Im a glutton for punishment

[bcmiller]

http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/22513/P30/

I followed a news link that led me to a forum that has a separate forum for each republican candidate... well most of them at least... you'll never guess who is missing

So I dug a little deeper and I found it a really unwelcome place for a Ron Paul supporter. Perfect! just where I need to post. I'll see how it works out. No use talking to people who are sold on Ron Paul all of the time right?

I also posted this on DailyPaul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1669)

[CurtisLow]

Good luck! I'm off to bed........ZZZZZ

[bcmiller]

I didn't get a reply but I did pile on in a Romney thread.

I have finally been shocked... this is the post that did it... I was left without a reply... I think it speaks for itself. He seemed to want to kill all muslims so I asked him and this was the reply. (http://www.firesociety.com/forum/thread/15982/Do-You-Understand-JIHAD-/?page=7)



Islam is the enemy. There are two possible ways of eliminating it.

* Emancipate Allah's slaves by inducing mass apostasy.
* Kill them all.

Obviously the first alternative is preferable on humanitarian grounds. Unfortunately, they will not all apostasize; it will be necessary to kill the recalcitrant die hards. Our current leaders lack the will to initiate either procedure. "

[angelatc]

Yeah, that's cutting right of the heart of the matter. Most of the neoconservatives don't believe the rhetoric that Bush spews about friendly Muslims. They "know" that's just the politically correct way of saying "kill them all!"

[bcmiller]

I just answered a post from a guy who had a legitimate question on another forum. I am posting it here incase anyone liked the argument and wanted to use it themselves

Plus I want to know what you think.

The question


bcmiller (and RP08), here is a thought problem that is the crux of how we must evaluate Dr Paul.

We have an infestation. Could be ants in the house, crop eating bugs in the field, or bad bacteria in the bloodstream. The prescribed treatment is to introduce a new predator to gobble up the offending parasite. But the new predator causes the original bad actor to mutate and become a bigger nuisance and more contagious. The new predator is also partially consumed as it kills the offender. But it is very costly. We realize that the new predator probably cannot kill the offender without also killing the host and because it is expensive, we consider the alternatives of continuing to add predator in small doses or completely ending the use of the predator. What happens when the offender which has mutated and grown in response to the low dose predator therapy is now unchallenged? Will it continue to grow and infest other people, gardens, and homes?

Iraq and Afghanistan were the first places the infestations took hold. Radical Islam is the plague. The US Military is the predator. The rest of the world, including America are the ones left to face the ever more dangerous pest and there is no vaccine.

I agree with RP that we should not go to war without a declaration of war. If we walk out of Iraq, we will solve a lot of problems, especially on the home front. But we will face other problems as the scourge of radical Islam grows. Does RP disagree? Does he have an alternative approach that recognizes the evil of radical Islam is unlike anything we have had to stomach in the lifetimes of most Americans? This is an issue that is just as important and potentially connected to the security of the US Dollar.

Democrats want to cut and run because they are against war anytime, anywhere, for any reason. They actually seem to have a desire to live in submission if not outright slavery. They want to be children and never have to grow up into responsible adults. That is totally different from RP's view as I understand it. I like RP best on virtually every issue of importance when compared to anybody in the running. I am very concerned about what he would do with respect to the war on terror, partly because in my own mind I'm not sure. I do like TT's suggestion, whether serious or not, that we should let the radical Muslims know that any event against Americans or on American soil will result in immediate evaporation of Muslim Holy sites, beginning with Mecca.

In an Asymmetric war like the GWOT, you have to force countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc to curb the dogs or be treated as if they were the dogs. And sadly, it seems that Radical Islam does not understand anything but force. It is not so dissimilar to the Cold war where the threat of mutual destruction constrained the opposition. Now, Muslim terrorists are not afraid of dying, so you have to find something they do care about. Maybe the destruction of Mecca, Medina, and other Islamic icons would be something they would fear.

My reply

What you are saying is a valid concern and I am also not completely happy about what will fill the void in Iraq when we leave. I don't want to get offtopic by explaining why I believe we are leaving Iraq no matter who is in power, but I have written about it on here before.

Your analogy is very interesting. It is sort of like the lady who swallowed the fly, then the spider, bird etc... in order to solve her increasingly worse problem. The refrain of that song is "I don't know why, she swallowed the fly". I think we face a similar issue here.

The problem I have with the analogy is that the ultimate solution or "final solution" would have to be to get rid of the "infestation". This is, in my opinion, not what we are dealing with at all. We have a situation where the Al Queda would love for us to bomb Mecca, and invade Iran. The further we push our economy and military the closer we come to our breaking point. If this was a just war, and we had no alternative the price wouldn't matter since the price of not fighting would be so great. This conflict began with our foreign policy of intervention and the solution is not more of the same. I do not think that they will love us if we just leave them alone. We have kicked the hornet's nest. However, we do not have to live in fear. America would be strong and free with safe borders and any nation who supports an attack on us will feel the wrath of total war, declared war, with President Paul as commander in chief, and like WWI and WWII we will prevail.

The neocons like to use one of my favorite speeches against Ron Paul, "A time for choosing" by Ronald Reagan.

This will make my post super long but I can't help but post the section in question because it is so powerful.




Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Sean Hannity even played the video of this speech, which is also very powerful on his show, Hannity's America.

It speaks to the truest American tradition, our John Wayne streak. As a Marine it calls me like a werewolf to the moon. But let's look at this enemy and wonder why we are shrinking in fear and throwing our liberties at the government, like a wallet to a mugger.

The Soviet Union posed a real threat to our Nation. The current threat is not Islam but our government's over reaction to the threat in order to steal our liberty. Read or listen to the first part of this speech, which Hannity doesn't play on his show.

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

Enough rah rah now for some real actions.

We pull back from our worldwide posts and end our Al Queda recruitment drive. We strengthen our borders and refresh our military. We give the people their money, freedom and guns back. Iran cannot attack the United States, if they could they could not win. We would showcase real liberty to the world and make them want it for themselves. We would have real free trade and not these international agreements that steal our jobs.

We would not be 100% safe, no free people are really safe. But we would be free once again. As Mr. Reagan said in bold above. "You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery." and to paraphrase a bit... Well, the trouble with our neocon friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

[specsaregood]

You sure are a glutton for punishment. I just stumbled upon what I think must be your diary on dailykos.

http://bcmiller.dailykos.com/
That should be fun.

[nexalacer]

About Dailykos.... you shouldn't give up because they labeled that diary a troll diary. You argue well and you even have a demeanor that doesn't incur blind wrath by the kossacks. Thus, I suggest you simply follow their rules.... don't push Ron Paul, but vigorously challenge the current status quo on thought when looking at the issues. If you show them how wrong they are on the ISSUES they will find the candidate that suits their new found love of freedom.... and that will be Ron Paul.

[bcmiller]

haha,
Yeah that was a shalacking I got over there but I think you are right. I am going to kill them with kindness and make clear points.

I am going to make a blog article about my experience at dailykos called "Blowback @ the DailyKos" The subject will be how I was attacked because of my interventionist forum policy.

The Kos people were mostly fair, because they have a site policy that says it's only for Democrats so writing about Ron Paul is trolling, technically speaking. The idea that you support people who call themselves democrats only because of that label is sad and counter productive.

[bcmiller]

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bcmiller/2007/sep/03/the_real_threat_to_our_freedom

It is a lot like gullivers travels when I hop from DailyKos to restate.com. I don't know who are the giants and who are the little people but I don't fit in, in either place.

I actually got a guy to say that "all my rights don't mean a damn if I'm dead (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/bcmiller/2007/sep/03/the_real_threat_to_our_freedom#comment-513629)" . That was as bad as the guy calling for genocide at firesociety.

I really do have to admit that this is really a way to question your faith to the cause. It is draining and you see what an uphill climb we have. I have to take frequent breaks and watch www.freeme.tv to keep my moral up.

edit:
Update... I am now banned from www.redstate.com.