Originally posted by RobtardSaying "It's disgusting that X type of people are allowed to live" is very much a Zeal statement.
Not going balls-deep for the "Ron Paul savior of America" rhetoric is no where near being like Zeal's "Liberals are a cancer, Conservatives lost their spine. Jews cause all the problems. Kill the Jews!"
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's definitely a non sequitur question and also an implicit strawman.The direct answer to your question is in fact this post:
[...]
If you don't understand how your question is directly answered by all of that post, feel free to ask with a more specific inquiry.
let me try and put it this way. You basically say, "look at how diverse libertarian ideology is, it covers everything but fascism":
Originally posted by dadudemon
Consider how complex the movement is and covers so much type of governing that he is left with..what?...Fascism? That should be scary as **** for any reasonable person.
1) as an anarchist this is kind of funny. Libertarians, sure, have some diversity in their political ideology, but ultimately, they have a very limited view on government policy that centers around individual rights rather than the idea of a social contract. Sure, you can make individual rights policy arguments for or against some issues (public health care, education, etc), but the idea that they represent this massively heterogeneous group of individuals, idk, I disagree to say the least.
2) that does sort of imply that you think the only type of ideology that is counter to libertarian ideology is a form of fascism, as if a libertarian could believe anything that isn't fascism. This is off for a couple of reasons:
a) ideologies that don't center on individual rights can actually come to the same policy conclusions that libertarians do. On health care, for instance, social contract based ideologies can generate either pro or anti healthcare policies based on their interpretation of social rights and norms. unless you are saying the social contract itself is a fascist concept, libertarianism has no exclusive claim to non-fascism.
b) fascism itself can be individual oriented and, in fact, can come to the exact same policy conclusions as libertarianism does for the very same reasons. Fascists and libertarians differ, obviously, with respect to voting rights and a couple of other things, but by definition, there are almost no policies or ideological justifications that are mutually exclusive between fascism and libertarianism.
idk, I certainly don't think you actually believe there are only 2 political positions (fascism vs libertarianism), but that is sort of the most obvious interpretation of what you said.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosLol you're such a tool. What a nice spin of words though. I see how its needed to get a point across. As if we went into WWII to save jews (not to mention the millions of other non jews)
You're right, that quote was about American citizens Ron Paul believes should die. He did, however, say that stopping the Holocaust would have been wrong.
Paul is a non-interventionalist? Whoa no way
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do I get the feeling you are not a reliable resource in this matter?
Epic Buddhist senses.
He really stated that he wouldn't want to risk american lives
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol you're such a tool. What a nice spin of words though. I see how its needed to get a point across. As if we went into WWII to save jews (not to mention the millions of other non jews)
I never mentioned Jews but Ron Paul wouldn't have saved any of them.
That's a reason Libertarians support him.
That's a reason I think Libertarians are disgusting.
"Paul believes the military should be used solely for the defense of this nation. I understand the desire by some people to intervene all around the world in an attempt to prevent atrocities, but we'll never be able to stop all of them, and the question then becomes how we choose when to intervene and when not to intervene.
And in the case of WWII, the more important question is whether it was justified to conscript people into the military and force them to go fight in another country. It's a bit different today when we're talking about an all-volunteer force, but we still bump up against the question of whether a particular conflict is necessary because it's a direct threat to national security or because it involves an ally or because it's a humanitarian crisis.
So do we ignore something like what happened in Rwanda? What about the current mess in Darfur? Myanmar? What about the scuffle between Russia and Georgia a few years ago? Are they not of some importance, too? What makes them less important? People tend to forget we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us — not because we were trying to prevent the Holocaust from occurring.
So read the alleged quote from Paul again: "I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that." Taxes are paid and armies are raised for the defense of this country. Any time the government deviates from that arrangement, it is misusing our money and our troops, and there is always the threat of government force against us if we refuse to go along with it. That is why Paul objects.
Paul's belief, as well as that of the founders, is that the President's primary duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution — and by extension the individual rights of American citizens. An important component of that duty is the recognition that it is not only misguided and impossible to intervene all over the planet, but that it is also immoral to force American citizens to participate in such circumstances. "
400,000 american lives gone. Believes the troops are meant to defend. He doesn't believe he should have the power to force people overseas. Someone who wants to run off to defend another country or another people should be free to do so, but should not be able to use government to force others.
Three people were having dinner at a friends house. One was a Democratic, the next was a Republican, and the last was a Libertarian. Next door, a man was murdering his wife. The Democratic picked up his cell phone and called the police. The Republican grabbed his gun and left to kill the man. The Libertarian complained about the noise.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
"Paul believes the military should be used solely for the defense of this nation. I understand the desire by some people to intervene all around the world in an attempt to prevent atrocities, but we'll never be able to stop all of them, and the question then becomes how we choose when to intervene and when not to intervene.And in the case of WWII, the more important question is whether it was justified to conscript people into the military and force them to go fight in another country. It's a bit different today when we're talking about an all-volunteer force, but we still bump up against the question of whether a particular conflict is necessary because it's a direct threat to national security or because it involves an ally or because it's a humanitarian crisis.
So do we ignore something like what happened in Rwanda? What about the current mess in Darfur? Myanmar? What about the scuffle between Russia and Georgia a few years ago? Are they not of some importance, too? What makes them less important? People tend to forget we went to war with Germany because they declared war on us — not because we were trying to prevent the Holocaust from occurring.
So read the alleged quote from Paul again: "I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that." Taxes are paid and armies are raised for the defense of this country. Any time the government deviates from that arrangement, it is misusing our money and our troops, and there is always the threat of government force against us if we refuse to go along with it. That is why Paul objects.
Paul's belief, as well as that of the founders, is that the President's primary duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution — and by extension the individual rights of American citizens. An important component of that duty is the recognition that it is not only misguided and impossible to intervene all over the planet, but that it is also immoral to force American citizens to participate in such circumstances. "
so your position is that it is not a worthwhile use of military force to stop someone bent on global domination?
like, not the humanitarian stuff, someone who is systematically trying to conquer the globe and has just not yet attacked America
Originally posted by inimalist
...So your position on american involvement in ww2 is the opposite of what you just said and what paul suggests?
Americans involvment in WW2 was because we were attacked by Japan. You understand that right?
WE WERE ATTACKED.
Declared war on japan. Germany declares war on us. We declare it on germany as well. Congress has that power.
Originally posted by Robtard
So Ron Paul would have sat by and watched Japan and Germany conquer the rest of the world just as long as America wasn't attacked or declared war upon.Sounds utterly moronic and self-defeating.
Ron pauls job as pres would be to uphold the constitution. Presidents dont declare war, congress does. When entering world war two the leaders apparently werent aware of the holocaust. Not so sure about that though.
The whole "let him take over the world argument" is so stupid lol.
Your family is having a party and across the street someone is getting robbed by gunpoint. Should the grandfather be allowed to send all the kids over to go attack?
Originally posted by MairuzuRon pauls job as pres would be to uphold the constitution. Presidents dont declare war, congress does. When entering world war two the leaders apparently werent aware of the holocaust. Not so sure about that though.
Obviously yes, but his personal-position would have been "no war until they attack or declare war on us", all the while ignoring that America's allies are being ass-raped and that war will in all likelihood be coming.
Also, once congress declared war, Ron Paul would be the commander in chief of the US military, so by his rational, he would have deployed the military as a wait until they come/defense type strategy.
Sounds moronic and self-defeating.
Originally posted by RobtardIf americans allies are being ass raped and if they call for aid then of course Ron Paul would aid them. Fool.
Obviously yes, but his personal-position would have been "no war until they attack or declare war on us", all the while ignoring that America's allies are being ass-raped and that war will in all likelihood be coming.Sounds moronic.
Woooosh it goes right over your heads.