Afghanistan

[John-in-KC]

It sure is something for an Oklahoman to say words like that about a Texan

[packsaddle]

I avoid all those places unless necessary. Has nothing to do with any threat alert.

[sherminator505]

"Ron Paul looks less kooky and much more wise all the time."

 

OK, I'll bite. HUH?!

[SR540Beaver]

Sherm,

 

Ron Paul is a libertarian conservative.....which in my book is what a true conservative is. While there is great wailing and knashing of teeth between Democrat/liberals and Republican/conservatives, the differences are usually only skin deep these days. Both want nanny state social programs, they just differ in what the programs are. Both want to interfere in the business of other nations and nation build, they just differ on how to do it. I could go on, but you get the drift. Ron Paul believes that our government is limited by what the Constitution says it can and can't do. Period. End of story. While many conservatives pay lip service to the constitution, they are just as bad as the liberals in allowing creep for modern society's "needs" or "realities".

 

Ron Paul was constantly mischaracterized as an isolationist, when in reality he is a noninterventionist. His detractors say it is a case of tomat-oh, tamat-ah. It isn't. Isolationism is where we withdraw inside our borders and ignore the rest of the world. Think North Korea. Noninterventionism is where you have open free markets with the world, but you don't stick your nose in other nation's business. Think Switzerland. Liberals like Gore think we need to save other nations because we are the mighty America. Conservatives like Bush think we need to bring democracy to the world because we are the mighty America. Libertarians like Ron Paul believe we should let other nations determine their own destiny and trade with them if and when it benefits both sides. As Ron Paul put it in the Presidential debates he was allowed to participate in......nations that trade with one another do not go to war with one another. We don't want other nations telling us how to conduct our lives and politics, so why do we think we have a right to tell others how to live and govern. Understand, that is a paraphrase and not a quote.

 

The danger of Ron Paul to the Republican party back duing the 2008 Presidential race was that he actually believed and practiced true conseravtive principles and thought and didn't wrap himself in the flag, mom and apple pie and just pay lip service to conservatism. He meant what he said and said what he meant. He was dismissed as a pie in the sky, idealistic crackpot who couldn't recognize the "reality" in today's political environment. Funny that the longer time goes by, people start thinking he is smarter and smarter and less kooky.

 

Ron Paul was the wrong guy with the right message for winning the presidency. If there were a Ronald Reagan or Barrack Obama person to come on the scene with Ron Paul's beliefs and ideas, it would change this nation and our relationship to the world for the better.

[sherminator505]

Ah, I see your point.

[scoutldr]

Just as I thought...I'm a Libertarian. Not like those Constitutionalists who think "promote the general welfare" means you're entitled to a monthly check for not working.

[SR540Beaver]

Sherm,

 

I left out a thought. Many Americans and the politicians they elect feel an obligation to protect the US by "looking out for our interests". They do this by manipulating events in other nations. Things like covert over throws of one dictator to replace him with a dictator on the CIA's dole and "friendly" to us today....but who knows what tomorrow will bring?. Ron Paul understood that actions have consequences and they are not always the consequences we intend thru our manipulation. Saddam and bin Laden are two prime examples. Many folks jumped on him as a "blame America firster". In truth, do we not sow what we reap? Our Constitution does not provide for involving ourselves in other nation's affairs or bringing democracy and liberty to the world. Even George Washingtom counciled against entanglements with other nations.

[Hal_Crawford]

Before folks start piling on the Libertarian band wagon they might want to look at where the Libertarian party stands on major issues.

 

http://www.lp.org/issues

 

Hal

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Hal, don't confuse small "l" libertarian for the big "L" Libertarian Party. That being said, libertarianism is the ultimate in true liberty and freedom of the individual and puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the indvidual and we live with the consequences of our actions. Make bad choices and you suffer. Make good choices and you prosper. The government does not exist to play parent and save us from ourselves or pick us up, dust us off and provide for us.(This message has been edited by sr540beaver)

[Beavah]

Yah, Hal_Crawford, I think there's a substantial difference between da Libertarian Party in the U.S. (which is a pretty fringe group), and the libertarian sentiments of classic conservatives that SR540 and some others are talkin' about. Ron Paul probably skirted da edges, because he had Libertarian Party roots. But he also expressed some of da pragmatic sensibilities of traditional conservatives.

 

What was interestin' to me was how much Dr. Paul captured the hearts of many young people of the internet/digital generation. Not exactly da crowd for modern-style big government "conservatives."

 

Beavah

 

[SR540Beaver]

Hal,

 

After taking a look at the link you posted, I'm interested in what specifically you take issue with?

[GernBlansten]

How about their position on legalizing drugs and prostitution?

[packsaddle]

Their environmental ideas are often naive and sometimes idiotic.

 

Edited part: As for Ron Paul in particular, I was put off by his statements regarding the 'issue' of evolution. He handled it very poorly and convinced me that he had not thought about it very much but tried to make a statement anyway. If he had merely said, "I don't know much about it", that at least would have been honest and I would be OK with it. But he seemed to try to pander for votes...pretty much like any good politician would do. It put me off.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hal_Crawford]

Actually, I don't have a particular objection to much of what they say. I don't think that their expectations that charities will pick up all the nations social needs is particularly realistic. There are some other areas that I disagree with but I think they make some valid points. Non interventionism isn't always a bad thing. I think the country would benefit from hearing the libertarians every time we consider sending in the Marines. As a nation we are too quick to put boots on the ground creating a mess that the next couple of presidents have to live with and/or end.

 

What struck me in the last year was a lot of folks who previously said that they were conservatives and/or Republicans started saying that they were really libertarians. With most it seemed that you could sum up their total knowledge of libertarian thought in two words: Ron Paul. If you asked how they felt about drugs, abortion, prostitution or gay marriage you got anything but libertarian responses. A libertarian would tell you that the government has no business regulating any of those. A libertarian would say (as the Libertarian party does) that we should make most immigration legal.

 

Oddly, most of these new converts to the libertarian cause were not in favor of legalizing drug use, prostitution or gay marriage. Some had strong feelings against abortion and some didn't particularly care for illegal immigrants or immigrants of any ilk.

 

That is why I suggest that folks read up before joining.

Hal

 

 

[John-in-KC]

According to various news reports, General McChrystal delivered his force requirements to Admiral Mullen at Ramstein AB today.

 

Now, it's up to the civilians, but the military leadership is watching what happens here rather closely.