PDA

View Full Version : Did anyone just see Glen Beck's insulting attack about Ron Paul?




LRitz
05-16-2007, 07:27 PM
I just got finished watching it...He was so rude and completely made fun of him! It was terrible!

I just got finished sending Glen Beck this email...

I just got finished listening to your insane rant about the Ron Paul. I have been a staunch republican voters my entire voting life but I can tell you that I am now realizing that the republican party does not any longer support true conservative/republican values. You making fun of Ron Paul and listening to your ridiculous break down of what causes terror made me angry. Ron Paul has a lot of supporters and he COULD win the presidency if the media would quit fighting him. He makes more sense than any of the other candidates and more closely represents regular American people. When I see people like you and Sean Hannity attacking him these past few days, I'm wondering why? Why are people so scared of listening to him talk? However, I do appreciate the fact that he was going to be a guest on your show. Ever since I learned of Ron Paul, I have been wishing for more media coverage to hear what he has to say....After listening to the rant on your show tonight, I am sure that you only had him on to attack him. Where are your facts for your break-down of what causes terror attacks? Have YOU read the 9/11 commission reports? I am saddened and very dissappointed in the Republican party right now. Republicans are imploding themselves in this race. Ron Paul is the only person in this race who will be able to pull support from republican, libertarian, AND the democratic parties to be able to beat the democrats...and that is a fact. If he doesn't win the primaries, the next president will be a Democrat.

Lisa in Texas

jenindallas
05-16-2007, 07:34 PM
My husband and I are watching it as I type. We are so screaming at the television right now. I wish people would seriously open their eyes. Why are they maligning Dr. Paul? Wait, I know why.... They are scared to death that the American people might actually have enough brain cells to make their own decisions, and that our decision isn't what they want..

Suzu
05-16-2007, 07:36 PM
...If he doesn't win the primaries, the next president will be a Democrat.

That's exactly what they want to happen. Satisfy the Dems with Hitlery and maintain the status quo.

jimmyjamsslo
05-16-2007, 07:42 PM
he did great, and lots of my liberal/democrat friends watch 'the situation room'.



Ron with Wolf (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F1 47)

angelatc
05-16-2007, 07:45 PM
I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but I think passing over Beck was a mistake.

The Blitzer crowd are Democrats. RP isn't going to get his word out, or gain primary voters, by appearing on CNN.

He's better off grabbing as much of the GOP audience as he can if he wants to get his word out to the core.

jimmyjamsslo
05-16-2007, 08:01 PM
I was a registered democrat until recently. I've managed to persuade a couple die-hard liberal friends to re-register republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the closed primaries here, after sharing videos with them. I think Paul was excellent on the Blitzer show, and he may get more Democrats to switch over than you might think. We have until February! (October actually for registration)

Jimmy :)

LRitz
05-16-2007, 08:04 PM
That's great news Jimmy...I get dis-heartened at this at times. I truly believe that Ron Paul is a president that can represent ALL Americans...conservative and liberals alike.

jimmyjamsslo
05-16-2007, 08:19 PM
...it's remarkable how dynamic this forum is! I'm not used to getting responses so quicky in forums. Also quite useful!

Jimmy

jae1227
05-16-2007, 08:25 PM
I watched Glen Beck today. I thought he was a nut but so are lot of other people (especially on FOX). I really wonder if he is a right wing nut or a sane person. Some people do stuff for attention.

amonasro
05-16-2007, 09:02 PM
Glen Beck is a CNN sellout. He used to have a radio show that was pretty funny and consistently supported Bush and Republicans. As Beck is a Mormon, I'm sure he supports Romney. There's the underlying issue.

4Horsemen
05-16-2007, 09:05 PM
Beck is a jackass, and if people take what he says as fact, then ignorance is bliss. The guy is a tool, don't bother sending him an email, he's not worth it.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 09:18 PM
I can probably defend Beck's views the best, since I probably have watched/listened to him more than all of you combined. You can't get a feel for a person by watching 10 minutes of a program in which he disagrees with your favored presidential candidate. I'll try to bridge the gap here, and you all can listen or you can continue fancying Ron Paul as a "victim of circumstances" (a la Curly Howard).

First of all, it shows that you know next to nothing on Beck's views if you cannot spell his name ("Glenn Beck") correctly. Also, don't lump him with Hannity, because besides being targets for people who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, they have much less in common than what you'd think. Second, Beck invited him onto the show and he flaked. If you know Beck's style, you know that he is about "Entertainment and Enlightenment," and that his poking fun at Paul (showing an empty chair with the footer "Ron Paul, Not Here") was just that: poking fun. Third, he said that he AGREED with a lot of Paul's platform: cutting bureaucracy and federal spending (something Hannity didn't even come close to doing, let alone anyone else). And because Beck disagreed strongly with one premise (that the US foreign policy went a long way towards the events of 9/11), you all consider that to be an "attack." I hope Paul has thicker skin than his base, because playing the victim gets you nowhere in a primary.

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.

The worst part is that, before this last debate, I thought Mr. Paul would best represent my views. I still don't have a horse in this race, but as of now, I could not bring myself to support him after his latest bout of irrationality. Foreign relations are clearly the most important topic for our nation for this election, and I could not vote for someone who does not understand the threat we are facing. Now, you all can either label me a neo-con goon or what have you, or you can actually consider the fact that your candidate might just be wrong on this one.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 09:21 PM
Glen Beck is a CNN sellout. He used to have a radio show that was pretty funny and consistently supported Bush and Republicans. As Beck is a Mormon, I'm sure he supports Romney. There's the underlying issue.

MORMON CONSPIRACY!!!!!! Beck has not supported anyone in the Republican field so far, and he has criticized Romney.

winston_blade
05-16-2007, 09:29 PM
Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil.


LOL. Paul articulated the 9/11 commission report that points out that past foreign policy played a huge role in the terrorist attack on 9/11. Don't believe a bi-partisan panel with support from the FBI and CIA? Fine, hear the words directly from the horses mouth:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403 (http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403)

He says it himself, and read the whole thing....knowing someone like you, you probably won't and will try to spin what you did read of it.

You have to treat the disease not the symptoms. All the other 9 guys just want to fight terrorism, Ron Paul wants to get at the root cause.

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 09:37 PM
I was a registered democrat until recently. I've managed to persuade a couple die-hard liberal friends to re-register republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the closed primaries here, after sharing videos with them. I think Paul was excellent on the Blitzer show, and he may get more Democrats to switch over than you might think. We have until February! (October actually for registration)

Jimmy :)

I have some friends doing this also. It's amazing how people from across the board can work in unison when we support the constitution.

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 09:41 PM
MORMON CONSPIRACY!!!!!! Beck has not supported anyone in the Republican field so far, and he has criticized Romney.

i lol'd

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 09:43 PM
I can probably defend Beck's views the best, since I probably have watched/listened to him more than all of you combined. You can't get a feel for a person by watching 10 minutes of a program in which he disagrees with your favored presidential candidate. I'll try to bridge the gap here, and you all can listen or you can continue fancying Ron Paul as a "victim of circumstances" (a la Curly Howard).

First of all, it shows that you know next to nothing on Beck's views if you cannot spell his name ("Glenn Beck") correctly. Also, don't lump him with Hannity, because besides being targets for people who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, they have much less in common than what you'd think. Second, Beck invited him onto the show and he flaked. If you know Beck's style, you know that he is about "Entertainment and Enlightenment," and that his poking fun at Paul (showing an empty chair with the footer "Ron Paul, Not Here") was just that: poking fun. Third, he said that he AGREED with a lot of Paul's platform: cutting bureaucracy and federal spending (something Hannity didn't even come close to doing, let alone anyone else). And because Beck disagreed strongly with one premise (that the US foreign policy went a long way towards the events of 9/11), you all consider that to be an "attack." I hope Paul has thicker skin than his base, because playing the victim gets you nowhere in a primary.

Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.

The worst part is that, before this last debate, I thought Mr. Paul would best represent my views. I still don't have a horse in this race, but as of now, I could not bring myself to support him after his latest bout of irrationality. Foreign relations are clearly the most important topic for our nation for this election, and I could not vote for someone who does not understand the threat we are facing. Now, you all can either label me a neo-con goon or what have you, or you can actually consider the fact that your candidate might just be wrong on this one.


I'm looking for a vid of this... thanks for the other side view though I look forward to seeing it

Gee
05-16-2007, 09:52 PM
Blaming the United States' foreign policy for 9/11 is completely out of line, because it is a search for justification of a cowardly terrorist attack carried out on our soil. Paul suggests that we need to "listen" to the terrorists, hear their grievences, and understand why they are attacking us. Do any of you really believe that Islamic extremists NEED a reason to attack us, "the great Satan," the "Zionist Crusaders"? Do we think that we can understand their motives in purely rational foreign policy terms? As soon as you begin to think that there is a purely rational reason behind the questions "why do they hate us?" or "why did they attack us on 9/11?," you begin to make a rational justification for such an act. You cannot find reason in fervent Islamic extremism. You cannot find reason in specifically targeting civilians. You cannot find reason in their message or their motives. This is an inherently IRRATIONAL movement we are facing, and the sooner you folks realize this, the sooner you will understand why Representative Paul is wrong here.
So far, Osama bin Laden has done what he's said, and said what he's done. He's said the attack on 9/11 was largely due to three things: Our forces in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions against and attacks against Iraq, and our support of Israel. Osama tells his people that these events, and others, are evidence that the United States is an enemy of Islam as a whole. In his last video in 2004, Osama said he planned to bleed us economically in Iraq and Afganistan, just as he did the Soviets in Afganistan. He literally said his goal is to bankrupt the USA, and so far I think he's doing a decent job of it.

Whether or not Osama is correct or not isn't relevent to figuring out how to prevent more 9/11-esque attacks. Every American knows he is not - America obviously has no broad policies to eliminate Islam, nor would we ever. But the problem isn't his correctness and sincerity, its his ability to convince others that we are an enemy of Islam. He needs to do this for a good reason: Its needed to establish a jihad under the Muslim law Osama follows (or at least claims to follow). His call for America to convert and his warning us of more attacks were not made as a claim that he truely believes America could be replaced by an Islamic nation, but rather as one of the requirements of his law before he may justifiably attack us again. (see Michael Scheuer's book)

Our continueing military involvement in the Middle East only convinces more and more muslims of bin Laden's message, hence the escalating violence in Iraq. If most of the GOP is correct, and the extreme terrorists do hate us for who we are, not what we do, we need to recognize that our actions will only bring more of the saner Muslims into their fold. Even if we accept the assumption that we were attacked because of our values and freedoms (and I haven't seen any evidence of this myself), we must acknowledge our presence in the Middle East and foreign policy in general does not help us defend against terrorism, unless you think we can somehow occupy the whole region.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 09:54 PM
LOL. Paul articulated the 9/11 commission report that points out that past foreign policy played a huge role in the terrorist attack on 9/11. Don't believe a bi-partisan panel with support from the FBI and CIA? Fine, hear the words directly from the horses mouth:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403 (http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403)

He says it himself, and read the whole thing....knowing someone like you, you probably won't and will try to spin what you did read of it.

You have to treat the disease not the symptoms. All the other 9 guys just want to fight terrorism, Ron Paul wants to get at the root cause.

Yeah, here's a gem from that link, right out of the horse's mouth:

"And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages."

Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy." And we're pilfering oil from Iraq and still paying almost $4 a gallon for it. Give me a break!!!! You can't take anything bin Laden says as truth or even remotely close to reality. Terrorists don't need reasons to blow up people! Terrorism is inherently irrational. It is as irrational as saying that we need to listen to the grievances of cowards who hide in caves and saw prone people's heads off in front of a camera and consider themselves to be freedom fighters for it. What we need to know is this: they will kill us if we do not stop them. I am sick of the pity parties for the terrorists, who suffer from our unjust foreign policy. Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 09:57 PM
i lol'd

haha, thanks, its an inside joke but glad you enjoyed it :D

Gee
05-16-2007, 10:01 PM
Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy."
Unfortunately, OBL doesn't need to be correct to convince muslims that we are an enemy of Islam. And our sanctions did - supposedly - kill many, intentional or not:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm

I have no idea how true that link is or isn't, though the numbers thrown around there have been mentioned by mainstream media without refute (for whatever that is worth).

winston_blade
05-16-2007, 10:04 PM
Yep, Desert Storm was the worst mass slaughter known to man and we intentionally kill women and children and call it "foreign policy." And we're pilfering oil from Iraq and still paying almost $4 a gallon for it. Give me a break!!!! You can't take anything bin Laden says as truth or even remotely close to reality. Terrorists don't need reasons to blow up people! Terrorism is inherently irrational. It is as irrational as saying that we need to listen to the grievances of cowards who hide in caves and saw prone people's heads off in front of a camera and consider themselves to be freedom fighters for it. What we need to know is this: they will kill us if we do not stop them. I am sick of the pity parties for the terrorists, who suffer from our unjust foreign policy. Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

It's more than just Desert Storm, duh. Its Iraq-Iran War, its the overthrowing of Iran's leader, it's sending troops into Saudi Arabia (Their holy land), its sanctions on Iraq that caused many people to die.

Go do some more research that terrorism is just the means to an end. It's not irrational, if anything, it is very rational because it is the only kind of warfare that can effectively hurt the United States. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, you would be upset beyond belief.

You get mad at the 3000 or so who died on 9/11. Good, you should get mad because it is horrible, but also realize that is almost nothing compared to the death, destruction, and instability that the United States foreign policy has brought to the middle east region. Stop drinking the kool-aid or I'll cut your mic. Be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem that the neo-cons portray as the end of the world as we know it.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 10:12 PM
So far, Osama bin Laden has done what he's said, and said what he's done. He's said the attack on 9/11 was largely due to three things: Our forces in Saudi Arabia, our sanctions against and attacks against Iraq, and our support of Israel. Osama tells his people that these events, and others, are evidence that the United States is an enemy of Islam as a whole. In his last video in 2004, Osama said he planned to bleed us economically in Iraq and Afganistan, just as he did the Soviets in Afganistan. He literally said his goal is to bankrupt the USA, and so far I think he's doing a decent job of it.

Whether or not Osama is correct or not isn't relevent to figuring out how to prevent more 9/11-esque attacks. Every American knows he is not - America obviously has no broad policies to eliminate Islam, nor would we ever. But the problem isn't his correctness and sincerity, its his ability to convince others that we are an enemy of Islam. He needs to do this for a good reason: Its needed to establish a jihad under the Muslim law Osama follows (or at least claims to follow). His call for America to convert and his warning us of more attacks were not made as a claim that he truely believes America could be replaced by an Islamic nation, but rather as one of the requirements of his law before he may justifiably attack us again. (see Michael Scheuer's book)

Our continueing military involvement in the Middle East only convinces more and more muslims of bin Laden's message, hence the escalating violence in Iraq. If most of the GOP is correct, and the extreme terrorists do hate us for who we are, not what we do, we need to recognize that our actions will only bring more of the saner Muslims into their fold. Even if we accept the assumption that we were attacked because of our values and freedoms (and I haven't seen any evidence of this myself), we must acknowledge our presence in the Middle East and foreign policy in general does not help us defend against terrorism, unless you think we can somehow occupy the whole region.

I understand where you're coming from Gee, but I can't help but feel like you would rather we sacrifice our national security and general national interests in the Middle East than actually stand up to OBL. We cannot let terrorists dictate to us how, where, and when we will relate to certain countries. I understand that he follows his own code and that warning us means that we are fair game before an attack, but should we just accept that? We certainly have made numerous and serious mistakes in the Middle East, but show me a country who hasn't.

I am not on board with the "they hate us for our freedom" crowd. I think there is too much in Islamic theology which shows that, if a certain interpretation of the Qur'an is used, such actions carried out by bin Laden are not "suggested" but are commanded directly by Allah. Remember, the Qur'an is a divine decree (unlike the Bible, which is divinely inspired, for comparative purposes). No, not all Muslims follow this interpretation, but even an incredibly evil individual like OBL has to square his call for violence and terrorism with the Qur'an and some portion of the umma. Even if we did everything he asked of us, do you really think that he or other terrorist leaders couldn't find some other justification for calling for attacks on US soil? There is no end with these barbarians, and we need to realize that specific actions in the Middle East isn't going to help them ease up on "the Great Satan" any time soon.

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 10:13 PM
Terrorists are only empowered by comments like Mr. Paul's, and if you think differently, you've got another guess coming.

Ok this is where tactic comes into play- whether they are empowered by Ron Paul's comments or not- if we followed Ron Paul's take on the situation- pulled out of Iraq on our military commands suggested basis- secured our borders- and began enforcement of visa and immigration policies ---- though empowered ---- there won't be jack diddly shit Osama bin Laden can do about it - because our troops won't be there- and they won't be able to get HERE to do anything about it.

Were Islamic Jihadists attacking the United States in the 1800's? Was it because they couldn't? Did Islam and Christianity live in relative peace for centuries in between crusades and jihad wars? YES- why is this?

These are the kinds of questions americans need to be asking, not things like -- which sunni should we support today?

Kthnx

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 10:18 PM
Adding to my point -- it's not that we shouldn't fight fascist islam...

ok here's a 12am analogy, it's like being against bad drivers... all of us are against crappy drivers who talk on cell phones and put us all at risk - but do we send our police walking through the interstate trying to catch someone? NO. They sit on the side-lines and observe until they see who is breaking the law (with disregard to speed traps of course-scr those)

So is Ron Paul's way to deal with terrorism, only deal with a national IMMINENT THREAT. Stay on the sidelines until necessary, don't put ourselves- OUR TROOPS in harms way if it isn't absolutely necessary.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 10:26 PM
It's more than just Desert Storm, duh. Its Iraq-Iran War, its the overthrowing of Iran's leader, it's sending troops into Saudi Arabia (Their holy land), its sanctions on Iraq that caused many people to die.

No, clearly from what I cited, he specifically referred to Desert Storm.

"This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known"

Now, did "Bush Sr." oversee the Iraq-Iran war, overthrowing the Shah, etc.? No, he was clearly referring to Desert Storm. Strike one!


Go do some more research that terrorism is just the means to an end. It's not irrational, if anything, it is very rational because it is the only kind of warfare that can effectively hurt the United States. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, you would be upset beyond belief.

As soon as you consider terrorism "rational," you begin to justify the intentional murder of civilians. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, I may very well be more upset than most of "them," but would that justify me killing thousands of civilians just trying to make a decent living? Strike two!


You get mad at the 3000 or so who died on 9/11. Good, you should get mad because it is horrible, but also realize that is almost nothing compared to the death, destruction, and instability that the United States foreign policy has brought to the middle east region. Stop drinking the kool-aid or I'll cut your mic. Be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem that the neo-cons portray as the end of the world as we know it.

I am not questioning that we have brought untimely death, terrible destruction, and chaos to this region in the world. What I am questioning is your assertion that there is any way you can rationally square this. When you side with those who strap bombs on their chest, you basically say "yeah, you take innocent life by the dozens every day, but I know you were so wronged that it was your right to do so." I mean, if the basic moral imperative is "don't bring harm to other people," surely you could easily decry all terrorism to be wrong, regardless of what context it is in, or for what motives? When you search for motives for terrorism, you begin to justify it, which is what Congressman Paul was dangerously close to doing. Glenn Beck rightly stated "stop blaming America for terrorism" in his show, and that should be something a real conservative would do. Strike three!

This thread IS in fact, about Glenn Beck and his thoughts on Paul. I suggest that you start another thread if you want to continue on this, that is, if you want to be schooled further, winston blade!

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 10:30 PM
I am not questioning that we have brought untimely death, terrible destruction, and chaos to this region in the world. What I am questioning is your assertion that there is any way you can rationally square this. When you side with those who strap bombs on their chest, you basically say "yeah, you take innocent life by the dozens every day, but I know you were so wronged that it was your right to do so." I mean, if the basic moral imperative is "don't bring harm to other people," surely you could easily decry all terrorism to be wrong, regardless of what context it is in, or for what motives? When you search for motives for terrorism, you begin to justify it, which is what Congressman Paul was dangerously close to doing. Glenn Beck rightly stated "stop blaming America for terrorism" in his show, and that should be something a real conservative would do. Strike three!

This thread IS in fact, about Glenn Beck and his thoughts on Paul. I suggest that you start another thread if you want to continue on this, that is, if you want to be schooled further, winston blade!

Lol, still, we must fully evaluate why someone would kill themself and especially innocent civilians for a cause. With the japanese kamakazi it was nationalism- and being drunk signing a waiver to the government saying that they would commit suicide for their cause. With Islamic Jihadists, its brainwashed fascism combined with the resulting hate from our foreign policy. Ron Paul's error- may have been not mentioning Islam.

Retorted and conceded- g'night!

<3

Exponent
05-16-2007, 10:31 PM
As soon as you consider terrorism "rational," you begin to justify the intentional murder of civilians. If they did to us in our history what we did to them in their history, I may very well be more upset than most of "them," but would that justify me killing thousands of civilians just trying to make a decent living? Strike two!
"Rational" doesn't necessarily mean "right". "Rational" means that if you have an agenda (and that agenda might be the most awful and atrocious agenda one could imagine, or the most saintly, or anywhere in between), then the rational course of action is the course that most effectively fulfills that agenda. This is what winston_blade was referring to. It is not an agreement with their agenda. But it is merely pointing out that it was a good move for anyone who has that agenda.

Gee
05-16-2007, 10:35 PM
I understand where you're coming from Gee, but I can't help but feel like you would rather we sacrifice our national security and general national interests in the Middle East than actually stand up to OBL. We cannot let terrorists dictate to us how, where, and when we will relate to certain countries. I understand that he follows his own code and that warning us means that we are fair game before an attack, but should we just accept that? We certainly have made numerous and serious mistakes in the Middle East, but show me a country who hasn't.
Well, I feel disengaging from the middle east would aid our national security. And remember, Ron Paul supported going after Osama in Pakistan, and has given speaches about it on the house floor. He has, to my knowledge, advocated going after Osama himself and al Qaeda more than any other GOP canidate. We can do that without being tied-down in nation-building exercises. I think he speaks about going after Osama in Pakistan somewhere in this speech:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q=%22Ron+Paul%22+pakistan&hl=en


I am not on board with the "they hate us for our freedom" crowd. I think there is too much in Islamic theology which shows that, if a certain interpretation of the Qur'an is used, such actions carried out by bin Laden are not "suggested" but are commanded directly by Allah. Remember, the Qur'an is a divine decree (unlike the Bible, which is divinely inspired, for comparative purposes). No, not all Muslims follow this interpretation, but even an incredibly evil individual like OBL has to square his call for violence and terrorism with the Qur'an and some portion of the umma. Even if we did everything he asked of us, do you really think that he or other terrorist leaders couldn't find some other justification for calling for attacks on US soil? There is no end with these barbarians, and we need to realize that specific actions in the Middle East isn't going to help them ease up on "the Great Satan" any time soon.
I recognize there will always be nut-jobs who hate us, and a disproportionate number of them are probably in the Middle East. But there are nut-jobs everywhere, hell there are probably some in Canada. What I don't like is the nut-jobs having popular support of people who can aid and arm them, and that is what I feel our foreign policy does.

My largest fear is that even if we do get out of the Middle East, another attack may already be inevitable at this point. Still, I think we have a better chance of stopping it or dealing with it if our troops are at home, though I won't assume any bit of expertise on the subject of counter-terrorism.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 10:36 PM
Ok this is where tactic comes into play- whether they are empowered by Ron Paul's comments or not- if we followed Ron Paul's take on the situation- pulled out of Iraq on our military commands suggested basis- secured our borders- and began enforcement of visa and immigration policies ---- though empowered ---- there won't be jack diddly shit Osama bin Laden can do about it - because our troops won't be there- and they won't be able to get HERE to do anything about it.

Really? They got here pretty easily for the first bombing of the WTC in the early 90's, and not to mention the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had no significant trouble in carrying out their plan. They can get here quite easily, whether our troops are "here" or "there" or anywhere. What you have to do is cut the head off the snake, instead of asking the snake what it wants you to do.


Were Islamic Jihadists attacking the United States in the 1800's? Was it because they couldn't? Did Islam and Christianity live in relative peace for centuries in between crusades and jihad wars? YES- why is this?

These are the kinds of questions americans need to be asking, not things like -- which sunni should we support today?

Kthnx

Islamic Jihadists weren't attacking the United States in the 1800's for a lot of reasons. Wahabism (OBL's Islamic branch of choice) hadn't quite developed, so the theoretical framework wasn't as it is now. The Ottoman Empire was in its final stages as a world power. There was no basis for something like al-Qaeda from an economic, theoretical, or political standpoint. Times have changed, though, and we can't expect old solutions to work for new problems, and asking ourselves questions about the 19th century aren't all that relevant to the 21st. Sorry to break the news to you, but much has changed in Islam in the past 200 years. We need to be figuring out ways to eliminate extremists as effectively as possible, not how we can avoid offending them and "causing" another terrorist attack by our foreign policy (which, by the way, hasn't happened on our soil since 9/11, fancy that).

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 10:44 PM
"Rational" doesn't necessarily mean "right". "Rational" means that if you have an agenda (and that agenda might be the most awful and atrocious agenda one could imagine, or the most saintly, or anywhere in between), then the rational course of action is the course that most effectively fulfills that agenda. This is what winston_blade was referring to. It is not an agreement with their agenda. But it is merely pointing out that it was a good move for anyone who has that agenda.

My friend, you fail to understand rationality, and you are confusing this with pragmatism. The pragmatic with say that the ends justifiy the means, fulfilling an agenda, or what have you. That is not necessarily rational. If I would want to own a BMW, the most pragmatic thing to do would be to steal one from someone (it effectively fulfills that agenda). Easily done. But that wouldn't necessarily be rational, since I hadn't considered a future run-in with the law or seeing my angry victim and 5 of his closest friends. If I was really rational about it, and really wanted it, I'd get a job and work for it, so it could be rightfully mine.

So, terrorists are pragmatic and irrational. The goal is fear and death, and they achieve that with as much efficiency as possible (flying a 747 into a tall building). Killing innocent individuals en masse is not rational, and cannot be justified by reason.

tnvoter
05-16-2007, 10:46 PM
Really? They got here pretty easily for the first bombing of the WTC in the early 90's

Because our open door and non immigration policy enforcement was NONEXISTENT. Conservatives like our Ron Paul had been screaming about it since Reagan left office.

For the rest of the rant, I'll concede to needing sleep- you make some good arguments as far as Islamic Jihadists go, but the entire scope of history needs to be looked at. There were many years where Christianity fought Islam, and vice versa. The point is, we stopped going after the ones responsible for 9/11, and are using our energy to build up a military outpost in Iraq that is drawing terrorists to easy-target our soldiers-POSSIBLY unnecessarily. This is why we support our candidate, not that we don't believe in fighting them, but we believe in fighting correctly.

Minding our own business, but if you mess with us, we're coming for you. IMO we did great in Afghanistan, good at first in Iraq- but we failed at declaring war on a greater task than defeating the taliban-where a northern alliance had already existed.

G'night!

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 10:52 PM
Because our open door and non immigration policy enforcement was NONEXISTENT. Conservatives like our Ron Paul had been screaming about it since Reagan left office.

For the rest of the rant, I'll concede to needing sleep- you make some good arguments as far as Islamic Jihadists go, but the entire scope of history needs to be looked at. There were many years where Christianity fought Islam, and vice versa. The point is, we stopped going after the ones responsible for 9/11, and are using our energy to build up a military outpost in Iraq that is drawing terrorists to easy-target our soldiers-POSSIBLY unnecessarily. This is why we support our candidate, not that we don't believe in fighting them, but we believe in fighting correctly.

Minding our own business, but if you mess with us, we're coming for you. IMO we did great in Afghanistan, good at first in Iraq- but we failed at declaring war on a greater task than defeating the taliban-where a northern alliance had already existed.

G'night!

Right on, I think I agree with a good deal of what you're saying and apologize for sounding a little stand-offish. I bolded the statement which should dictate our foreign policy, but unfortunately hasn't. I am not a big defender of US foreign policy, but I don't think that it justifies by any stretch of the imagination 9/11. Now I realize this might be stretching out what Mr. Paul said, but not by much. But I'm out for now as well, unless there are others commenting any time soon.

Exponent
05-16-2007, 10:53 PM
My friend, you fail to understand rationality, and you are confusing this with pragmatism. The pragmatic with say that the ends justifiy the means, fulfilling an agenda, or what have you. That is not necessarily rational. If I would want to own a BMW, the most pragmatic thing to do would be to steal one from someone (it effectively fulfills that agenda). Easily done. But that wouldn't necessarily be rational, since I hadn't considered a future run-in with the law or seeing my angry victim and 5 of his closest friends. If I was really rational about it, and really wanted it, I'd get a job and work for it, so it could be rightfully mine.

So, terrorists are pragmatic and irrational. The goal is fear and death, and they achieve that with as much efficiency as possible (flying a 747 into a tall building). Killing innocent individuals en masse is not rational, and cannot be justified by reason.
It's a matter of semantics at this point then. Using your terminology, if you insist, I still maintain that the essence of winston_blade's point was indeed that terrorists are "pragmatic". That was the idea he was trying to communicate. They have an agenda, and choose behaviors that achieve that agenda more effectively than most other behaviors would. If you want to call that pragmatism, but not a rational pursuit of an unwholesome goal, that's fine. The idea is the same, regardless. Disagreeing with winston_blade on that point was merely an avoidance of what he was truly communicating, and something that you apparently agree with.

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 11:00 PM
It's a matter of semantics at this point then. Using your terminology, if you insist, I still maintain that the essence of winston_blade's point was indeed that terrorists are "pragmatic". That was the idea he was trying to communicate. They have an agenda, and choose behaviors that achieve that agenda more effectively than most other behaviors would. If you want to call that pragmatism, but not a rational pursuit of an unwholesome goal, that's fine. The idea is the same, regardless. Disagreeing with winston_blade on that point was merely an avoidance of what he was truly communicating, and something that you apparently agree with.

I just think that it is dangerous to really mix "rational" actions with "pragmatic" actions. Being rational means having some grounding in reason, but being pragmatic does not require any grounding in reason. To credit the terrorists with any kind of "rationale" to speak of is to say that their actions have some kind of grounding in reason. I cannot bring myself to say that there is any element of reason in purposefully killing innocent people.

I personally know winston blade and we've had conversations on this before. He knows that he is wrong, and will always be wrong, as long as he disagrees iwth me! :cool: jk, jk.

Exponent
05-16-2007, 11:07 PM
I just think that it is dangerous to really mix "rational" actions with "pragmatic" actions. Being rational means having some grounding in reason, but being pragmatic does not require any grounding in reason. To credit the terrorists with any kind of "rationale" to speak of is to say that their actions have some kind of grounding in reason. I cannot bring myself to say that there is any element of reason in purposefully killing innocent people.

I personally know winston blade and we've had conversations on this before. He knows that he is wrong, and will always be wrong, as long as he disagrees iwth me! :cool: jk, jk.
Fair enough. I can definitely see the motivation, especially when outside observers are involved and might get the wrong impression over word-usage. My philosophical outlook tends to separate value-theory concepts from logic-based concepts, so I generally see rationality and reason as logical processes, and agendas as values. Rationality and reason alone cannot influence behavior. It takes some desire, some value, some agenda, to direct ones behavior, and reason (in a logical sense) can be an obviously useful tool to more effectively achieving that goal.

I will concede the argument to you, though, in light of the fact that some people most definitely will misunderstand what is meant by "rational", just like people have misunderstood Ron Paul, claiming that he thinks that the people who died in the September 11th attacks deserved it. As irrational as those people can be sometimes, it seems we do have to work extra hard to ensure that the ideas that we intend to communicate do in fact get communicated effectively, even if we have to work around mental blocks that automatically misconstrue everything we say.

Gee
05-16-2007, 11:15 PM
I think this begs an interesting question into how the mind works and linguistics: Why do people sometimes equate something which makes rational (logical) sense to something which makes rational (moral) sense? The two are obviously quite different in meaning, only sharing a word.

But I digress...

thePhilosopher
05-16-2007, 11:20 PM
Fair enough. I can definitely see the motivation, especially when outside observers are involved and might get the wrong impression over word-usage. My philosophical outlook tends to separate value-theory concepts from logic-based concepts, so I generally see rationality and reason as logical processes, and agendas as values. Rationality and reason alone cannot influence behavior. It takes some desire, some value, some agenda, to direct ones behavior, and reason (in a logical sense) can be an obviously useful tool to more effectively achieving that goal.

I will concede the argument to you, though, in light of the fact that some people most definitely will misunderstand what is meant by "rational", just like people have misunderstood Ron Paul, claiming that he thinks that the people who died in the September 11th attacks deserved it. As irrational as those people can be sometimes, it seems we do have to work extra hard to ensure that the ideas that we intend to communicate do in fact get communicated effectively, even if we have to work around mental blocks that automatically misconstrue everything we say.

Ah, I see the cause for our wires crossing then. Sorry for unnecessarily talking past each other. I don't think that Ron Paul said that we "deserved" 9/11, and I think that people who suggest that are wrong. Beck does not suggest this, and did not in tonight's broadcast. Paul is not a perfect candidate because there isn't and never will be a perfect candidate. He has a lot of strengths and a lot of good issues which I agree with (security, cutting big gov't, etc.), but he can't expect to say what he did in the debate without serious backlash and possibly being misinterpreted. Hopefully he felt like it was worth it, but I'm not sure that it was.

kylejack
05-17-2007, 12:12 AM
Is there video or a transcript of this yet?

JoshLowry
05-17-2007, 12:20 AM
Is there video or a transcript of this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA3mAe2IdUM

4Horsemen
05-17-2007, 12:26 AM
He stated what was documented in the 911 Commission and CIA reports. He never said anything about rationalities or justifications for the 911 attack. He stated it was one the "reasons" the terrorist attacked us. This isn't a unigue situation, the American Indians took great offense to others inhabiting their land, especially when they warned them but were ignored. That provided a motive to kill the settlers, and did the Indians feel justified with their actions? I'm sure they did, and the rational is in the eye of the beholder.

thePhilosopher
05-17-2007, 06:29 AM
He stated what was documented in the 911 Commission and CIA reports. He never said anything about rationalities or justifications for the 911 attack. He stated it was one the "reasons" the terrorist attacked us. This isn't a unigue situation, the American Indians took great offense to others inhabiting their land, especially when they warned them but were ignored. That provided a motive to kill the settlers, and did the Indians feel justified with their actions? I'm sure they did, and the rational is in the eye of the beholder.

When you start to say that terrorism is rational, by talking about the reasoning behind it, that is when you have difficulty saying that it is wrong. This is not what Paul has done, but this is what he is in danger of doing. You cannot justify killing innocent people intentionally with terrorist tactics. You can't begin to speak of the "reasons" of terrorism because it is irrational. I can't believe I've had to go over this over and over again on a conservative candidate's board. Anyone who is a conservative would understand this to be an elementary truth.