so, we are defending bigotry now?

[TwitchALot]

Twitch,

If I agreed with Mr. Paul's foreign policy, I'd vote for him.  And I don't think this little controversy, all by itself, means that you shouldn't vote for him, or that he wouldn't make a good president. 

The point being, you can admit that Paul was wrong on this one item, without selling out to the Guliani campaign. 

Regardless of what you think about Paul's foreign policy stance, the bottom line is that even if it were a good idea to spread "democracy" by the gun, it's not something we can afford. I'd like to buy a buttload of guns, a bunker to store them in (under my mansion of course), and get a new car. But I can't afford it, and if I were to go into that much debt, I wouldn't be able to tax it out of the people, nor would I be able to print the money to make up for my debt.

As far as your last statement goes, Paul did the wrong thing- politically. It would have been a smart political move to give the money back. I believe I already said that (correct me if I'm wrong). But as I said- there's nothing wrong with keeping the donation (from a logical standpoint), and there is no good non-political reason to give it back (and a whole lot of good reasons to keep it).

[Perd Hapley]

So I guess Ron Paul is kind of like a guy that goes out to dinner with a twenty-year-old bombshell, without bothering to tell the wife.  He doesn't care what she thinks.  He hasn't done anything wrong, has he?   

Unfortunately for him, he's running for high office in a republic.  So he kinda has ta care what we think of him.  But NO!  That would be compromising his principles, right?     His principles apparently include a childish contempt for the regard of others.  Which is why he's so AWESOME!  Nothing like that boot-licking slave of tyrants, Thomas Jefferson.  Remember that part in the Declaration of Subservience, where he wrote about "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"?  What a compromising tool. 

I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars.  We've never had much trouble paying for it before.  Would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course.  And of course, these are not wars we can afford to avoid, either.  So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

[Tecumseh]

I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars.  We've never had much trouble paying for it before.  Would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course.  And of course, these are not wars we can afford to avoid, either.  So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

I don't think it is a "brush-fire" war.  If it is so small, then why is so little progress being made?  The reason that we cannot afford to pay for this war is because of a Democrat controlled Congress.  They realize that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and morally wrong.  Not to mention they don't like the idea of lining the pockets of Halliburton and other military lobbyists with ties to the Bush administration.

If we have the ability to pay for these wars, as your post implies, then surely we can also pay for some social programs right?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

EDIT:  Why bother?  It's all been said before.  Some people just don't want to see the world the way it really is. 

[Perd Hapley]

I don't think it is a "brush-fire" war.  If it is so small, then why is so little progress being made?

So you think small wars are won easily?  Study up on the history, my man.

The reason that we cannot afford to pay for this war is because of a Democrat controlled Congress.  They realize that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and morally wrong. 

But Democrats love everything that is unconstitutional and morally wrong.  Like those social programs you mentioned earlier.  (Hint:  The Fed.Gov. is authorized to make war.  It is not authorized to feed babies.)

But due to your confusion on this issue, you ask the following question backwards:

If we have the ability to pay for these wars, as your post implies, then surely we can also pay for some social programs right?

Tecumseh, I'm amused that you can hold such unconstitutional, anti-libertarian views, so at odds with the ideas of the Founders, yet still support Ron Paul, who is by all accounts a Constitutionalist libertarian.  Politics indeed maketh strange bed-fellows. 

[TwitchALot]

So I guess Ron Paul is kind of like a guy that goes out to dinner with a twenty-year-old bombshell, without bothering to tell the wife.  He doesn't care what she thinks.  He hasn't done anything wrong, has he?

Whatever agreement Ron and his wife made about that is... the agreement they made. I don't know anything about his personal promises to his wife. I suspect Ron Paul wouldn't do that for numerous reasons, but again, I don't know everything about his personal life.

Unfortunately for him, he's running for high office in a republic.  So he kinda has ta care what we think of him.  But NO!  That would be compromising his principles, right?     His principles apparently include a childish contempt for the regard of others.  Which is why he's so AWESOME!  Nothing like that boot-licking slave of tyrants, Thomas Jefferson.  Remember that part in the Declaration of Subservience, where he wrote about "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"?  What a compromising tool.

What he should do, if people decide to stamp out our rights, is go along, because, you know, he should care about what the people think instead of following the Constitution. I mean, who cares about the Second Amendment, or the First, or Fifth? You don't need those things, and if you're a suspected terrorist and the people want you in jail, Ron should send them jail. After all, it's what the people want.   

I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars.  We've never had much trouble paying for it before.  Would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course.  And of course, these are not wars we can afford to avoid, either.  So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

The country could never afford to the fight the two wars in the first place, but that's beside the point.

If you don't "buy" the fact that we're running a nine trillion dollar debt, and you don't "buy" the fact that we're running deficits in our budget every year, there's nothing anyone can do to help you.  It's not exactly an op-ed.

[wooderson]

oh good god, people are still arguing about Ron Paul?

[Perd Hapley]

So I guess Ron Paul is kind of like a guy that goes out to dinner with a twenty-year-old bombshell, without bothering to tell the wife.  He doesn't care what she thinks.  He hasn't done anything wrong, has he?

Whatever agreement Ron and his wife made about that is... the agreement they made. I don't know anything about his personal promises to his wife. I suspect Ron Paul wouldn't do that for numerous reasons, but again, I don't know everything about his personal life. 

You mean you really didn't understand the point I was trying to make?  Look man, sometimes you should ignore what others think about you.  Sometimes you should care what they think.  That's part of "being an adult."

Unfortunately for him, he's running for high office in a republic.  So he kinda has ta care what we think of him.  But NO!  That would be compromising his principles, right?     His principles apparently include a childish contempt for the regard of others.  Which is why he's so AWESOME!  Nothing like that boot-licking slave of tyrants, Thomas Jefferson.  Remember that part in the Declaration of Subservience, where he wrote about "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"?  What a compromising tool.

What he should do, if people decide to stamp out our rights, is go along, because, you know, he should care about what the people think instead of following the Constitution. I mean, who cares about the Second Amendment, or the First, or Fifth? You don't need those things, and if you're a suspected terrorist and the people want you in jail, Ron should send them jail. After all, it's what the people want. 

How would giving money to charity involve any of those things? 

I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars.  We've never had much trouble paying for it before.  Would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course.  And of course, these are not wars we can afford to avoid, either.  So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

The country could never afford to the fight the two wars in the first place, but that's beside the point.

If you don't "buy" the fact that we're running a nine trillion dollar debt, and you don't "buy" the fact that we're running deficits in our budget every year, there's nothing anyone can do to help you.  It's not exactly an op-ed.

Are you at any point going to respond to what I've said, or will you continue to completely twist my words at every possible opportunity?  I'm always amazed at people who have such skill.  Very impressive.  Yes, I buy the facts, I just laugh at your interpretation of them. 

[Tecumseh]

I don't think it is a "brush-fire" war.  If it is so small, then why is so little progress being made?

So you think small wars are won easily?  Study up on the history, my man.

The reason that we cannot afford to pay for this war is because of a Democrat controlled Congress.  They realize that the Iraq war is unconstitutional and morally wrong. 

But Democrats love everything that is unconstitutional and morally wrong.  Like those social programs you mentioned earlier.  (Hint:  The Fed.Gov. is authorized to make war.  It is not authorized to feed babies.)

But due to your confusion on this issue, you ask the following question backwards:

If we have the ability to pay for these wars, as your post implies, then surely we can also pay for some social programs right?

Tecumseh, I'm amused that you can hold such unconstitutional, anti-libertarian views, so at odds with the ideas of the Founders, yet still support Ron Paul, who is by all accounts a Constitutionalist libertarian.  Politics indeed maketh strange bed-fellows. 

  Where is the declaration of war?  Why are we detaining people who have committed no crimes as terrorists?  Why do we have a GITMO?  Why did President Bush sign the Patriot Act?  McCain-Feingold?  The Congress can make war, not the POTUS.  Where is the proper declaration as prescribed by the Constitution?

I never said that I support these programs.  I would rather we tried some stupid social program than bomb an innocent country.  We are better off trying to help our people rather than sending US troops to die on the otherside of the world. 

[Sergeant Bob]

Are you at any point going to respond to what I've said, or will you continue to completely twist my words at every possible opportunity?  I'm always amazed at people who have such skill.  Very impressive.  Yes, I buy the facts, I just laugh at your interpretation of them.

Fistful, that's what he does, that's his M.O. Argue semantics and redirect the discussion at every opportunity. That way he can control the debate by keeping everyone on the defensive.

[TwitchALot]

You mean you really didn't understand the point I was trying to make?  Look man, sometimes you should ignore what others think about you.  Sometimes you should care what they think.  That's part of "being an adult."

Yes, and he should care what other people think when the logic behind their thinking is absurd?

How would giving money to charity involve any of those things? 

You're entire line of reasoning revolves around the notion that he should give the money back to "appear" as if he isn't racist, when it's not racist to begin with, even from a logical standpoint. Bow to the masses, right? 

Are you at any point going to respond to what I've said, or will you continue to completely twist my words at every possible opportunity?  I'm always amazed at people who have such skill.  Very impressive.  Yes, I buy the facts, I just laugh at your interpretation of them. 

How did I, "twist your words"? Did you not say, "I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars"? If we can no longer afford to fight these wars, why do we have to borrow billions of dollars to fund it? Did you not say, "[the war] would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course," as if for a second, any reasonable person would buy the ridiculous notion that we would have spent less money if people weren't against the war?

Now, you can make accusations and say that I didn't "respond to what you've said," or that I "twisted your words," but that's all they are- accusations. It's clear to anyone who can read that I've addressed your points, although your continual failure to address mine (or address it poorly), are nothing short of obvious.

[Perd Hapley]

You mean you really didn't understand the point I was trying to make?  Look man, sometimes you should ignore what others think about you.  Sometimes you should care what they think.  That's part of "being an adult."

Yes, and he should care what other people think when the logic behind their thinking is absurd?

Well, yes.  I'm not saying he should do something wrong, or compromise on the Bill of Rights, but I am saying he should have some respect, some deference for the feelings or opinions of others, especially if he wants them to see that he is the best candidate and vote for him.  (This is odd, because I'm usually the one getting the lecture about respect and such, around here.     )

And I'm not conceding there is any illogic involved, but we've been over that.

How did I, "twist your words"? Did you not say, "I don't buy the notion that this country can no longer afford to fight two little brush-fire wars"? If we can no longer afford to fight these wars, why do we have to borrow billions of dollars to fund it? 

We can afford to fight two little brush-fires wars.  Maybe we can't afford to do that, and administer a lot of social spending at the same time, but that was not my claim. 

I own two used vehicles, that cost about 2500 a piece.  I can afford them, but that is only another way of saying that I can afford to pay off the loan that was necessary to get them.  In other words, I didn't have the cash up front, but I can afford the debt.  The point being, having to borrow money doesn't always indicate that one is spending beyond one's means.

Did you not say, "[the war] would have been a lot cheaper and easier without the anti-war-mongering of folks like Paul, of course," as if for a second, any reasonable person would buy the ridiculous notion that we would have spent less money if people weren't against the war?

A reasonable person would buy that very reasonable notion, yes. 


The word-twisting charge has more to do with the fact that I propose getting rid of the money, or deferring to others' opinions, and you accuse me of asking Paul to compromise on the constitution or "do anything to get elected." 

[Finch]

So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

Reasonable? What is reasonable about our current foreign policy? Invading countries at a whim is not reasonable. And how do you expect someone to hold Paul's economic policies and hold Bush's foreign policies. The two are incompatible. We can not maintain a trillion dollar a year foreign empire all the while cut spending and lower (or eliminate) taxes.

[Perd Hapley]

So, if Mr. Paul and his ilk would just promote a reasonable foreign policy, along with all the budget-cutting they're already preaching, such people might get elected and do a good job.

Reasonable? What is reasonable about our current foreign policy? Invading countries at a whim is not reasonable.

We're not "invading countries at a whim."      Obviously, you and I disagree on foreign policy.  We should probably leave that for another thread.

And how do you expect someone to hold Paul's economic policies and hold Bush's foreign policies. The two are incompatible. We can not maintain a trillion dollar a year foreign empire all the while cut spending and lower (or eliminate) taxes.

You could show me the figures, but again, that's not appropriate for this thread.  But why do you assume that by "reasonable foreign policy" I meant Bush's? 

[WeedWhacker]

I'm not saying he should do something wrong, or compromise on the Bill of Rights, but I am saying he should have some respect, some deference for the feelings or opinions of others

... and if, theoretically, the "feelings or opinions" of the others in question are flat out wrong?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not saying he should do something wrong, or compromise on the Bill of Rights, but I am saying he should have some respect, some deference for the feelings or opinions of others

... and if, theoretically, the "feelings or opinions" of the others in question are flat out wrong?

Read the thread, for crying out loud.  I don't have the patience to go through this again.

[TwitchALot]

Well, yes.  I'm not saying he should do something wrong, or compromise on the Bill of Rights, but I am saying he should have some respect, some deference for the feelings or opinions of others, especially if he wants them to see that he is the best candidate and vote for him.  (This is odd, because I'm usually the one getting the lecture about respect and such, around here.     )

Even if they're wrong, of course.

And I'm not conceding there is any illogic involved, but we've been over that.

Hah. I hardly expected you to. This is the internet, after all.

We can afford to fight two little brush-fires wars.  Maybe we can't afford to do that, and administer a lot of social spending at the same time, but that was not my claim. 

I own two used vehicles, that cost about 2500 a piece.  I can afford them, but that is only another way of saying that I can afford to pay off the loan that was necessary to get them.  In other words, I didn't have the cash up front, but I can afford the debt.  The point being, having to borrow money doesn't always indicate that one is spending beyond one's means.

Do you think we can afford to pay off all of our obligations?

A reasonable person would buy that very reasonable notion, yes.

Yeah, because the sheer willpower of supporting a war will make the bombs cheaper. Or, as you probably see it, less opposition to spending bills means more spending bills being passed, which means less money being spent.

Wait a minute...

The word-twisting charge has more to do with the fact that I propose getting rid of the money, or deferring to others' opinions, and you accuse me of asking Paul to compromise on the constitution or "do anything to get elected."

The entire premise of giving the money back is to "look good." That's it. Logically, he did nothing wrong. Morally, he did nothing wrong. Politically, yeah, he "bungled." But that's it. Donating the money serves no purpose other than, "to look good for the voters." And if you're going to do something just to look good for the voters (when you've done nothing wrong), why not go all out?   

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, OK, we're done here.   

[thebaldguy]

please excuse my sophomoric logic.

for those of you not paying attention, a presidential candidate is being scrutinized because he took money from a white supremecist organization. scrutiny is good. i would not vote for a leader who used his influence to help such a cause above others. this is because of my own beliefs that all races are created equal.  however, i also believe that the Constitution of the USA (right or wrong) does not differentiate between the civil liberties given to this type of organization versus a rotary club. these ideals are why the USA is a great nation, as we are supposed to be given the tolerance to persue happiness as individuals see fit. we all agree that the first amendment gives the right to free speech. why then is it that when an individuals view opposes ours, we feel their money is not entitled to be used for a candidate of office.

I'm guessing that some candidates have taken money from violent anti-abortion groups who advocate bombing of clinics and threatening/harrassing/murdering their employees.