Rand + Ted Cruz win Nashville GOP Straw Poll

[Matt Collins]

Yesterday at the Nashville Republican Picnic, Ted Cruz won the Nashville straw poll, Rand came in a close second place. I did not make a push to turn people out to the poll there were very few Ron Paul supporters there. This honestly amazes me that Rand and Cruz take the top two slots by a wide margin!

[FSP-Rebel]

That's great as long as Cruz isn't a patsy to sink the anti-establishment vote and is actually Rand's wingman.

[talkingpointes]

Yesterday at the Nashville Republican Picnic, Ted Cruz won the Nashville straw poll, Rand came in a close second place. I did not make a push to turn people out to the poll there were very few Ron Paul supporters there. This honestly amazes me that Rand and Cruz take the top two slots by a wide margin!

I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Matt where do you work now, or are you even working ?

Secondly - do you know a Brian Doherty?

[TaftFan]

We need them to be the ticket.

The GOP not coming out to vote has cost the last two elections.

[talkingpointes]

Matt Collins wrote: "If you would like to delete all posts and comments in this blog regarding this subject I would be willing to support you in that. I see no reason why this correspondence needs to stand as it would only serve as a distraction from this point forward."

You said this same thing Saturday morning when we spoke. I told you then, and repeat now, that every poster has the ability to delete their comments. You are welcome to do so at any time.

Matt Collins wrote: "It was your mistake to decide against me without at least holding a conversation with me. This was offered as you mentioned several times by both myself and by a mutual friend."

I don't know how you define 'several times'. I do know that you made an offer communicate here on this blog and then once late Friday afternoon through your 'intermediary'. Again, it would have been a waste of time. Getting to know you better would not have changed what I considered your lack of qualifications, your divided loyalties and your misuse of the NashvilleGOP.org website.

Instead of trying to edit this blog and blogging for Rand Paul at Campaign for Liberty you might want to put your Chief Information Officer hat on and spend your time updating the NashvilleGOP.org website to include linking to the latest press release about the convention results and updating the leadership page. Folks shouldn't have to go to AC Kleinheider's blog to find that information. "

-Matt Collins
Vice Chair - Davidson County Republican Party
Vice Chair - Republican Liberty Caucus
Davidson County Coordinator - Campaign for Liberty

So are you the one that is selling our info. You are the only one that has access, know-how, and is desperate enough.

You have access to Ron's old facebook
YAL records
Campaign for liberty records?

"I have not misused the NashvilleGOP.org website at anytime. Don't believe me? Ask the two previous chairmen, including the one who appointed me.

Also, I am no longer the DCRP CIO/Webmaster so it is not my responsibility to update the DCRP website any longer. I have given all of the access information to the current chair with an offer to keep it updated at her request in the interim; so far no response on that matter.


If you would be willing to delete your posts about me, then I would of course be willing to delete mine about you. I think that would be best. "


http://kaybrooks.blogspot.com/2009/04/matt-collins-part-iii.html

http://kaybrooks.blogspot.com/2009/04/matt-collins-part-ii.html

Matt Collins said...

I'll give a response to this as soon as you apologize for misrepresenting that you were a simple neutral inquisitive individual looking for more information. You are shilling for my opponent and lying about it.

These are the types of tactics that are part of the problem with the Republican Party; acting like Democrats. Using underhanded tactics such as this is exactly what the Party needs to get away from.


SHAME on you for purporting to be neutral when you definitely were not. The Party would be better off without you and people who use your methodologies.

[talkingpointes]

"That whole trying to hide the files things is just not right. Regardless these files are not hard to find once you begin a Google search on your name. You've posted them in several places and made no attempt to hide their URL so the 'nashvillegop.org/misc' was in plain sight. In fact they weren't even hyperlinked which may make them stand out even more to anyone reading your posts which included mention of the files. If you did your best to make them as obscure as possible perhaps we should also be looking for a new webmaster.


Matt wrote: "...I had needed a quick, easy, and convenient place online to store a few interviews I wanted to keep; this seemed like the logical choice especially since they were not intended to be seen by anyone coming onto the DCRP website."

Matt wrote: “I am NOT a political expert, and yes this is my first time involved in Party politics. But that is a clear advantage to the Party. I don't have any personal vendettas, back stories, or other personality differences that appears to have divided the DCRP for so long; this is obviously a good thing.”

[talkingpointes]

So your expertise is conning internet traffic, and spinning issues ? No way!

[Sola_Fide]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Ted Cruz will do more to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Fienstein will.

[talkingpointes]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Ted Cruz will do more to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Fienstein will.

Well Matt doesn't care he made promises to the party to bring in more people. He is trying to bring them traffic and money. He's a total pawn.

[spladle]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Ted Cruz will do more to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Fienstein will.

Why do you think this?

[Sola_Fide]

Why do you think this?

Because George Bush-style Republicans do more to lull people into a sense of complacency than the overtly anti-freedom people like socialist Democrats.

[talkingpointes]

Why do you think this?

Why are you asking. Why don't you just google it. Ted Cruz is a politician. Do we need to explain why rape is bad too ?

[Matt Collins]

Well Matt doesn't care he made promises to the party to bring in more people. He is trying to bring them traffic and money. He's a total pawn.Uh, what's wrong with trying to bring in more liberty minded people to the Party? :confused: That's what Ron has been doing. :rolleyes:

[talkingpointes]

Uh, what's wrong with trying to bring in more liberty minded people to the Party? :confused: That's what Ron has been doing. :rolleyes:

Really. Why aren't you bringing the disenfranchised voters to us? I have a very good idea of what you're doing and is not bringing people to the party. It's bringing money and opinions to the party.

You're gathering information to sell to help the mainstream shitheads know what moves we are going to make.(and then how they can contact/email us) Then you come here to drop information to guide our moves and opinions. You're not doing anything profound. I have guys sitting next to me at work that get paid to do the same thing. You do it for free though. LOL

[spladle]

Because George Bush-style Republicans do more to lull people into a sense of complacency than the overtly anti-freedom people like socialist Democrats.

Why do you think of Ted Cruz as a George Bush-style Republican?

[spladle]

Why are you asking.

Because I disagree.


Why don't you just google it.

I have done so and still disagree.


Ted Cruz is a politician.

Rand/Ron Paul is/was a politician.


Do we need to explain why rape is bad too ?

No, I agree that rape is bad. But I disagree that Ted Cruz is bad. I'm open to being persuaded, though.

[talkingpointes]

Because I disagree.



I have done so and still disagree.



Rand/Ron Paul is/was a politician.



No, I agree that rape is bad. But I disagree that Ted Cruz is bad. I'm open to being persuaded, though.

You disagree. Oh no. WTF does that mean. Are you a robot. Do you have opinions ? Or are you waiting for the green light on them?

[spladle]

I have a very good idea of what you're doing and is not bringing people to the party. It's bringing money and opinions to the party.

Money buys people. You cannot bring people to a party without money.

[spladle]

You disagree. Oh no. WTF does that mean.

Why don't you just google it.


Are you a robot.

No.


Do you have opinions ? Or are you waiting for the green light on them?

My opinion is that Ted Cruz does not absolutely suck and will do less to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Feinstein will.

Not sure what you're talking about with the "green light" comment.

[carlton]

Why don't you just google it.



No.



My opinion is that Ted Cruz does not absolutely suck and will do less to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Feinstein will.

Not sure what you're talking about with the "green light" comment.

Lol, viva contrarians. I will say one thing, If Cruz seeks to torpedo Paul in the general then yes.. he is worse than Feinstein IMO.

[talkingpointes]

Why don't you just google it.



No.



My opinion is that Ted Cruz does not absolutely suck and will do less to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Feinstein will.

Not sure what you're talking about with the "green light" comment.

Right. This site is officially fucked.

[spladle]

Lol, viva contrarians. I will say one thing, If Cruz seeks to torpedo Paul in the general then yes.. he is worse than Feinstein IMO.

Do you think Cruz will seek to torpedo Paul in the general?

[spladle]

Right. This site is officially fucked.

OK, then stop, and go home. Clock out and leave.

[Rocco]

It's a lot easier for us to become them than it is for Matt to try to drag them all to us. What's wrong with bringing liberty money and liberty opinions to the party? Without those things we have ZERO chance of becoming the GOP establishment. The fact that you attack Matt over what is obviously a great service to the liberty movement shows you don't know dick about politics. You know voters are repulsed by ignorance, right?



Really. Why aren't you bringing the disenfranchised voters to us? I have a very good idea of what you're doing and is not bringing people to the party. It's bringing money and opinions to the party.

You're gathering information to sell to help the mainstream shitheads know what moves we are going to make.(and then how they can contact/email us) Then you come here to drop information to guide our moves and opinions. You're not doing anything profound. I have guys sitting next to me at work that get paid to do the same thing. You do it for free though. LOL

You don't give a fuck about liberty you care about yourself. You know women are repulsed by selfishness right ?

[carlton]

Possibly. If it wasnt a thought in my head, would I have typed it?

[jtstellar]

someone explain the drama? ive seen a lot of flame directed at collins for a very long time but can't say i was ever interested enough in personal quarrels to delve deep

[spladle]

Possibly. If it wasnt a thought in my head, would I have typed it?

I don't express every thought that enters my head and don't think you should either. How likely do you think it is that Cruz will seek to torpedo Paul in the general? What do you imagine would be his motivation for doing so?

[carlton]

I don't express every thought that enters my head and don't think you should either. How likely do you think it is that Cruz will seek to torpedo Paul in the general? What do you imagine would be his motivation for doing so?

Lol, the response was to your reply: "Do you think Cruz will seek to torpedo Paul in the general?" I think what you MEANT was "do you think its LIKELY that Crus will torpedo Paul." Is it obligatory for you to be so snarky? I find it amusing myself but know others are turned off a bit. Anyway, to answer your question, I think when the GOP establishment has to choose between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, they would get behind Cruz in a heartbeat. Cruz doesn't have the last name Paul and he isn't seen as a libertarian type, a constitutionalist yes but not an advocate of freedom like Ron and to a lesser extent Rand. I think he may see his chance and run with it.

BTW, I dont type every thought in my head. Having a bunch right now... but I will leave the rest of this message... blank.

[spladle]

Lol, the response was to your reply: "Do you think Cruz will seek to torpedo Paul in the general?" I think what you MEANT was "do you think its LIKELY that Crus will torpedo Paul."

No, I meant what I said and said what I meant. I don't think "Possibly" was a reasonable answer to my question.


Is it obligatory for you to be so snarky? I find it amusing myself but know others are turned off a bit.

I am pleased with the filter function that my snarkiness performs. The people who are amused/repelled by it are precisely the sort of people I want to amuse/repel.


Anyway, to answer your question, I think when the GOP establishment has to choose between Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, they would get behind Cruz in a heartbeat. Cruz doesn't have the last name Paul and he isn't seen as a libertarian type, a constitutionalist yes but not an advocate of freedom like Ron and to a lesser extent Rand. I think he may see his chance and run with it.

Ah. So by "general" did you mean "primary"?

[carlton]

Ah. So by "general" did you mean "primary"?

Yes. Hope that wasn't hard to piece together.

[carlton]

No, I meant what I said and said what I meant. I don't think "Possibly" was a reasonable answer to my question.

I cannot answer with any sort of certainty since time is linear and I don't know what is yet to come, so "possibly" is the best answer I can give. I think that Cruz is a downgrade to Paul. Cruz, like any politician in ascendance, must be mulling his options. A lot of the Freeper types, as well as establishment GOP are more inclined to support a Cruz than a Paul. So yeah, I think its very possible that Cruz can end up torpedoing Paul. Do I know for certain? Nope.

[erowe1]

Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Ted Cruz will do more to hurt the cause of freedom than Dianne Fienstein will.

Interesting. I'm skeptical of him. But this is a strong claim. Why do you say it?

[Sola_Fide]

Interesting. I'm skeptical of him. But this is a strong claim. Why do you say it?

Here's for starters:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

This made anti-Ron people jump for joy:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2013/06/oooooo-ted-cruz-might-be-more-hawkish-than-i-first-thought.html

This is why the Ted Cruz's of the world are more dangerous than the most statist Democrats.

[erowe1]

Here's for starters:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

This made anti-Ron people jump for joy:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2013/06/oooooo-ted-cruz-might-be-more-hawkish-than-i-first-thought.html

This is why the Ted Cruz's of the world are more dangerous than the most statist Democrats.

It's definitely bad. I probably would still say not as bad as most statists of either party.

[Sola_Fide]

It's definitely bad. I probably would still say not as bad as most statists of either party.

Probably not as bad as the rest of them...but because he is said to represent the "liberty movement", its very very bad.

[spladle]

Here's for starters:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

This made anti-Ron people jump for joy:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2013/06/oooooo-ted-cruz-might-be-more-hawkish-than-i-first-thought.html

This is why the Ted Cruz's of the world are more dangerous than the most statist Democrats.

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

[helenpaul]

very true

[spladle]

Probably not as bad as the rest of them...but because he is said to represent the "liberty movement", its very very bad.

He does represent the liberty movement. Non-interventionists are a very tiny minority amongst the Republican electorate; as the liberty movement expands, it begins to include people who do not agree on every issue. Foreign policy is one of those issues.

[Sola_Fide]

He does represent the liberty movement. Non-interventionists are a very tiny minority amongst the Republican electorate; as the liberty movement expands, it begins to include people who do not agree on every issue. Foreign policy is one of those issues.

No way. You cannot mix freedom with imperialism. The one cancels out the other.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

Go back and listen to Ron destroy Santorum and Bachman in the debates over this very issue. The position you are advocating is destructive to freedom.

[spladle]

No way. You cannot mix freedom with imperialism. The one cancels out the other.

Please define: freedom, imperialism

[spladle]

Go back and listen to Ron destroy Santorum and Bachman in the debates over this very issue. The position you are advocating is destructive to freedom.

Link to said destruction?

What position do you believe me to be advocating? I suspect you've misunderstood me.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

Spradle, this was the same excuse made by the neocons for invading Iraq. Remember? It is just an excuse for their actions to get the American people to go along with what they want to do, which is to overthrow the government.

For me, I don't hate Cruz. I live in Texas and he was FAR preferable to David Dewhurst. HOWEVER, his wife does hold a high-level job with Goldman-Sachs and Ted started a PAC which he handed over to a Bush. He has a great deal of connections to the Bush family and that makes me plenty uneasy. But, when he supports liberty, I will applaud him and when he doesn't, I will call him out. He gets no free passes from me, because he hasn't earned any.

Just keep your eyes open with Ted Cruz. I have this feeling that somewhere down the line, he will be like a knife in our backs.

[spladle]

Spradle, this was the same excuse made by the neocons for invading Iraq. Remember? It is just an excuse for their actions to get the American people to go along with what they want to do, which is to overthrow the government.

Yes, I remember. The reason they use this lie as their excuse is that, if it were true, it would be a pretty good excuse.


For me, I don't hate Cruz. I live in Texas and he was FAR preferable to David Dewhurst. HOWEVER, his wife does hold a high-level job with Goldman-Sachs and Ted started a PAC which he handed over to a Bush. He has a great deal of connections to the Bush family and that makes me plenty uneasy. But, when he supports liberty, I will applaud him and when he doesn't, I will call him out. He gets no free passes from me, because he hasn't earned any.

+1


Just keep your eyes open with Ted Cruz. I have this feeling that somewhere down the line, he will be like a knife in our backs.

Depends on what you mean by "knife in our backs." I would not consider him running against Rand in 2016 as any sort of betrayal. Cruz is self-interested and will do what he believes to be in his own best interests. Because their political beliefs are very similar, this will often involve allying with/supporting Rand. But not always.

[thoughtomator]

That's great as long as Cruz isn't a patsy to sink the anti-establishment vote and is actually Rand's wingman.

He gets to be this year's Fred Thompson.

[Sola_Fide]

What position do you believe me to be advocating?

This one:


Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.



Don't let the war propagandists reel you in. The reason they want war is because that is how they control us. Pretty soon, everyone who is "anti-government" will be a "terrorist" and they will label our ideas as "weapons of mass destruction". That is what it all leads to when we accept the premise of the perpetual war state.

[georgiaboy]

This one:

Don't let the war propagandists reel you in. The reason they want war is because that is how they control us. Pretty soon, everyone who is "anti-government" will be a "terrorist" and they will label our ideas as "weapons of mass destruction". That is what it all leads to when we accept the premise of the perpetual war state.

yep, since when was neutrality not an option for the United States of America? Quagmires gone wild.

[spladle]

This one:


Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

Don't let the war propagandists reel you in. The reason they want war is because that is how they control us. Pretty soon, everyone who is "anti-government" will be a "terrorist" and they will label our ideas as "weapons of mass destruction". That is what it all leads to when we accept the premise of the perpetual war state.

Nothing you just said is in conflict with anything I have said.

[spladle]

yep, since when was neutrality not an option for the United States of America? Quagmires gone wild.

Neutrality is always an option, but it is not always the best option.

[georgiaboy]

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

Invasion is not relatively mild hawkishness.

Invasion is the supreme hawkishness!! Invading, when we haven't been attacked, no imminent threat, no declaration of war -- does this even have to be typed yet again?

Your WMD/terrorist talking point might have sounded great ten years ago, but now it's either a sad joke or lazy trolling.

[georgiaboy]

Neutrality is always an option, but it is not always the best option.

Well, how about conservatives, if they really are conservatives, get back to neutrality unless we're attacked or under imminent threat of attack, pretty please? And if you type the word naive, you lose.

We've got some multi-trillion dollar debts to pay down and the largest government in American history to start chipping away at. No time for ghostly WMD's.

[spladle]

Invasion is not relatively mild hawkishness.

Invasion is the supreme hawkishness!! Invading, when we haven't been attacked, no imminent threat, no declaration of war -- does this even have to be typed yet again?

These comments are a non-sequitur. There is some disagreement over whether an imminent threat exists, and the question of whether a declaration of war should be issued has not been raised.


Your WMD/terrorist talking point might have sounded great ten years ago, but now it's either a sad joke or lazy trolling.

To which talking point are you referring?

[spladle]

Well, how about conservatives, if they really are conservatives, get back to neutrality unless we're attacked or under imminent threat of attack, pretty please? And if you type the word naive, you lose.

Okay. Many conservatives claim that we are under imminent threat of attack. You seem to agree that invasion is justified if this is the case.


We've got some multi-trillion dollar debts to pay down and the largest government in American history to start chipping away at. No time for ghostly WMD's.

Is it your position that there is no such thing as a WMD?

[July]

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

It comes down to this I think, what is the role of the military? This is the central question, not unlike the question of what the role of government ought to be, that defines a liberty leaning person, IMO. From there, there may be disagreements on various aspects or details, and some are more hardcore non interventionist than others...but there's generally a consensus about what the role of the military ought to be. This is why we see alignment on foreign policy from many of the hawkish Republicans on the right and statist Democrats.... They are generally in agreement on the role of government/military.

[spladle]

It comes down to this I think, what is the role of the military? This is the central question, not unlike the question of what the role of government ought to be, that defines a liberty leaning person, IMO. From there, there may be disagreements on various aspects or details, and some are more hardcore non interventionist than others...but there's generally a consensus about what the role of the military ought to be. This is why we see alignment on foreign policy from many of the hawkish Republicans on the right and statist Democrats.... They are generally in agreement on the role of government/military.

What do you think is the role of the military?

[erowe1]

Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.

No there isn't.

[spladle]

No there isn't.

Do you believe that WMDs being deployed on America soil is preferable to having the US military invade another country to destroy said WMDs?

[Sola_Fide]

Do you believe that WMDs being deployed on America soil is preferable to having the US military invade another country to destroy said WMDs?

Do you think it is preferable to be constantly starting wars and conflicts with our intervention, or pursuing peace through diplomacy and voluntary exchange?

[spladle]

Do you think it is preferable to be constantly starting wars and conflicts with our intervention, or pursuing peace through diplomacy and voluntary exchange?

Pursuing peace through diplomacy and voluntary exchange.

Do you believe that WMDs being deployed on America soil is preferable to having the US military invade another country to destroy said WMDs?

[TaftFan]

I honestly don't have a problem with sneaking in and blowing up chemical weapons if they are about to fall in the hands of terrorists.

In that case the terrorists don't have them and we also don't have a war to worry about.

Edit-to clarify, I wouldn't support this if it constituted any serious sort of ground presence and only if we know for sure where the weapons were. I'm thinking of a scenario similar to how they got Bin Laden.

[georgiaboy]

sorry, spladle, i'm out. enough sophistry for now. said my peace, counted to 3. If after these last ten years you're willing to invade yet another country on the premise of "keeping WMD's out of the hands of XXX Bad Guys", there ain't no helpin' ya.

[trey4sports]

This is fine just as long as Ted Cruz doesnt actually run for President.

[spladle]

I honestly don't have a problem with sneaking in and blowing up chemical weapons if they are about to fall in the hands of terrorists.

In that case the terrorists don't have them and we also don't have a war to worry about.

Heck, if even Taft agrees that intervention would be warranted under these circumstances, I must be talking sense! :p

[erowe1]

Do you believe that WMDs being deployed on America soil is preferable to having the US military invade another country to destroy said WMDs?

No.

[erowe1]

I honestly don't have a problem with sneaking in and blowing up chemical weapons if they are about to fall in the hands of terrorists.

In that case the terrorists don't have them and we also don't have a war to worry about.

I could see myself supporting that, as long as the government isn't involved.

[spladle]

sorry, spladle, i'm out. enough sophistry for now. said my peace, counted to 3. If after these last ten years you're willing to invade yet another country on the premise of "keeping WMD's out of the hands of XXX Bad Guys", there ain't no helpin' ya.

I graciously accept your surrender and tacit admission that I am right.

[TaftFan]

I could see myself supporting that, as long as the government isn't involved.

IMO the government would be involved, but Congress would have to improve it.

Send in a few black helicopters and blow up the weapons cache and then leave it be.

I can't really think of any good arguments against something like that, other than the millions it might cost.

[Sola_Fide]

Pursuing peace through diplomacy and voluntary exchange.

Do you believe that WMDs being deployed on America soil is preferable to having the US military invade another country to destroy said WMDs?

Do you not understand that our intervention and constant threats of more intervention is the cause of their wanting to get weapons to defend themselves? Why is Syria not threatening Switzerland right now?

[spladle]

No.

How do you square this with the denial that WMDs existing in Syria and being likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored creates a reasonable argument for invasion? Seems to me that these positions are inconsistent.

[spladle]

I could see myself supporting that, as long as the government isn't involved.

Do you mean to imply that you would not support such action if it were taken by the US military? If so, why not?

[TaftFan]

How do you square this with the denial that WMDs existing in Syria and being likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored creates a reasonable argument for invasion? Seems to me that these positions are inconsistent.

Not sure why an invasion would be appropriate. Once you take that step it just leads to another Iraq and all of that destabilization.

Last I checked our Bin Laden mission didn't break the country apart or cause people to hate America.

All of our counter-terrorism should be through special operations and a bounty system like Ron Paul suggests.

[erowe1]

IMO the government would be involved, but Congress would have to improve it.

Send in a few black helicopters and blow up the weapons cache and then leave it be.

I can't really think of any good arguments against something like that, other than the millions it might cost.

No arguments against our government destroying the property of another government on the pretense that they think it's about to get into the hands of someone our government considers a terrorist?

Should some other country bomb some place in America on the pretense that our government has WMD's there?

[spladle]

IMO the government would be involved, but Congress would have to improve it.

Send in a few black helicopters and blow up the weapons cache and then leave it be.

I can't really think of any good arguments against something like that, other than the millions it might cost.

Good arguments against it mirror good arguments for it. If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger (and vice versa). If the expected cost (in both $ and lives) of invading is high, then the case for invasion becomes weaker (and vice versa). Ultimately, one's policy preference in this arena depends on one's assumptions about empirical realities that are extremely difficult to gauge.

[erowe1]

Do you mean to imply that you would not support such action if it were taken by the US military? If so, why not?

For one thing, if it were done by the government, they'd have to steal money to pay for it.

For another thing, we have this unfortunate situation engendered by our democratic system, where it's very difficult to tell who's actually responsible for the crimes our government commits, and the blame for those crimes often gets spread to the American people who elected the politicians who legislated those crimes. Thus, innocent American people who have nothing to do with what the regime that rules over them does in other countries, end up being the targets of terrorists.

[TaftFan]

No arguments against our government destroying the property of another government on the pretense that they think it's about to get into the hands of someone our government considers a terrorist?

Should some other country bomb some place in America on the pretense that our government has WMD's there?

Are you suggesting we extend property rights arguments to these sort of scenarios?

If the American government was about to collapse, and it's nuclear arnenals were about to be taken over by crazy people, yes I would encourage them to destroy the weapons, which has completely different connotations than "bombing America".

[Anti-Neocon]

How do you square this with the denial that WMDs existing in Syria and being likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored creates a reasonable argument for invasion? Seems to me that these positions are inconsistent.
If we want terrorists to use WMDs against us, then we should invade as many countries as possible.

If we wanted to intervene in Syria, it'd probably be slightly less harmful to take the side of Assad's government because at least they're a known quantity who might be able to hold some stability.

But anything save a neutral stance of non-intervention would be creating us way more enemies than we had in the first place.

[erowe1]

If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high

What does this actually mean?

[spladle]

Do you not understand that our intervention and constant threats of more intervention is the cause of their wanting to get weapons to defend themselves?

I agree that these things are a contributing factor, but I don't agree that they are the only causes.


Why is Syria not threatening Switzerland right now?

Syria is not threatening anyone.

[erowe1]

If the American government was about to collapse, and it's nuclear arnenals were about to be taken over by crazy people, yes I would encourage them to destroy the weapons, which has completely different connotations than "bombing America".

Now you say crazy people. Earlier you said terrorists.

Say you're in another country. The American government owns nukes. The government wouldn't have to collapse for those nukes to be used by crazy people or terrorists. Even if you don't think they are already, it's only a matter of time before they are. It's a matter of when, not if. Should your country's government bomb those nuke facilities to preemptively protect itself from getting nuked?

[spladle]

For one thing, if it were done by the government, they'd have to steal money to pay for it.

Suppose a meteor was discovered that would destroy the entire planet if its course were not altered. Next suppose that in order to prevent this, $5 trillion worth of nuclear weapons would need to be built and launched within six months. For the sake of argument, assume that the only way for this stockpile to be created and deployed is via government action - namely, taxation, and a lot of it. Would you support this taxation, or would you prefer that the planet be destroyed?


For another thing, we have this unfortunate situation engendered by our democratic system, where it's very difficult to tell who's actually responsible for the crimes our government commits, and the blame for those crimes often gets spread to the American people who elected the politicians who legislated those crimes. Thus, innocent American people who have nothing to do with what the regime that rules over them does in other countries, end up being the targets of terrorists.

How much weight do you believe that this consideration deserves? I agree that it's an argument against intervention, but I hope you'd agree that it is not always decisive.

[TaftFan]

Now you say crazy people. Earlier you said terrorists.

Say you're in another country. The American government owns nukes. The government wouldn't have to collapse for those nukes to be used by crazy people or terrorists. Even if you don't think they are already, it's only a matter of time before they are. It's a matter of when, not if. Should your country's government bomb those nuke facilities to preemptively protect itself from getting nuked?

I used the terms interchangebly since I consider terrorists (let's call them for what they are: murderers) crazy.

I would say no. For one thing, we can always make more. The terrorists don''t necessarily have that capability.

I don't want to stop undermining terrorists. They are dangerous. We make the problem worse through our occupations. But, minimal interventions through special forces when absolutely necessary makes sense to me. We can use letters of marque and reprisal as well. We need to tread lightly and carry a little stick, but we still need to have a stick even though it is small.

[spladle]

If we want terrorists to use WMDs against us, then we should invade as many countries as possible.

If we wanted to intervene in Syria, it'd probably be slightly less harmful to take the side of Assad's government because at least they're a known quantity who might be able to hold some stability.

But anything save a neutral stance of non-intervention would be creating us way more enemies than we had in the first place.

I agree with all of this.

However, even a neutral stance of non-intervention will not immediately eliminate our already extant enemies. Some people would probably still want to commit acts of terrorism against the US even if we refrained from intervening in Syria and began to adopt a consistent position of non-intervention.

[erowe1]

I used the terms interchangebly since I consider terrorists (let's call them for what they are: murderers) crazy.

I would say no. For one thing, we can always make more. The terrorists don''t necessarily have that capability.

I don't want to stop undermining terrorists. They are dangerous. We make the problem worse through our occupations. But, minimal interventions through special forces when absolutely necessary makes sense to me. We can use letters of marque and reprisal as well. We need to tread lightly and carry a little stick, but we still need to have a stick even though it is small.

How are you defining "terrorist"? You apparently don't consider Obama one. Why not?

[spladle]

If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high


What does this actually mean?

I don't know how to simplify this clause any further. Which word(s) do you find confusing?

[TaftFan]

How are you defining "terrorist"? You apparently don't consider Obama one. Why not?

He is a terrorist enabler in more than one way.

[spladle]

We need to tread lightly and carry a little stick, but we still need to have a stick even though it is small.

What do you have against big sticks?

[erowe1]

Suppose a meteor was discovered that would destroy the entire planet if its course were not altered. Next suppose that in order to prevent this, $5 trillion worth of nuclear weapons would need to be built and launched within six months. For the sake of argument, assume that the only way for this stockpile to be created and deployed is via government action - namely, taxation, and a lot of it. Would you support this taxation, or would you prefer that the planet be destroyed?

I wouldn't support it, and the planet wouldn't be destroyed. Just like it never gets destroyed every other time the government tries to scare us with scenarios like that.



How much weight do you believe that this consideration deserves? I agree that it's an argument against intervention, but I hope you'd agree that it is not always decisive.

I can't see any reason for it ever not to be decisive.

[erowe1]

He is a terrorist enabler in more than one way.

But not a terrorist?

[erowe1]

I don't know how to simplify this clause any further. Which word(s) do you find confusing?

The part about danger being high. What does it mean for danger to be high?

[TaftFan]

What do you have against big sticks?

Big impact.

[TaftFan]

But not a terrorist?

Not by common definition, no.

[Sola_Fide]

I agree with all of this.

However, even a neutral stance of non-intervention will not immediately eliminate our already extant enemies. Some people would probably still want to commit acts of terrorism against the US even if we refrained from intervening in Syria and began to adopt a consistent position of non-intervention.

So the answer to the problem that terrorists will still want to attack a non-interventionist America is to conduct pre-emptive war with them? Isnt that the cause of the problem to begin with?

Would you advise Switzerland to conduct pre-emptive strikes against Syria as well?

[erowe1]

Not by common definition, no.

According to whatever definition you're using, what distinguishes him from a terrorist?

[spladle]

I wouldn't support it, and the planet wouldn't be destroyed. Just like it never gets destroyed every other time the government tries to scare us with scenarios like that.

Yes it would. This isn't real life, it's a thought experiment. I get to make up whatever conditions I want for the sake of getting you to forthrightly declare your values. Would you rather support a butt-load of taxation or have the entire planet be destroyed? It's a simple question.


I can't see any reason for it ever not to be decisive.

Suppose that there exists a terrorist with a nuke in Pakistan. He plans to bring it into the US and explode it in a major metropolitan area. Assume that this plan will succeed with probability 1, killing 5 million people. The US military has the ability to bomb the terrorist to death, but in doing so they will kill 10,000 innocent civilians as well, because they only know his approximate location. This will create a wave of anti-US terrorism that will result in a loss of 50,000 innocent American lives.

Should the US military bomb the terrorist?

[spladle]

The part about danger being high. What does it mean for danger to be high?

I think you may have forgotten the context of the sentence from which you're quoting. Let me refresh your memory:

"If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger (and vice versa)."

This is equivalent to saying that as the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs increases, the case for invasion becomes stronger (and vice versa).

Your question is akin to asking what the word "increases" means.

[spladle]

Big impact.

I don't understand this reply. Please elaborate?

[spladle]

So the answer to the problem that terrorists will still want to attack a non-interventionist America is to conduct pre-emptive war with them?

Probably not, no. But it may be.


Isnt that the cause of the problem to begin with?

Yes, it is.


Would you advise Switzerland to conduct pre-emptive strikes against Syria as well?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I ask because I never suggested that the United States ought to conduct pre-emptive strikes against Syria, yet you include the clause "as well."

[FrancisMarion]

Suppose that there exists a terrorist with a nuke in Pakistan. He plans to bring it into the US and explode it in a major metropolitan area. Assume that this plan will succeed with probability 1, killing 5 million people. The US military has the ability to bomb the terrorist to death, but in doing so they will kill 10,000 innocent civilians as well, because they only know his approximate location. This will create a wave of anti-US terrorism that will result in a loss of 50,000 innocent American lives.

Should the US military bomb the terrorist?

Are we also to assume that the only way to thwart the terrorist from exploding the nuke is to bomb a general area?

[spladle]

Are we also to assume that the only way to thwart the terrorist from exploding the nuke is to bomb a general area?

Yes.

[erowe1]

Yes it would. This isn't real life, it's a thought experiment. I get to make up whatever conditions I want for the sake of getting you to forthrightly declare your values. Would you rather support a butt-load of taxation or have the entire planet be destroyed? It's a simple question.

Do I understand you correctly that in your thought experiment there is a threat of destruction of the planet and that there exists proof of this with 100% certainty before it occurs? And even though the population of the world is 100% certain that they're going to be destroyed if they don't support some trillion dollar project, they still won't support that project except under threat of deadly force by the government?

If that's not what you mean, then I can't tell what you do mean. If if is what you mean, then your thought experiment is not only not real, it's illogical.



Suppose that there exists a terrorist with a nuke in Pakistan. He plans to bring it into the US and explode it in a major metropolitan area. Assume that this plan will succeed with probability 1, killing 5 million people. The US military has the ability to bomb the terrorist to death, but in doing so they will kill 10,000 innocent civilians as well, because they only know his approximate location. This will create a wave of anti-US terrorism that will result in a loss of 50,000 innocent American lives.

Should the US military bomb the terrorist?

How do I know what this terrorist plans to do and that it has a probability of 1 of killing 5 million people? I just take the government's word for it?

[erowe1]

I think you may have forgotten the context of the sentence from which you're quoting. Let me refresh your memory:

"If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger (and vice versa)."

This is equivalent to saying that as the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs increases, the case for invasion becomes stronger (and vice versa).

Your question is akin to asking what the word "increases" means.

What does it mean for the danger of a terrorist attack to increase?

Also, what's with the "vice versa"? It looks like it means:

If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger
and
If the danger of the US invading Syria is high, then the case for a terrorist attack on US soil becomes stronger

But that means that you're supporting the very thing that makes the case for a terrorist attack on US soil stronger.

[LibertyEagle]

Neutrality is always an option, but it is not always the best option.

You're right. It's not the best option when we are attacked or if there is an immediate threat of an attack. Neither of which are true with Syria.

[Sola_Fide]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I ask because I never suggested that the United States ought to conduct pre-emptive strikes against Syria, yet you include the clause "as well."


Didnt you say this:

Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion

That is a pre-emptive attack.

[LibertyEagle]

Depends on what you mean by "knife in our backs." I would not consider him running against Rand in 2016 as any sort of betrayal. Cruz is self-interested and will do what he believes to be in his own best interests. Because their political beliefs are very similar, this will often involve allying with/supporting Rand. But not always.

I mean leading people to believe he is for the Constitution and individual liberty and then switching course and leading those same people towards tyranny.

It wouldn't be the first time this type of thing has happened.

[spladle]

Do I understand you correctly that in your thought experiment there is a threat of destruction of the planet and that there exists proof of this with 100% certainty before it occurs?

Yes.


And even though the population of the world is 100% certain that they're going to be destroyed if they don't support some trillion dollar project, they still won't support that project except under threat of deadly force by the government?

No. The vast majority of the world's population does not believe that it will be destroyed. The proof to the contrary is highly complex and only understood by a very small number of people whose opinions are not held in high regard except by a small number of very powerful government officials.


If that's not what you mean, then I can't tell what you do mean. If if is what you mean, then your thought experiment is not only not real, it's illogical.

I hope I've clarified things for you.


How do I know what this terrorist plans to do and that it has a probability of 1 of killing 5 million people? I just take the government's word for it?

No, you take my word for it.

Have you never encountered a thought experiment before?

[spladle]

What does it mean for the danger of a terrorist attack to increase?

It means that the probability of a terrorist attack increases.


Also, what's with the "vice versa"? It looks like it means:

If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger
and
If the danger of the US invading Syria is high, then the case for a terrorist attack on US soil becomes stronger

I apologize for the confusion. That is definitely not what I intended "vice versa" to mean. Here is the correct interpretation:

If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is high, then the case for invasion becomes stronger
and
If the danger of a terrorist attack on US soil using Syrian WMDs is low, then the case for invasion becomes weaker

[erowe1]

No. The vast majority of the world's population does not believe that it will be destroyed. The proof to the contrary is highly complex and only understood by a very small number of people whose opinions are not held in high regard except by a small number of very powerful government officials.

Am I one of the people who understands the proof or one of the people who is supposed to take the government's word for it?




No, you take my word for it.


So the likelihood that the terrorist plans to kill 5 million Americans and will succeed is not actually 1. It's only that you claim it's 1, and the real likelihood is only whatever the likelihood is that what you claim is true. To me this is the same as saying that the probability is zero.

[spladle]

You're right. It's not the best option when we are attacked or if there is an immediate threat of an attack. Neither of which are true with Syria.

I agree with you. However, some people disagree that there is no immediate threat of an attack. If they are right, then would you agree that intervention in Syria is justified?

[spladle]

Didnt you say this:


Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion

That is a pre-emptive attack.

But I do not accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored.

[erowe1]

It means that the probability of a terrorist attack increases.


I still don't know what this means. Is there an objective way to measure the probability of a future terrorist attack? Or is this "probability" just the president's gut feeling?

[spladle]

I mean leading people to believe he is for the Constitution and individual liberty and then switching course and leading those same people towards tyranny.

It wouldn't be the first time this type of thing has happened.

I suspect that you utilize nonstandard definitions of "the Constitution," "individual liberty," and "tyranny."

[spladle]

Am I one of the people who understands the proof or one of the people who is supposed to take the government's word for it?

You are very special. You are both one of the people who understands the proof AND an incredibly powerful government agent (either officially or by virtue of your influence). You somehow single-handedly have the power to order $5 trillion in taxes to be extracted so that the meteor may be destroyed. Suppose you're the swing vote. Would you issue this order?


So the likelihood that the terrorist plans to kill 5 million Americans and will succeed is not actually 1. It's only that you claim it's 1, and the real likelihood is only whatever the likelihood is that what you claim is true. To me this is the same as saying that the probability is zero.

You didn't answer my question about whether you've encountered a thought experiment before, so I'll assume the answer is no.

In the universe we're imagining, I am God. I am both omnipotent and omniscient. I know everything and can do anything. If I say that the probability is 1, then the probability is 1.

[spladle]

I still don't know what this means.

Are you not familiar with the concept of probability?


Is there an objective way to measure the probability of a future terrorist attack? Or is this "probability" just the president's gut feeling?

The answer to both of these questions is no.

[Sola_Fide]

But I do not accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored.

You dont accept it? But you said there would be a reasonable argument for invasion.


Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion

What is the reasonable argument?

[spladle]

You dont accept it? But you said there would be a reasonable argument for invasion.

I said that there would be a reasonable argument for invasion if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored. But I do not accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored. Not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand.


What is the reasonable argument?

1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

[Sola_Fide]

1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

Why would this only apply to Syria? Look at all the WMD's in Russia and China. Terrorists can find a market for these things much easier there. Why arent you proposing invading them?

[spladle]

Why would this only apply to Syria? Look at all the WMD's in Russia and China. Terrorists can find a market for these things much easier there. Why arent you proposing invading them?

For the same reason that I'm not proposing invading Syria.

[LibertyEagle]

I said that there would be a reasonable argument for invasion if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored. But I do not accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored. Not sure what part of this is hard for you to understand.



1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

No.

North Korea has nukes.
China has nukes.
Russia has nukes.

Our government only beats upon those who do not have them. Have you noticed? Tell me, if you lived in one of those countries that did not have a nuke, would you want one? I would.

Have you ever read A Clean Break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Rea lm)? Overthrowing Syria's government is the objective and they will lie like dogs to get the American people to go along with it.

This has NOTHING to do with WMDs.

[Sola_Fide]

1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

Who is a terrorist? Someone who doesnt want America to impose martial law on them and murder their people?


2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

So its better that we act like terrorists, use WMD's, create a bunch of new enemies, drown deeper into debt, destroy our economy, murder innocent people..... in the attempt to prevent "terrorists" getting weapons?


3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.
Why do you think WMD's are only in Syria? And how are we going to prevent them from getting weapons when we leave? Oh thats right...we cant ever leave.


4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/war-banking.jpg

[spladle]

Our government only beats upon those who do not have them. Have you noticed?

Yes.


Tell me, if you lived in one of those countries that did not have a nuke, would you want one?

Yes.


Have you ever read A Clean Break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Rea lm)?

No, but I am familiar with its contents.


Overthrowing Syria's government is the objective and they will lie like dogs to get the American people to go along with it.

This has NOTHING to do with WMDs.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

[Carlybee]

Of course it has nothing to do with WMDs. And it's a page right out of Global Dominance 101 courtesy the CIA and the MIC. Replace everything that has been said about Syria with Iraq and it's 2002-2003 all over again. I find anyone coming here and pushing that same old agenda to be duplicitous. If we haven't learned by now, we never will. "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" ...what that really means is, a lot of people have a shitload of investment in War, Inc. and has to keep it going perpetually and indefinitely. What utter bullshit.

[spladle]

Who is a terrorist? Someone who doesnt want America to impose martial law on them and murder their people?

I do not think this is a reasonable definition of a terrorist.


So its better that we act like terrorists, use WMD's, create a bunch of new enemies, drown deeper into debt, destroy our economy, murder innocent people..... in the attempt to prevent "terrorists" getting weapons?

No.


Why do you think WMD's are only in Syria?

Why do you beat your wife?


And how are we going to prevent them from getting weapons when we leave?

I don't know.

[Sola_Fide]

Of course it has nothing to do with WMDs. And it's a page right out of Global Dominance 101 courtesy the CIA and the MIC. Replace everything that has been said about Syria with Iraq and it's 2002-2003 all over again. I find anyone coming here and pushing that same old agenda to be duplicitous. If we haven't learned by now, we never will. "We fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" ...what that really means is, a lot of people have a shitload of investment in War, Inc. and has to keep it going perpetually and indefinitely. What utter bullshit.

Yeah, its always troubling to hear neoconservatism passed off as the liberty position. This is why Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Because people are going to use him as representing a somewhat "liberty position" on things like Syria, and they are going use his position as the false extreme in their dialectic. And people are going to be misled by this because they arent going to hear the position that truly represents freedom, prosperity and peace. Ted Cruz falls right into the false narrative.

[Carlybee]

Yeah, its always troubling to hear neoconservatism passed off as the liberty position. This is why Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Because people are going to use him as representing a somewhat "liberty position" on things like Syria, and they are going use his position as the false extreme in their dialectic. And people are going to be misled by this because they arent going to hear the position that truly represents freedom, prosperity and peace. Ted Cruz falls right into the false narrative.


The liberty position has been watered down. Liberty is all or nothing...not just some halfway position. It is not very open to interpretation. You either strive for it or you allow it to become something else that means something totally different and there are those who only value freedom as long as they can tally up a blood cost.

[LibertyEagle]

This has nothing to do with anything I have said.

Oh, excuse me. I thought it was you who said this.




1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

[spladle]

Yeah, its always troubling to hear neoconservatism passed off as the liberty position. This is why Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Because people are going to use him as representing a somewhat "liberty position" on things like Syria, and they are going use his position as the false extreme in their dialectic. And people are going to be misled by this because they arent going to hear the position that truly represents freedom, prosperity and peace. Ted Cruz falls right into the false narrative.


The liberty position has been watered down. Liberty is all or nothing...not just some halfway position. It is not very open to interpretation. You either strive for it or you allow it to become something else that means something totally different and there are those who only value freedom as long as they can tally up a blood cost.

Comments like these make me feel as if I've stumbled into a cult.

[spladle]

Oh, excuse me. I thought it was you who said this.


1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

It was.

[Sola_Fide]

Comments like these make me feel as if I've stumbled into a cult.

No offense, but comments like yours in this thread are the cultic ones. The cult of government.

[Carlybee]

Comments like these make me feel as if I've stumbled into a cult.

Then you must not be very acquainted with the concepts of liberty and non-interventionism which drew most people to this site to begin with in support of Ron Paul. You sound like one of the neocons who called him a kook for his stances, which tells me all I need to know about you.

[July]

What do you think is the role of the military?

The role of the military is for national defense. That means having a constitutional declaration of war. It means having a clearly defined target, objective, and mission. It means not preemptively striking nations based on vague notions that somebody might do something someday. Or waging open ended wars against vague enemies. The role is not to be global police force to fight global crime, or to remake the geopolitical map for business interests, democracy, etc.


How do you square this with the denial that WMDs existing in Syria and being likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored creates a reasonable argument for invasion? Seems to me that these positions are inconsistent.

This is a vague assertion that somebody might do something someday.

Who are the terrorists and who is the enemy? If there is concrete evidence about a specific enemey planning an actual attack, couldn't it then be debated and authorized by congress? Or are we talking about a general concern about weapons possibly falling into unfriendly hands someday? If so, then wouldn't it make more sense to move towards policy that promotes less weapon proliferation, rather than one which promotes arm race, etc?

This is an important distinction. It's the difference between waging a perpetual open ended war against a vague and undetermined enemy, and attacking anyone anywhere preemptively that might be perceived as being unfriendly to American interests at any given time. This is a big part of the problem we have now. There is no way to determine when we have won the war, or even necessarily who we are at war with anymore, because the label of "terrorist" keeps changing to suit the situation. This is why the "battlefield" has now expanded to the entire globe, and the role of the military has started to more resemble that of a global police force.


Suppose a meteor was discovered that would destroy the entire planet if its course were not altered. Next suppose that in order to prevent this, $5 trillion worth of nuclear weapons would need to be built and launched within six months. For the sake of argument, assume that the only way for this stockpile to be created and deployed is via government action - namely, taxation, and a lot of it. Would you support this taxation, or would you prefer that the planet be destroyed?

Why is the premise of this scenario that only forced government action could possibly solve it? This is a particularly extreme scenario, but realize this is the same general argument used to justify government force across the board, everything down the line from humanitarian aid, to nation building, to domestic concerns like health care, etc. The assumption being that the problem is so big only forced government intervention could have the know how or resources to solve it. Libertarians don't tend to accept that premise. There are relatively few things the market couldn't provide for-- if there is a desire or need for something, it will be invented/built.


How much weight do you believe that this consideration deserves? I agree that it's an argument against intervention, but I hope you'd agree that it is not always decisive.

Well, again, this is why constitutional declaration of war is so important. For those rare, extreme situations or where there is grey area, then it's important for congress to debate it and hash out the facts and details of the situation. But just because the real world might force you to stray from principle in a rare situation as a last resort, doesn't mean you just throw out the principle.

The problem is that governments will often assert that every situation is a dire emergency, in order to justify it's actions. The War on Terror has us at a perpetual state of emergency. How do we determine when something is a real emergency or not? Again, by having constitutional checks and balances, congress should be debating and reviewing the facts, not rushing into war.

[Anti-Neocon]

I agree with all of this.

However, even a neutral stance of non-intervention will not immediately eliminate our already extant enemies. Some people would probably still want to commit acts of terrorism against the US even if we refrained from intervening in Syria and began to adopt a consistent position of non-intervention.
Having no enemies is an unrealistic goal, especially immediately. What we need to do are take pragmatic steps to having as few enemies as possible, and no more wars for the MIC and Israel is just that.

[Keith and stuff]

Great work Rand Paul on 2nd place. Since Nashville is frequented by Rand, his popularity will likely continue to grow there.

[talkingpointes]

Having no enemies is an unrealistic goal, especially immediately. What we need to do are take pragmatic steps to having as few enemies as possible, and no more wars for the MIC and Israel is just that.

What he is suggesting is that you lower your goals and accept less. Once you do they will keep asking for more and more.

Same method politicians use. Let's just compromise to get something done. Just this once. Nothing bad will ever become of it. In fact if you disagree you're just a hardliner that doesn't want to win. Blah blah.

[WM_in_MO]

But he's right. The people we've wronged and angered abroad aren't going to do a 180 the first second we change the policy.

What it SHOULD do is reduce the influx of NEW terrorists joining the cause. I suspect simply stopping the drone program would achieve that goal.

My expectations have not changed, I know that much of what I want to see happen will not happen in my lifetime. The best thing I can do is to wake up my family and make sure there are as many like minded people in the next generation.

[July]

But he's right. The people we've wronged and angered abroad aren't going to do a 180 the first second we change the policy.

I think that is probably true, and I think a lot of people realize it wouldn't happen overnight. But this is also the reason why it's so important to argue for the principle/goal, and for moving in that direction, otherwise it easily becomes justification for increased intervention down the road...making the situation worse over time.

My fear is that Washington is going to be engaged in so many wars and conflicts around the world, until there is finally a financial collapse, and then the country really will be weakened/vulnerable at that point, and with many enemies positioned all over the world with little incentive to show mercy or restraint.

[helenpaul]

rand paul is making daily progress.

[WM_in_MO]

I think that is probably true, and I think a lot of people realize it wouldn't happen overnight. But this is also the reason why it's so important to argue for the principle/goal, and for moving in that direction, otherwise it easily becomes justification for increased intervention down the road...making the situation worse over time.

My fear is that Washington is going to be engaged in so many wars and conflicts around the world, until there is finally a financial collapse, and then the country really will be weakened/vulnerable at that point, and with many enemies positioned all over the world with little incentive to show mercy or restraint.

Russia had many enemies, they made it through OK and they are connected by land. We have oceans to cover our asses at least.

[spladle]

No offense, but comments like yours in this thread are the cultic ones. The cult of government.

No offense taken. I am a little confused though. Which comments of mine, precisely, do you believe seem like they were written by a cult member? Also, what is "the cult of government"?

[spladle]

Then you must not be very acquainted with the concepts of liberty and non-interventionism which drew most people to this site to begin with in support of Ron Paul. You sound like one of the neocons who called him a kook for his stances, which tells me all I need to know about you.

How might I become better acquainted with the concepts of liberty and non-interventionism?

I've voted for Ron Paul four times - twice in 2008, and twice in 2012.

I encourage you to discard the view that all you need to know about a person is how they sound.

[spladle]

Who are the terrorists and who is the enemy?

What sort of answer are you looking for here? Do you want names?

Definitions of "terrorist" and "enemy" are inherently fuzzy. There is an enormous body of international law devoted to establishing a consistent framework for placing people in the correct category during wartime, but disagreements still abound.


If there is concrete evidence about a specific enemey planning an actual attack, couldn't it then be debated and authorized by congress? Or are we talking about a general concern about weapons possibly falling into unfriendly hands someday?

Please define: concrete evidence, specific enemy, actual attack, general concern, possibly, someday

Or don't, really. My intent is not to drown you in legalese or feign confusion in order to avoid addressing your point. Instead, my hope is that you'll come to see that there is no clear or objective distinction between the two scenarios you describe. Each can be fitted into the framework of the other, and so there exists a continuum along which any situation may be placed. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that we should intervene only where "concrete evidence about a specific enemy planning an actual attack" exists - don't you realize that this is precisely what was said about Iraq in 2003? And yet I think you'd agree that invading Iraq was a mistake, because the "concrete evidence," "specific enemy," and "actual attack" were all BS.

Now imagine a situation where there is a 25% probability that WMDs exist in a particular country. If they exist, there is a 10% probability that they will fall into unfriendly hands in any given year for the next ten years. The cost of this outcome is 100. The cost of invading is 15. Should we invade? The answer is clearly yes, even though we've stipulated a very low likelihood that leaving things alone will produce a negative outcome.


[W]ouldn't it make more sense to move towards policy that promotes less weapon proliferation, rather than one which promotes arm race, etc?

I think so, yes.


Why is the premise of this scenario that only forced government action could possibly solve it?

Because I like it when people forthrightly declare their values. Would you rather support a butt-load of taxation or have the entire planet be destroyed? It's a simple question.


This is a particularly extreme scenario, but realize this is the same general argument used to justify government force across the board, everything down the line from humanitarian aid, to nation building, to domestic concerns like health care, etc. The assumption being that the problem is so big only forced government intervention could have the know how or resources to solve it. Libertarians don't tend to accept that premise.

Of course I realize this. That's the entire reason I'm asking, and why I'm using a thought experiment rather than a real-world example.

[Sola_Fide]

No offense taken. I am a little confused though. Which comments of mine, precisely, do you believe seem like they were written by a cult member? Also, what is "the cult of government"?

The cult of government is buying in to the war propaganda. You did this when you argued that there is a rational reason to pre-emptively attack Syria.

[spladle]

The cult of government is buying in to the war propaganda. You did this when you argued that there is a rational reason to pre-emptively attack Syria.

I did not argue that there is a rational reason to pre-emptively attack Syria. You are confused.

[Sola_Fide]

I did not argue that there is a rational reason to pre-emptively attack Syria. You are confused.

...

*Originally Posted by*Sola_Fide*

What is the reasonable argument?



1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

[spladle]

...

Context matters. Imagine that I had said the following: "If a = 1, then b = 2. But a != 1."

Would you think it was reasonable to quote me saying "b = 2" and then claim that I believed b = 2?

[Bryan]

Mod note-


All, healthy debate and dissent is good, but let's please stick with the site Usage Guidelines and treat each other with respect. See my sig for details.

Thanks!

[July]

//

[Sola_Fide]

Mod note-


All, healthy debate and dissent is good, but let's please stick with the site Usage Guidelines and treat each other with respect. See my sig for details.

Thanks!

If I went a little off the rails, I do apologize.

I do think this issue of war is going to be one of the most debated topics here, especially in the next few years as Rand becomes the nominee. There are going to be new people coming to the boards with neocon views, and it is our job to confront that evil and not compromise on our beliefs.

[kathy88]

Mod note-


All, healthy debate and dissent is good, but let's please stick with the site Usage Guidelines and treat each other with respect. See my sig for details.

Thanks!Shoot!Late to the party again. I had a classic one liner with regard to the definition of spladle. (Wrestling mom).

[spladle]

I do think this issue of war is going to be one of the most debated topics here, especially in the next few years as Rand becomes the nominee. There are going to be new people coming to the boards with neocon views, and it is our job to confront that evil and not compromise on our beliefs.

If you stake out the position that people who disagree with you are "evil" (or that their beliefs are evil, which amounts to the same thing), then you're going to have a super tough time converting them. People don't like being told that they are evil. If your goal is to maintain the purity of a minority tribe, then that's fine, but if you care about helping your tribe to grow in size and spread, then your attitude is counter-productive.

Also, I feel compelled to state that I find the religious overtones of your comment to be more than a little creepy and off-putting. "It is our job to confront that evil and not compromise on our beliefs"? You sound like a zealot, man. Lighten up.

[spladle]

Shoot!Late to the party again. I had a classic one liner with regard to the definition of spladle. (Wrestling mom).

I don't know if I have the authority to permit people to direct disrespectful remarks towards me, but if so, then I hereby exercise it.

Feel free to PM it to me if not. I appreciate classic one liners.

[TaftFan]

Personally I think this whole movement really needs to go through and start defining and debating the meaning of some important terms, and applying idealogies to real life scenarios.

What are some of those terms? Noninterventionism, pre-emptive strike, non-aggression principle, act of war, imperialism, neoconservatism.

I have seen some arguments against intervention that are the same arguments against a state. If you are against the state you should by extension be opposed to the concept of foreign policy.

If you support some kind of state, then you support some kind of foreign policy. The state is utilitarian by nature, therefore so should a real world foreign policy.

That isn't to say you leave out principals such as respect for life and property...but I don't take arguments seriously that apply the anarchist principles to a nation's foreign policy.

[TaftFan]

Also another problem I see is the assumption tha everything the government or the media says is wrong.

It may be, but we should at least be able to conduct thought experiments with the assumption of truth.

[Sola_Fide]

If you stake out the position that people who disagree with you are "evil" (or that their beliefs are evil, which amounts to the same thing), then you're going to have a super tough time converting them. People don't like being told that they are evil. If your goal is to maintain the purity of a minority tribe, then that's fine, but if you care about helping your tribe to grow in size and spread, then your attitude is counter-productive.

1. I dont care about expanding the GOP.

2. The only way to understand the severity of our situation, and the only way to be philosophically consistent, is to understand all of this in moral terms. That demands an indication of good and evil.




Also, I feel compelled to state that I find the religious overtones of your comment to be more than a little creepy and off-putting. "It is our job to confront that evil and not compromise on our beliefs"? You sound like a zealot, man. Lighten up.

You should feel it off putting. Especially if you are going to defend the evil murder and oppression of neoconservatism. I dont think you have talked to many Christian libertarians like me.

[Natural Citizen]

There are going to be new people coming to the boards with neocon views, and it is our job to confront that evil and not compromise on our beliefs.

Going to be? I'd say we have a few already. Which is OK, I suppose. I don't know, man. I've been going to some of these 9-12r meetings just to hear their position on some of the issues that I find to be important. Very nice people but gosh. I disagree with them on so many things. Things that I've read here as of late. Especially with the Monsanto thing.

I'm of the impression that Jeb will get their support when it counts.

[Carlybee]

Going to be? I'd say we have a few already. Which is OK, I suppose. I don't know, man. I've been going to some of these 9-12r meetings just to hear their position on some of the issues that I find to be important. Very nice people but gosh. I disagree with them on so many things. Things that I've read here as of late. Especially with the Monsanto thing.

I'm of the impression that Jeb will get their support when it counts.

It almost feels like we are having to reinvent the wheel here.

[spladle]

1. I dont care about expanding the GOP.

I wasn't talking about the GOP.


2. The only way to understand the severity of our situation, and the only way to be philosophically consistent, is to understand all of this in moral terms. That demands an indication of good and evil.

You are simply mistaken. A virus has eaten your brain and replaced it with an anti-rational meme. I wish I knew how to cure you, but I don't.


You should feel it off putting. Especially if you are going to defend the evil murder and oppression of neoconservatism. I dont think you have talked to many Christian libertarians like me.

You're right, I haven't talked to many Christian libertarians. That's because there aren't very many of you. That's because you are all terrible evangelists. You seem to me to be a very hateful person, unconcerned with saving the souls of sinners, and more interested in the feeling of righteousness and superiority that condemning others creates in you.

[BamaAla]

So this thread went from Cruz winning a poll, to some good ole Collins hate, to a pretty good debate, to some animosity.

Thanks for killing some time for me!

Funny story, I had a hardcore neoconservative professor for a Middle Eastern Governments class back in 2003; honestly, she was a true believer. Anyway, we get to the section on Syria and she was glowing about the Assad government being helpful to the WOT and a stabilizing factor in the region (even if the regime was brutal.) Interesting what 10 years will do. I think she's higher up in the department now; I would like to pick her brain today. She was our Model Arab League coordinator and I rather liked her, but she was on some serious PNAC stuff.

[Sola_Fide]

You are simply mistaken. A virus has eaten your brain and replaced it with an anti-rational meme. I wish I knew how to cure you, but I don't.

If you are the "rational" one who argues for murder and oppression, I am happy to be as irrational as I want to be, arguing for peace, voluntary interactions, and love.




You're right, I haven't talked to many Christian libertarians. That's because there aren't very many of you. That's because you are all terrible evangelists. You seem to me to be a very hateful person, unconcerned with saving the souls of sinners, and more interested in the feeling of righteousness and superiority that condemning others creates in you.

I dont believe that one can be a Christian and be supportive of this evil regime and its murder. Maybe the people you are thinking of are statists with a statist religion rather than Christians.

[spladle]

If you are the "rational" one who argues for murder and oppression, I am happy to be as irrational as I want to be, arguing for peace, voluntary interactions, and love.

But I do not argue for murder and oppression. I argue for peace, voluntary interactions, and love. You argue for hatred of those whom you dub "evil." I think hatred is a pretty dangerous feeling to be messing around with. Labeling people "evil" dehumanizes them and permits us to commit atrocities without feeling empathy.

"Neoconservatism" is not evil, nor is it a trait that people are born with. It is simply an idea. If you disagree with it, you should craft arguments designed to persuade its followers that they are mistaken and should change their minds.


I dont believe that one can be a Christian and be supportive of this evil regime and its murder. Maybe the people you are thinking of are statists with a statist religion rather than Christians.

Would you support murdering this evil regime and the statists with their statist religion who support it?

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, its always troubling to hear neoconservatism passed off as the liberty position. This is why Ted Cruz absolutely sucks. Because people are going to use him as representing a somewhat "liberty position" on things like Syria, and they are going use his position as the false extreme in their dialectic. And people are going to be misled by this because they arent going to hear the position that truly represents freedom, prosperity and peace. Ted Cruz falls right into the false narrative.

Just curious, do you have a link (preferably audio or video) of Cruz making questionable statements?


The role of the military is for national defense. That means having a constitutional declaration of war. It means having a clearly defined target, objective, and mission. It means not preemptively striking nations based on vague notions that somebody might do something someday. Or waging open ended wars against vague enemies. The role is not to be global police force to fight global crime, or to remake the geopolitical map for business interests, democracy, etc.


Agree.

I would also point out that to a paranoid person, "pre-emptive" attacks are always justified. And of course a war profiteer really doesn't care about the validity of justifications.

[spladle]

Just curious, do you have a link (preferably audio or video) of Cruz making questionable statements?

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx83YwkLAp0

[Sola_Fide]

Just curious, do you have a link (preferably audio or video) of Cruz making questionable statements?


Here you go: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

This made anti-Ron people jump for joy:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2013/06/oooooo-ted-cruz-might-be-more-hawkish-than-i-first-thought.html

[Brian4Liberty]

I realize this wasn't directed at me, but I do.


Here you go: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418801-Ted-Cruz-unveils-fool-proof-plan-Invade-Syria-destroy-WMDs

This made anti-Ron people jump for joy:
http://www.bluegrassbulletin.com/2013/06/oooooo-ted-cruz-might-be-more-hawkish-than-i-first-thought.html

Thanks, I should have remembered that, as I was the first to comment on it... :eek:

I took that to be a call for a contingent plan in case Syria completely fell apart, not an actual call for action. I know, that's splitting hairs, but it seemed like the intent was a backwards way to oppose no-fly zones, sending arms or regime change. When he starts spouting rhetoric that could come directly from Bill Kristol or John McCain, that would be very concerning.

I was wondering if there was anything else.

On a similar subject, there is another "up and coming" politician that you will want to be aware of. Check out my posts near the end of the following thread, watch the videos...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?419894-New-Website-That-I-Have-Created-To-Promote-The-Liberty-Movement

[Athan]

I can't say I would vote for Cruz. I'm to burned by the GOP right now to not demand a real concession from them after 2012. Cruz can be Vice.

[Palmetto2012]

And Rand Paul was not being a politician when he went on Hannity and said he supported Mitt Romney? That's going to be harder for me to get past than anything Cruz has done.

[Anti-Neocon]

And Rand Paul was not being a politician when he went on Hannity and said he supported Mitt Romney? That's going to be harder for me to get past than anything Cruz has done.
Rand didn't call for invading Syria. Who you endorse is just that - politics. But when you talk like a rabid neocon, that's inexcusable.

[angelatc]

I don't agree that relatively mild hawkishness makes one more dangerous than a statist Democrat. Frankly, if we accept the idea that WMDs exist in Syria and are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists if ignored, there is a reasonable argument to be made for invasion.


uh, no. there isn't.

[spladle]

uh, no. there isn't.

I laid out earlier itt why I disagree. Here is the argument I presented:


1. It is worse for WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists than it is for the US military to invade another country and destroy said WMDs.

2. If we fail to invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they are likely to fall into the hands of terrorists.

3. If we invade Syria and destroy its WMDs, then they will not fall into the hands of terrorists.

4. Therefore, we should invade Syria and destroy its WMDs.

QED

Where is the flaw in the above chain of reasoning?