheney supporter to be aghast at bringing home the troops. You didn't explain whay it it bad for both Palin to support him while Cheney opposes him. My guess is that Palin endorses people she thinks will win.

If you want to get in on the BP debate, Obama was lame as hell in his federal clean up effort. it took months before skimmers were in place. His own administration did not enforce existing regulatory law we found out later. Maybe the bacteria ate all the oil or maybe a lot of it sank deeper into the Gulf waters and will show up off the coast of Holland in a couple of years. You can thank President Obama for the change.

Oh, and the racism. Democrats often pull out the race card when they can't win debates or have something they don't want to discuss. It puts their opponent on defense.Your analysis was wrong about Rand abolishing civil rights. He said he would vote for the law under discussion which was passed when he was two years old. He just questioned the balance between various freedoms. Most politicians don't bother to discuss fine points preferring repeated talking points. Of course he is an eye doctor. He didn't think, for instance, that a Black cafe owner should have to serve Klansmen. The concept cuts two ways and is controversial. However, you seem to be falling for the sheeple chatter [[suggestion: brush up on the Koch brothers). The Democrats, and maybe even neo-con Republicans really have to keep Rand out because he might call them on corruption and idiocy. They fear so they are attacking him for everything imaginable to divert attention away away from their own fealty to Obama's policies.

Getting back on thread, what's wrong about the rest of Ron Paul's policies by the way? Do you prefer the Bush/Obama way in the middle east? Do you like the way Bush/Obama have screwed up the US economy, brought about high unemployment, let bankers call the shots, given away our jobs, ran the US into a deep deficit, and otherwise implemented policies which will destroy the spending power of the dollar?

By the way, why are so many Dutch residents are choosing to emigrate from Holland? I've always thought it was a fine place to live.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2044

[Al Publican]

Hopefully if Rand Paul gets elected he will have his father's anti-interventionist positions. I am not a so-called "paulie" a devotee of Ron Paul. I am a small L libertarian, that is, I am for economic freedom [[but not laissez faire) free market approaches and also for social freedoms, be it on gay marriage and opposing government intrusions on our private lifes.

My intention to post this was to give an alternative view about Sept 11th that blames responsibility on our foreign policy for prompting the attacks. Sorry for posting it yesterday in the wrong forum rather on non-Detroit issues forum.

[Bearinabox]

That said and as the first article said, he doesn't support the Federal Reserve, wants to abolish the federal departments of education, commerce and energy, as well as the income tax.

These are examples of loony policy positions.

He wants states to determine their own marijuana policies. He wants to end the mid-east wars, bring the troops home now, and even remove US troops from Europe for that matter.

These are examples of reasonable policy positions.

I guess you are more of a Cheney supporter to be aghast at bringing home the troops.

Not surprisingly, Paul's supporters often accuse his detractors of opposing his reasonable policy positions in an effort to make the detractors themselves appear less reasonable. Perhaps Whitehouse's criticism of Paul has more to do with the completely wacky policy positions you listed earlier.

If you want to get in on the BP debate, Obama was lame as hell in his federal clean up effort. it took months before skimmers were in place. His own administration did not enforce existing regulatory law we found out later. Maybe the bacteria ate all the oil or maybe a lot of it sank deeper into the Gulf waters and will show up off the coast of Holland in a couple of years. You can thank President Obama for the change.

I'm not sure what this has to do with either Ron or Rand Paul.

Your analysis was wrong about Rand abolishing civil rights. He said he would vote for the law under discussion which was passed when he was two years old. He just questioned the balance between various freedoms. Most politicians don't bother to discuss fine points preferring repeated talking points.

I think he has a black belt in here's-the-interesting-thing-jitsu.

Getting back on thread, what's wrong about the rest of Ron Paul's policies by the way? Do you prefer the Bush/Obama way in the middle east? Do you like the way Bush/Obama have screwed up the US economy, brought about high unemployment, let bankers call the shots, given away our jobs, ran the US into a deep deficit, and otherwise implemented policies which will destroy the spending power of the dollar?

I believe this is called a "false dichotomy."

[tvaspen]

Rand Paul:

...drinks too much tea...

...has his campaign is funded by ...........

[[Edit: Seems St0rmfr0nt is a curseword in this forum. This is the link. )

... is endorsed by quittter in chief Palin.

...is in the pocket of Big Oil.

...thinks civil rights should be abolished.

Do I need to go on?

I'm not an American citizen but I know some things that go on over there. I'm not un-educated, you know.

You're confusing your Pauls, Ron is the father of Rand.

[Bearinabox]

You're confusing your Pauls

No, he isn't. In his initial post on this thread, he mentioned Ron Paul's "cuckoo son" as part of his response to the original article about Ron. He was then asked what, exactly, made Ron's son "cuckoo," and the post you quoted was a response to that question.

[oladub]

Bearinthebox, Just stay in your status quo comfort zone then with megabankers and their Federal Reserve proxy running our country's economic policies and our armies spread all over the world on expired, wrongheaded, and unconstitutional missions. Is there some reason your state's DOE is incapable of doing their job so that you need a redundant back up federal DOE? When I posted the possibility of increasing the import tax, on another thread, to replace part of the income tax, the idea got a mixed review. I was concerned about US jobs. Were a lot of federal activities taken over by the states, health care for example, there would be an additional reduction in federal expenses. Bringing the troops home from scores of countries would reslult in additional savings. Sudddenly, reducing or getting rid of the income tax doesn't seem so 'cookoo'.

If Whitehouse, for instance, wants to defend Europe from the East or South, than it is up to Whitehouse to pay for his own defense or succumb. This business of keeping our forces in Europe and having us pay for it has to stop. I wary of hearing Europeans criticize us for not having a single payer health care plan while we are paying some of their bills as if World War II had just ended.

What really seems cookoo to me is realizing where present policies have brought us and then expanding them hoping for a different result.

[Bearinabox]

Bearinthebox, Just stay in your status quo comfort zone then with megabankers and their Federal Reserve proxy running our country's economic policies and our armies spread all over the world on expired, wrongheaded, and unconstitutional missions.

This is more of that false dichotomy I was talking about.

Is there some reason your state's DOE is incapable of doing their job so that you need a redundant back up federal DOE?

I didn't call that idea "loony" because I personally disagree with it [[although I do, and I'd be happy to articulate why in a thread more closely related to that topic). I called it that because it is completely outside the political mainstream and is not designed to address any widely-recognized or objectively verifiable problem with our education system. Making America conform to some Ayn Rand-tinted utopian vision is not a mainstream policy goal.

When I posted the possibility of increasing the import tax, on another thread, to replace part of the income tax, the idea got a mixed review. I was concerned about US jobs. Were a lot of federal activities taken over by the states, health care for example, there would be an additional reduction in federal expenses. Bringing the troops home from scores of countries would reslult in additional savings. Sudddenly, reducing or getting rid of the income tax doesn't seem so 'cookoo'.

Nope, sorry, still cuckoo.

If Whitehouse, for instance, wants to defend Europe from the East or South, than it is up to Whitehouse to pay for his own defense or succumb. This business of keeping our forces in Europe and having us pay for it has to stop. I wary of hearing Europeans criticize us for not having a single payer health care plan while we are paying some of their bills as if World War II had just ended.

As far as I'm aware, our bases in places like Germany are mostly training grounds and hospitals, and they're essentially there because we paid to build them there years ago and it would be expensive to rebuild them elsewhere. We aren't paying to defend Germany from the evil Algerians or Tajiks or whoever you think is a threat.

If, however, Ron Paul can demonstrate that moving our European bases somewhere else would somehow save us money, that's a discussion that's worth having, because it's backed by a legitimate mainstream policy goal that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. See how that works?

What really seems cookoo to me is realizing where present policies have brought us and then expanding them hoping for a different result.

True enough. That said, when someone like Ron Paul offers solutions to our problems that, while different from those currently being tried, also have very little to do with the actual problems that most of us are interested in solving, I think we should point out that, you know, his ideas aren't really that helpful in terms of moving the country forward.

[Whitehouse]

You're confusing your Pauls, Ron is the father of Rand.

\
If you followed the discussion...
[[okay, I brought up his son, but then MCP asked why he was cookoo, so I answered.)

Back on topic, father Ron.

[Melocoton]

Bearinabox just ripped you all a new one.

[MCP-001]

Sorry, my bad. Hope this one works.

The word "St0rmfr0nt" is filtered by this forum. There must be reasons for that, I don't know. But it makes the link defect.

I like this, a nice political discussion. But what's your opinion about his remarks that Obama's criticism on how BP handled the Gulf disaster, was un-American?

If I was American I would be leaning to the left side. Not extreme left, but I might seem that way in extreme right eyes. Not everything left is holy. Let's talk about the tax thing. I know this is a hot item in the US. No one wants to see their hard earned buck cut to pieces and parts shifted to Washington. But look at what tax cuts brought America. There's a massive deficit, and most of it is caused under Republican rule. So much was spent the past decade on wars. Does anyone realize someone has to pay for that?

Same thing about education, infrastructure, communication, housing.... I think Detroit would have looked much different with more government involvement.

The link did work.

Short answer: It really doesn't mean a lot to me.

The "Reverend" Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson aren't exactly innocent when it comes to committing/supporting racists acts, and look at their support for democrats?

I have knocked the democrats on a number of things, but I don't recall association with racists being among them.

About the censoring of the name you couldn't post, I'd recommend asking Lowell or one of the forum people about that. Myself, I wouldn't do it. But they are the ones who make the call on what is and isn't acceptable here.

Re: the BP comments. I wouldn't go so far as to call it un-American, but I do agree with the gist of the argument. If Pres. B.O. piles on too much onto BP, who did state that they would pay for the cleanup and cover affected parties [[how well that is going is best left for another thread), BP will be unable to pay for their mess. Guess who gets the bill when that happens?

And finally on taxes, I've stated time and time again, that America survived for at least 150-years by operating on tariffs and fees. If the federal gov't stuck with the duties that it is obligated to perform, and quit going into those areas that it doesn't, there is no reason this could not continue. People want to see the economy turn around. Let those of us still working keep 100% of what we earn. We can spend our money far better than the federal gov't ever could.

The "wars" are unconstitutional [[they were never officially declared by Congress, which is their job). They are both money pits and a gross waste of American Manpower and resources.

The last four items that you had mentioned are not duties of the federal government. They were taken upon during the last 50-75 years. I shouldn't have to point out that they have failed miserably.

Now back to Ron Paul's comments on 9/11...

[maxx]

MCP-001:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-05/en...ents-business/
"...Education, healthcare and energy are all unfortunate examples of industries that are, in my opinion, far too important to be left to government control when it is the market that has the golden touch."

So just how does Rand differ from Ron? And it sounds as though Ron would just leave the energy industries to "police themselves" as far as pollution and public safety are concerned. Just like what W did to Texas when he was governor. Only it would be more serious since the energy industry is poised to get back into nuclear energy. The federal gov. has let the coal industry do what is likes with coal ash, and look what happened.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...0&tx=171&ty=80

[oladub]

bearinabox wrote, "As far as I'm aware, our bases in places like Germany are mostly training grounds and hospitals, and they're essentially there because we paid to build them there years ago and it would be expensive to rebuild them elsewhere. We aren't paying to defend Germany from the evil Algerians or Tajiks or whoever you think is a threat.

If, however, Ron Paul can demonstrate that moving our European bases somewhere else would somehow save us money, that's a discussion that's worth having, because it's backed by a legitimate mainstream policy goal that has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. See how that works?"

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have necessary bases and military hospitals in the US?
World War II is over. So is the cold war with the Soviet Union. The EU is now rich and has a larger population than the US. It is up to the EU to determine and finance it's own defence needs. Let Europe secure it's own oil supply. What's Ayn Rand got to do with interventionism and empire anyway?

[Bearinabox]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have necessary bases and military hospitals in the US?

I don't know, would it? Obviously the military doesn't think so, or they'd have moved them. Many of the European bases are huge, sprawling complexes with all kinds of buildings and infrastructure on them; my guess is that acquiring similarly-sized plots of land in the US and rebuilding everything from scratch would be much more expensive than continuing to transport troops and equipment back and forth as necessary. If you can prove otherwise, call up the Pentagon and show them your math. I'm sure they'd be interested.

World War II is over. So is the cold war with the Soviet Union. The EU is now rich and has a larger population than the US. It is up to the EU to determine and finance it's own defence needs. Let Europe secure it's own oil supply.

Again, if we're paying to defend Europe or helping secure their oil supply, it's news to me. I'd be interested to see a source.

What's Ayn Rand got to do with interventionism and empire anyway?

Nothing.

[Detroit Stylin]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to have necessary bases and military hospitals in the US?
World War II is over. So is the cold war with the Soviet Union. The EU is now rich and has a larger population than the US. It is up to the EU to determine and finance it's own defence needs. Let Europe secure it's own oil supply. What's Ayn Rand got to do with interventionism and empire anyway?

The MIlitary bases over seas is not just for defense of Euope and alies but also as to act as forward deployed unitis so that we can react to any hot spot in the word on 24-72 hours notice.....something that cannot be accomplished from CONUS with units who have lots of equipment....

[maxx]

Ron Paul seems to be a among few Americans that sees "blowback" from our foreign policy as being the basis for the September 11th attacks.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i....asp?indid=634
"...Eight days after the 9/11 attacks, Said lent his name to a statement titled “Justice not Vengeance,” which said that “a military response [by the U.S.] would not end the terror” but rather “would spark a cycle of escalating violence.” Bringing the perpetrators “to justice under the rule of law -- not military action -- is the way to end the violence,” the statement elaborated. Other notable signatories of this document included Mike Farrell, Danny Glover, Randy Hayes, Michael Klare, Michael Lerner, Bonnie Raitt, Gloria Steinem, Michael Ratner, Martin Sheen, Harry Belafonte, John Cavanagh, Medea Benjamin, Barbara Ehrenreich, Margaret Gage, Cora Weiss, Ruby Dee, and Ossie Davis..."

http://www.ithaca.edu/gagnon/9-12-02talk.htm
"... Noam Chomsky notes that people in the rest of the world "like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire." [[Noam Chomsky, "Drain the Swamp and There Will be No More Mosquitoes," The Guardian, September 9, 2002.)...

Any attempt to think analytically or rationally about US actions in the rest of the world is labeled 'Blame America First'
The most notorious such example came in November 2001, when the right-wing group ACTA, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni [[founded and chaired by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president), demonized people on US campuses as 'anti-American' for saying such things as:

• "Break the cycle of violence"
• "We should build bridges and relationships, not simply bombs and walls"
• "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind"
• "Ignorance breeds hate"
• "Our grief is not a cry for war"
• Ghandi's grandson at UNC: "We must acknowledge our role in helping to create monsters in the world, find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more innocent people and then redefine our role in the world."
• "If Osama Bin Laden is confirmed to be behind the attacks, the US should bring him before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity"
  [[all cites from "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It," The Defense of Civilization Fund, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, November 2001)

[oladub]

The MIlitary bases over seas is not just for defense of Euope and alies but also as to act as forward deployed unitis so that we can react to any hot spot in the word on 24-72 hours notice.....something that cannot be accomplished from CONUS with units who have lots of equipment....

Why doesn't the EU react to hot spots in it's own quadrant? Being both rich and more populated than the US, there is no reason it shouldn't react to things more in it's own back yard than our's. What you are defending is the neo-con concept of economic empire. Perhaps we should reduce the size of our military and refrain from being so interventionist. Japan just seized a Chinese trawler in a territorial dispute. It didn't need US help to look out for its' own interests. Europe can fend for itself too.

"The last 50 or 60 years have given us nothing but grief, when you think about Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian gulf wars, and Afghanistan and Iraq and on and on. It has literally contributed to our bankruptcy. I mean, we're spending a trillion dollars a year maintaining this empire and it will come to an end, just like the economic system of the old Soviet system." -Ron Paul

[maxx]

Originally Posted by oladub
Wouldn't it be cheaper to have necessary bases and military hospitals in the US?

Bearinabox:I don't know, would it? Obviously the military doesn't think so, or they'd have moved them.

I don't think the military is interested in being economical. Do you recall the $700 toilet seats?
A big budget is a sign of power.

[maxx]

The MIlitary bases over seas is not just for defense of Euope and alies but also as to act as forward deployed unitis so that we can react to any hot spot in the word on 24-72 hours notice.....something that cannot be accomplished from CONUS with units who have lots of equipment....

We didn't use to want to be the world's police force, and we really can't afford it.