Rand Paul op-ed: President Putin, America Is Exceptional

[jct74]

Sen. Rand Paul: President Putin, America Is Exceptional
It is our exceptionalism—and our separation of powers—that has kept us out of war in Syria.

By Sen. Rand Paul
Sept. 13, 2013

A recent op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin has prompted me to respond. While his position that the Syrian conflict can and should be settled through a political and diplomatic solution is correct, virtually everything else in his writing should be taken to task. So I shall.

I begin with Mr. Putin’s disagreement regarding the exceptionalism of the United States of America. I could not more strongly disagree with him. While he is correct that God created every human being as an equal in His eyes, clearly the results of each of our efforts on this earth, individually and collectively, are not equal.

America’s exceptionalism is rooted in our founding documents and values. From the rights granted by our creator, but guaranteed by our Constitution. We should not shy away from saying so, especially when our actions are in keeping with this exceptional founding, as they were this week in our debate over going to war in Syria. Our constitutional checks and balances were on full display, largely resulting in the at least temporary halting of a rush to war.

Mr. Putin’s second mistake is to focus on the speck in the eye of the United States, while ignoring the plank in his own. He accuses the United States of alarming interventions in foreign countries. While I certainly have my bone to pick with our foreign policy over the last 15 years, the Russian President is the least qualified person I can think of to make this argument with a straight face.

...

read more:
http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/13/sen-rand-paul-president-putin-america-is-exceptional/

[fr33]

He's being very selective in his examples. What Russia is doing in Syria has been done many times by the US in many other countries.

[tod evans]

He's being very selective in his examples. What Russia is doing in Syria has been done many times by the US in many other countries.

Sounds like he's playing to his audience..

Neither the USSA or the USSR are lily white when it comes to social issues or foreign policy...

[juleswin]

That's weird, my mom used to tell me that I am exceptional. When you think about it, most of us are exceptional and when everyone is exceptional, nobody is.

No, Americans are not exceptional, they are just different.

[jllundqu]

Very clever... and effective

[randomname]

great stuff

[William R]

He is a much better politician than his father.

[ObiRandKenobi]

rand is just trying to appease the sean hannity types. had to be done i suppose.

[whoisjohngalt]

rand is just trying to appease the sean hannity types. had to be done i suppose.

It didn't have to, but shit like this that has 0 appeal to us is the equivalent of substantive policy discussion for the red meat loving base. It's another smart political maneuver by the master.

[green73]

Rubio not getting the same love

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427639-Marco-Rubio-Putin-is-Wrong-The-U-S-is-Exceptional

[Brett85]

Rubio not getting the same love

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427639-Marco-Rubio-Putin-is-Wrong-The-U-S-is-Exceptional

Rubio has a completely different definition of American exceptionalism than Rand. Rubio believes that America is exceptional because of the actions that we've taken overseas. Rand believes that we are exceptional because of the way that our country was founded and our Constitution.

[jtstellar]

..what's controversial here, -again-? he says america is exceptional because of our separation of powers and constitutional rights that russia lacks

he didn't associate exceptionalism to ability of foreign entanglement.. did some of you even read the article


Rubio not getting the same love

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427639-Marco-Rubio-Putin-is-Wrong-The-U-S-is-Exceptional

you just sit at your part time job and dream up new non existent drama all day?

[twomp]

..what's controversial here, -again-? he says america is exceptional because of our separation of powers and constitutional rights that russia lacks

he didn't associate exceptionalism to ability of foreign entanglement.. did some of you even read the article



you just sit at your part time job and dream up new non existent drama all day?

What did he say that was so offensive to you? Seems like you are the one "dreaming up drama" around here these days.

[Lucille]

Rubio has a completely different definition of American exceptionalism than Rand. Rubio believes that America is exceptional because of the actions that we've taken overseas. Rand believes that we are exceptional because of the way that our country was founded and our Constitution.

Which is also basically what Ron has said.


American exceptionalism is a popular view among Republicans that the United States is like no other country in history. Paul believes that view has been distorted to justify international interventions.

“There’s a move on in our country to excuse our intervention overseas, and they call it American exceptionalism. They distort this view, of course,” Paul told the crowd of several hundred. “They say that America is exceptional, they know what is right, and they have this moral obligation to force it down the throats of other people, and if they don’t take it, we’re supposed to invade them and make them do exactly as we say.”
[...]
“I do believe we are an exceptional nation,” Paul said. “We’ve been exceptional in that we have an exceptional Constitution, we’ve enjoyed the benefits of liberty like no other nation ever did, we’ve had the largest middle class ever and the wealthiest middle class (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/20/paul-american-exceptionalism-does-not-justify-overseas-intervention/).”

But none of that is grounds for policing the world, he said. He advocated improving the country as a way to be an example for other nations.

Ron Paul and American Exceptionalism at the RNC
http://www.cato.org/multimedia/daily-podcast/ron-paul-american-exceptionalism-rnc

"If you took this down to the level of the individual, if any human being walked around and talked about themselves the way America's leaders talk about the United States, he or she would have no friends whatsoever. Because it's this constant drumbeat of self-congratulation, chest-pounding..."

It's embarrassing. Especially since the Ruling Class has destroyed most of what really made this country truly exceptional.

[Carlybee]

We used to be exceptional. Now we just kinda suck.

[Matthew5]

we do not all share the same richness of history regarding human rights, freedom and democracy. There has been in the past 200 years a city on the hill that has shone brighter than all others. We will not be ashamed of that.

America's founding was exceptional...for white, male, protestants. :rolleyes: Is he just ignorant of American history or is he hoping the reader is?

Of course my opinion doesn't count for squat, but even former me would be annoyed by Rand's op-ed.


It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Indeed, Hitler did this very well.

[Harald]

Rand Paul deliberately misreads (like may others) Putin's "exceptional" remark, which explicitly referred to the usage in the end of the Obama speech:


America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Which essentially says, "We are not world policemen, we can't fix everything, but if we can do it cheaply, we should act and that is why we are exceptional".

You can also find similar sentiment in Rubio's speech on foreign policy.

Putin is spot on. Rand is pandering

[Brett85]

America's founding was exceptional...for white, male, protestants. :rolleyes: Is he just ignorant of American history or is he hoping the reader is?

Wow, so you reject the principles that our country was founded upon? Why are you here?

[Matthew5]

Rand is pandering

Expect it to escalate in 2014/15.

[Matthew5]

Wow, so you reject the principles that our country was founded upon? Why are you here?

I don't pretend that America was some lily white bastion of freedom that Rand gushes about. History says otherwise.

[Brett85]

I don't pretend that America was some lily white bastion of freedom that Rand gushes about. History says otherwise.

We were with the exception of slavery. That was certainly a black mark on our history. But, our Constitution was unique in that it placed limits on the power of government, which is what Rand was referring to.

[jtstellar]

Rand Paul deliberately misreads (like may others) Putin's "exceptional" remark, which explicitly referred to the usage in the end of the Obama speech:



Which essentially says, "We are not world policemen, we can't fix everything, but if we can do it cheaply, we should act and that is why we are exceptional".

You can also find similar sentiment in Rubio's speech on foreign policy.

Putin is spot on. Rand is pandering

grow up.. this isn't your parents talking to you

there's no need to respond to them word by word and read them exactly at their words. i seriously think this is turning into an age gap/mental maturity kind of thing.. it's like we're raising kids whose brains aren't fully developed yet until they're in their mid-20s with this movement. in all due respect i don't think it will make a difference whether you are here or not.. maybe you'r used to your dad pandering to you, but he isn't your dad. and the assumption that failure of such implies danger is true only in the instance where your zeal to campaign and do grassroots outmatches those of the mainstream republicans that have now converted to rand paul by hordes, which in all honesty i don't think you will

[Matthew5]

We were with the exception of slavery. That was certainly a black mark on our history. But, our Constitution was unique in that it placed limits on the power of government, which is what Rand was referring to.

And women...who were not represented in the republic for over 140 years.

And Native Americans...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

And Catholics...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427029-Why-Were-Roman-Catholics-Denied-Office-In-Early-America

He wasn't just referring to limits on government. Here it is again:


...we do not all share the same richness of history regarding human rights, freedom and democracy. There has been in the past 200 years a city on the hill that has shone brighter than all others. We will not be ashamed of that.

America was a "city on a hill" when over half its population was suppressed for 140 years? Explain that one to me.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd2ydct3rBU

[mit26chell]

edit

[ClydeCoulter]

And women...who were not represented in the republic for over 140 years.

And catholics...http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427029-Why-Were-Roman-Catholics-Denied-Office-In-Early-America

He wasn't just referring to limits on government. Here it is again:



America was a "city on a hill" when over half its population was suppressed for 140 years? Explain that one to me.

He's pandering to what people want to hear. That's plain. He knows what a central bank is, how our army has been used to enforce its rule, and those of our corporations, etc... But, he's trying to look presidential, stand up for 'Merica in the face of ridicule from foreign powers. He's a POWER RANGER!

Yes, it was hard for me to read also, but expected, I guess.

[jtstellar]

anyone who doesn't make you happy in any means, shapes, or forms is "pandering"..

lol.. mental juveniles

[Matthew5]

anyone who doesn't make you happy in any means, shapes, or forms is "pandering"..

lol.. mental juveniles

When you go to the point of ignoring facts...yeah, I'd say he's indulging some people. lol

[jtstellar]

He's pandering to what people want to hear. That's plain. He knows what a central bank is, how our army has been used to enforce its rule, and those of our corporations, etc... But, he's trying to look presidential, stand up for 'Merica in the face of ridicule from foreign powers. He's a POWER RANGER!

Yes, it was hard for me to read also, but expected, I guess.

you want to try living overseas for once like i did to see what it's really like without any concept/culture of natural rights?

i love how people bicker about how there's apparently a complete void of merit to say america does stand for constitutional and human rights ideals in complete vacuums by people who rarely go 100 miles away from their homes

[WD-NY]

Rubio has a completely different definition of American exceptionalism than Rand. Rubio believes that America is exceptional because of the actions that we've taken overseas. Rand believes that we are exceptional because of the way that our country was founded and our Constitution.

Well said! Team Rand should definitely have a line like this ready for the 2015/16 debates.

[Henry Rogue]

He is a much better politician than his father.I bet His Father would take that as a compliment, I would too.

[fr33]

anyone who doesn't make you happy in any means, shapes, or forms is "pandering"..

lol.. mental juveniles

And you are being intellectually dishonest.

Luckily Putin won't respond but it would be easy to fire back with examples of how the constitution and separation of powers are just myths which have been routinely usurped ever since they were established.

And he could easily fire back with examples of US imperialism that match, and likely surpass, the examples Rand gave of Russian imperialism.

[Matthew5]

you want to try living overseas for once like i did to see what it's really like without any concept/culture of natural rights?

i love how people bicker about how there's apparently a complete void of merit to say america does stand for constitutional and human rights ideals in complete vacuums by people who rarely go 100 miles away from their homes

At which point did America start standing for Constitutional and human rights? Looks like we're still waiting on that front. Sure, the people have made gains in the last 200 years, but in spite of an American government that has been working feverishly to stop them.



Fun fact, Russia had a national female political leader only one year after America's first in 1916. So remind me again how the world is lagging behind America's leadership in rights?

[heavenlyboy34]

And you are being intellectually dishonest.

Luckily Putin won't respond but it would be easy to fire back with examples of how the constitution and separation of powers are just myths which have been routinely usurped ever since they were established.

And he could easily fire back with examples of US imperialism that match, and likely surpass, the examples Rand gave of Russian imperialism.
Yup, that^^

There is nothing "magic" or "special' about this piece of dirt with political boundaries around it called "America". It's popular/widely accepted beliefs and ideas that make any one person/group significantly different from another. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of places that are freer and more peaceful than the Soyuz. As my brother AF would say, "free country :rolleyes: , yup yup".

[ClydeCoulter]

you want to try living overseas for once like i did to see what it's really like without any concept/culture of natural rights?

i love how people bicker about how there's apparently a complete void of merit to say america does stand for constitutional and human rights ideals in complete vacuums by people who rarely go 100 miles away from their homes

It's fine for Americans to love the results of our imperialism, so long as it doesn't come home (sarc). And that's the problem, it will eventually. There are those of us on this forum that have been claiming that our foreign policy is our number one issue.

Let's be a shinning light on the hill, and harm no other, by example.

[JCDenton0451]

Bleh. "American Exceptionalism" the way Putin defines it is this obnoxious sense of (moral) superiority, which has been on display among the US leaders at least since the end of the Cold War. America has been acting as a kind of liberal empire, imposing its will on the world. Non-Americans tend to resent this behavior and it's easy to see why.

So this article kind of misses the point, and I'm not even sure why Rand was compelled to respond.

[Matthew5]

So this article kind of misses the point, and I'm not even sure why Rand was compelled to respond.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, as they say. Score points where you can, and Russia is an easy one with Republicans.

[JCDenton0451]

rand is just trying to appease the sean hannity types. had to be done i suppose.

But why write this op-ed for the Time? Hannity types don't go there.:confused:

[heavenlyboy34]

Bleh. "American Exceptionalism" the way Putin defines it is this obnoxious sense of (moral) superiority, which has been on display among the US leaders at least since the end of the Cold War World War I. America has been acting as a kind of liberal empire, imposing its will on the world. Non-Americans tend to resent this behavior and it's easy to see why.

So this article kind of misses the point, and I'm not even sure why Rand was compelled to respond.
FIFY. That era was pretty much the formal introduction to US foreign empire building and militant chauvinism (depending on how you reckon it) IMO. Otherwise an excellent post. :)

[JCDenton0451]

Never let a good crisis go to waste, as they say. Score points where you can, and Russia is an easy one with Republicans.

Pandering to the worst impulses of the mob is never a good thing. You know Rand could score even bigger points by attacking Mexicans...

Hannity types may be suspicious of Russia, but have learned to respect Putin.

[Matthew5]

Pandering to the worst impulses of the mob is never a good thing. You know Rand could score even bigger points by attacking Mexicans...

Hannity types may be suspicious of Russia, but have learned to respect Putin.

Maybe the buzzword "American Exceptionalism" was polling high among the base or target group?

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, yes, everything Rand says and does is just wonderful. :rolleyes: Except if Rubio or Cruz had said something like this, we would be having a more honest discussion about the falsehood of "American exceptionalism"

http://www.thejanedough.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/facepalm.jpg

[Bastiat's The Law]

Not sure why this is getting so much attention here like you guys haven't heard Rand speak like this before? Rand said something very similar during his victory speech in 2010. Did you guys miss that or just want something to complain about?


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

[Saint Vitus]

http://online-pilot-shop.aviationdock.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/9/6959851WJxdIgcXL.jpg

I can see Rand going on a Sunday talk show with this shirt on. 'Murica...Fuck Yeah! We're Exceptional!

[JCDenton0451]

Here is a much better article from Time about Putin. (http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/13/why-vladimir-putin-thinks-were-out-to-get-him/) And it really shows that his foreign policy is defensive in nature. Putin believes that US neocons are out to get him, and he is right.

[cajuncocoa]

http://online-pilot-shop.aviationdock.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/9/6959851WJxdIgcXL.jpg

I can see Rand going on a Sunday talk show with this shirt on. Pretty cringe-worthy pandering, in my opinion. But I guess if that's what he's got to do...
Sure....and if he has to kill a kitten, let's do that too. :rolleyes:

[klamath]

I see the knee jerk anti America posters are out with force on this thread. There CANNOT be anything good about what America has done EVER. Anybody that doesn't hate America to its deepest core are NOT part of the freedom movement I tell you!:rolleyes:

Right on Rand, don't EVER be ashamed about what America has done right but stay strong in calling the shots where we are wrong. And Rand don't ever try and Pander to the the kneejerk anti America libertarian crowd.

[Saint Vitus]

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

/s

[cajuncocoa]

I see the knee jerk anti America posters are out with force on this thread. There CANNOT be anything good about what America has done EVER. Anybody that doesn't hate America to its deepest core are NOT part of the freedom movement I tell you!:rolleyes:

Right on Rand, don't EVER be ashamed about what America has done right but stay strong in calling the shots where we are wrong. And Rand don't ever try and appease the kneejerk anti America crowd.'MURICA!

[cajuncocoa]

Can everyone just sit down for a minute?

Good grief. Yes, we know Rand has to say some dumb shit sometimes...I GOT THAT. But do we have to pretend that it's the greatest thing handed down since the 10 commandments when he does say these things? Can we just roll our eyes, hold our noses, and go on with our day? I mean, YOU KNOW you guys would have a different take on this if Rubio or Cruz....or God forbid, McCain had said this.

[Matthew5]

I see the knee jerk anti America posters are out with force on this thread. There CANNOT be anything good about what America has done EVER. Anybody that doesn't hate America to its deepest core are NOT part of the freedom movement I tell you!:rolleyes:

Right on Rand, don't EVER be ashamed about what America has done right but stay strong in calling the shots where we are wrong. And Rand don't ever try and appease the kneejerk anti America crowd.

I'm interested in telling the truth, not skewing American history to gain political points. Sorry, it's in my nature. :)

[klamath]

I'm interested in telling the truth, not skewing American history to gain political points. Sorry, it's in my nature. :)
Sorry it is my nature to call out the kneejerk anti america crowd just as quick as calling out the "America fuck yeaw crowd".

[Matthew5]

Can everyone just sit down for a minute?

Good grief. Yes, we know Rand has to say some dumb shit sometimes...I GOT THAT. But do we have to pretend that it's the greatest thing handed down since the 10 commandments when he does say these things? Can we just roll our eyes, hold our noses, and go on with our day? I mean, YOU KNOW you guys would have a different take on this if Rubio or Cruz....or God forbid, McCain had said this.

I thought this had been posted in General Politics. I realized too late that it had been posted in the Rand It or Leave It thread. :D

[Matthew5]

Sorry it is my nature to call out the kneejerk anti america crowd just as quick as calling out the "America fuck yeaw crowd".

So one is only allowed to be "Anti" American if it's not a knee jerk reaction? Should we have let this stew for a while and gotten a formal reply from Sen. Rand clarifing his remarks?

[klamath]

What rand said was exceptional and what neocons say is exceptional are totally different things. To a neocon America is so exceptional we can bomb and interfere all over the world and never be wrong. What rand said that is exceptional is America put together a constitution the has done a fair job of holding a diverse group of humans together and for the most part allows people to say "Fuck America" and not get their heart cut out.

[Odin]

..what's controversial here, -again-? he says america is exceptional because of our separation of powers and constitutional rights that russia lacks

he didn't associate exceptionalism to ability of foreign entanglement.. did some of you even read the article



you just sit at your part time job and dream up new non existent drama all day?

That isn't what Obama said though, which is what Putin was responding to:

"America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth."

Which is completely illogical of course and that's what Putin took issue with. And just because we have the resources to act when other nations might not, does not make us 'exceptional' compared to those nations.

[PatriotOne]

Excellent. I was getting the feeling that certain people were getting ready to paint this picture to the public. "Rand hearts Putin"

Rand and Co. saw it coming also and he headed them off at the pass ;).

[Matthew5]

What rand said was exceptional and what neocons say is exceptional are totally different things. To a neocon America is so exceptional we can bomb and interfere all over the world and never be wrong. What rand said that is exceptional is America put together a constitution the has done a fair job of holding a diverse group of humans together and for the most part allows people to say "Fuck America" and not get their heart cut out.

I don't really think they're that different. I've already laid out why Rand's statement is false, you're welcome to re-read that. He's reinforcing the stereotype that America has always been a defender of human rights and liberties, since the founding. While a neocon might use that to bomb a country, Rand is using it as a pissing contest with other nations. Of course members of RPF will hold him more accountable than the average GOP chump (e.g. Rubio).

[ObiRandKenobi]

What rand said was exceptional and what neocons say is exceptional are totally different things. To a neocon America is so exceptional we can bomb and interfere all over the world and never be wrong.

that's the kind of "exceptionalism" putin was referring to, which was what rand was responding to.

[Matthew5]

Related:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427690-Sen-DeMint-Responds-to-Putin-Op-Ed

[heavenlyboy34]

I see the knee jerk anti America posters are out with force on this thread. There CANNOT be anything good about what America has done EVER. Anybody that doesn't hate America to its deepest core are NOT part of the freedom movement I tell you!:rolleyes:

Right on Rand, don't EVER be ashamed about what America has done right but stay strong in calling the shots where we are wrong. And Rand don't ever try and Pander to the the kneejerk anti America libertarian crowd.
'MURICA, FUCK YEAH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOEIruwzf54

[Brett85]

Yes, yes, everything Rand says and does is just wonderful. :rolleyes: Except if Rubio or Cruz had said something like this, we would be having a more honest discussion about the falsehood of "American exceptionalism"

http://www.thejanedough.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/facepalm.jpg

If Rubio said that our country is exceptional because of the way in which we were founded and our Constitution, I would completely agree with him. But, that's not his definition of American exceptionalism.

[Brett85]

Here is a much better article from Time about Putin. (http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/13/why-vladimir-putin-thinks-were-out-to-get-him/) And it really shows that his foreign policy is defensive in nature.

Yeah, except for that one time that he launched an invasion of Georgia. Lol.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Mostly happy about Rand calling Putin out on the blatant hypocrisy. Some people on these forums almost seem to promote Putin too much. Yes, I get that he doesn't kowtow to America's every demand, but I'm sure the Afghans, Chechnyans, Georgians and Angolans, among others, have a hell of a lot of stories to tell about the Russians not minding their own business.

[krugminator]

I completely agree. I would add to that America is exceptional because our free enterprise system has allowed just about every major innovation over the 150 years to either be developed in the United States, allowed to be mass marketed here, or improved upon by American companies. The automobile, telephone, television, computer, life saving drugs, etc flourished because of America.

The Soviet Union in contrast had bread lines and Chess.

[Brett85]

Can everyone just sit down for a minute?

Good grief. Yes, we know Rand has to say some dumb shit sometimes...I GOT THAT. But do we have to pretend that it's the greatest thing handed down since the 10 commandments when he does say these things? Can we just roll our eyes, hold our noses, and go on with our day? I mean, YOU KNOW you guys would have a different take on this if Rubio or Cruz....or God forbid, McCain had said this.

There's nothing wrong with what he said at all. It's the exact same thing that Ron has said before. Where was all the criticism of Ron when he said in a Republican debate that we're an exceptional country? You can believe in American exceptionalism without agreeing with the neocon definition of it.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Mostly happy about Rand calling Putin out on the blatant hypocrisy.

putin isn't infringing on my rights or curtailing my liberty.

foreign entanglements.

etc.

[ObiRandKenobi]

I completely agree. I would add to that America is exceptional because our free enterprise system has allowed just about every major innovation over the 150 years to either be developed in the United States


at some point in history, the chinese led the world in innovation while much of the rest of the world was poor.

at other points in history, other countries (or blocks of land) led the world in innovation while much of the rest of the world was poor.

at some point in the future, whether it is 100 years or 10,000,000 years, the block of land that is today the united states will be poor.

the point being: so what?

[Matthew5]

I completely agree. I would add to that America is exceptional because our free enterprise system has allowed just about every major innovation over the 150 years to either be developed in the United States, allowed to be mass marketed here, or improved upon by American companies. The automobile, telephone, television, computer, life saving drugs, etc flourished because of America.

The Soviet Union in contrast had bread lines and Chess.

The Industrial Revolution started in England. The same England America needed to overthrow. :)

[krugminator]

at some point in history, the chinese led the world in innovation while much of the rest of the world was poor.

at other points in history, other countries (or blocks of land) led the world in innovation while much of the rest of the world was poor.

at some point in the future, whether it is 100 years or 10,000,000 years, the block of land that is today the united states will be poor.

the point being: so what?

It wasn't just a random accident that the innovation in America came about. It was the predictable outcome of a superior economic system and government.

Exceptionalism isn't permanent. America is exceptional in proportion to its adherence to laissez-faire capitalism.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Industrial Revolution started in England. The same England America needed to overthrow. :)
qft. But "needed to" should be in quotes or qualified by (supposedly). ;)

[Matthew5]

It wasn't just a random accident that the innovation in America came about. It was the predictable outcome of a superior economic system and government.

Exceptionalism isn't permanent. America is exceptional in proportion to its adherence to laissez-faire capitalism.


Adam Smith was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneer of political economy...In light of the arguments put forward by Smith and other economic theorists in Britain, academic belief in mercantalism began to decline in England in the late 18th century. During the Industrial Revolution, Britain embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics, and via the British Empire, used its power to spread a broadly liberal economic model around the world, characterized by open markets, and relatively barrier free domestic and international trade.

Yeah...about that. :D

[FSP-Rebel]

378633432617590784

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah...about that. :D
+rep beat me to it. :D

[Rothbardian Girl]

putin isn't infringing on my rights or curtailing my liberty.

foreign entanglements.

etc.
IGMFU.

[krugminator]

Yeah...about that. :D


Okay?? I must be missing something. John Locke was British, Montesquieu was French. I don't get your point. And Britain started abandoning free market beliefs much sooner than the US.

[Matthew5]

Okay?? I must be missing something. John Locke was British, Montesquieu was French. I don't get your point. And Britain started abandoning free market beliefs much sooner than the US.

England was evil during the 1700s yet they were doing things you are praising America for. It doesn't make sense. What difference does it make of the exact era that they abandoned it? Perhaps the American Industrial Revolution lasted slightly longer, but they were also playing catch up. There's no difference.

And as I quoted earlier, Finland and Russia had female politicians the same time as America. England ended slavery throughout its empire some 30 years before America! The same time, America was using federal troops to hunt down run away slaves!

So you're not pointing out ways America was atypical on the world stage.

[cajuncocoa]

If Rubio said that our country is exceptional because of the way in which we were founded and our Constitution, I would completely agree with him. But, that's not his definition of American exceptionalism.
There's nothing wrong with what he said at all. It's the exact same thing that Ron has said before. Where was all the criticism of Ron when he said in a Republican debate that we're an exceptional country? You can believe in American exceptionalism without agreeing with the neocon definition of it.

But if voters want to believe he meant it the same way, we're fine with that. Right? :rolleyes:

[Brett85]

But if voters want to believe he meant it the same way, we're fine with that. Right? :rolleyes:

Why would voters think that when Rand specifically says that America is exceptional because of the way we were founded and our Constitution which places limits on the government? Like I said, you can believe in "American exceptionalism" without believing in the neocon version of it. I do believe that we were founded as an exceptional country; I just don't believe that somehow gives us the right to tell the rest of the world how to live.

[PatriotOne]

But if voters want to believe he meant it the same way, we're fine with that. Right? :rolleyes:

Sure. I don't care if Rand stands on his head and shoots fireworks out his ass while singing "God Bless America" to appeal to the voters. It's a much better strategy than burning the American flag while praising Putin don't ya think?

[krugminator]

England was evil during the 1700s yet they were doing things you are praising America for. It doesn't make sense. What difference does it make of the exact era that they abandoned it? Perhaps the American Industrial Revolution lasted slightly longer, but they were also playing catch up. There's no difference.

And as I quoted earlier, Finland and Russia had female politicians the same time as America. England ended slavery throughout its empire some 30 years before America! The same time, America was using federal troops to hunt down run away slaves!

So you're not pointing out ways America was atypical on the world stage.

Of course, what has happened in America is atypical. Unique is actually a better word.

The word exceptional means out of the ordinary. What Britain accomplished was out of the ordinary. America topped Britain. Most of the world for human history has lived in grinding poverty. Would your rather be living to be 35 in the Australian wilderness in 1850 or live in Britain or the US during that time.'

It is absurd not to place value judgments on other societies. America is better. A large percentage of Americans don't die of AIDS or malaria by their early 30's. If you start a business, it isn't going to get plowed under arbitrarily by the government. America has Constitution that it largely adheres to that protects basic rights. The work rules are bad here but nothing like most of Europe. There is no inspector fining companies that employ people more than 40 hours a week. There has been no place better over the last 150 years to start a business and flourish than America. That alone makes America exceptional.

[cajuncocoa]

Sure. I don't care if Rand stands on his head and shoots fireworks out his ass while singing "God Bless America" to appeal to the voters. It's a much better strategy than burning the American flag while praising Putin don't ya think?

It's also better than killing puppies. Gotcha.

Excellent logical fallacy, BTW.

[tod evans]

It's a much better strategy than burning the American flag while praising Putin don't ya think?

Where did this come from?

[cajuncocoa]

Where did this come from?

Pulled it out of his ass.

[tod evans]

Pulled it out of his ass.

I think he might be butthurt that Putin's been making dear-reader look bad lately but thought I'd better ask instead of assuming....

[Brett85]

So I guess Rand is supposed to say that he opposes or doesn't believe in American exceptionalism? Man, we have some political geniuses who post here. :rolleyes:

[tod evans]

So I guess Rand is supposed to say that he opposes or doesn't believe in American exceptionalism? Man, we have some political geniuses who post here. :rolleyes:

Which posts were you able to deduce this from?

[Brett85]

Which posts were you able to deduce this from?

All of the posts criticizing Rand in this thread.

[Matthew5]

So I guess Rand is supposed to say that he opposes or doesn't believe in American exceptionalism? Man, we have some political geniuses who post here. :rolleyes:

Or not say anything at all...he wasn't directly challenged, Obama was.

[Brett85]

Or not say anything at all...he wasn't directly challenged, Obama was.

He was trying to score points with Republican primary voters, which is the smart thing to do. When the neocons attack him and call him a "pacifist" or a "blame America firster" or whatever they want to call him, Rand needs to make sure that these attacks ring hollow and come across as being completely untrue.

[undergroundrr]

Sure. I don't care if Rand stands on his head and shoots fireworks out his ass while singing "God Bless America" to appeal to the voters. It's a much better strategy than burning the American flag while praising Putin don't ya think?

My dad always said that Reagan was able to draw in such a broad base because when he spoke, it made listeners proud to be American.

Putin is yucky. I'm glad Rand took time to draw a contrast.

[jtstellar]

so what are we arguing about?

that rand said america is exceptional because we have a constitution and separation of power? or because rubio said america is exceptional because we intervene all over the world? both of those are faults attributed to rand paul, apparently

[eleganz]

I'm usually very supportive of whatever Rand has to do but unfortunately one of my peeves is when people claim America is exceptional.

Rand does not get a pass on this one but its not a huge deal to begin with.

[heavenlyboy34]

so what are we arguing about?

that rand said america is exceptional because we have a constitution and separation of power? or because rubio said america is exceptional because we intervene all over the world? both of those are faults attributed to rand paul, apparently
It seems to be the semantics of "American Exceptionalism" and its goodness or badness.

[Brett85]

I'm usually very supportive of whatever Rand has to do but unfortunately one of my peeves is when people claim America is exceptional.

Rand does not get a pass on this one but its not a huge deal to begin with.

Why would you have any problem at all with Rand's definition of American exceptionalism? You don't agree that our country is exceptional since we were founded on the principles of liberty and freedom?

[LibertyEagle]

Or not say anything at all...he wasn't directly challenged, Obama was.

Rand is positioning himself as presidential material. He wants to show himself as being the leader in the GOP. He needed to say something.

If you read what he said carefully, you will see that he redefined what American exceptionalism is. The neocons defined it as needing to be globocop. Rand is changing that.

Perhaps you missed this (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/13/paul-the-folly-of-rushing-to-war/).

[LibertyEagle]

I'm usually very supportive of whatever Rand has to do but unfortunately one of my peeves is when people claim America is exceptional.

Rand does not get a pass on this one but its not a huge deal to begin with.

Huh? What the hell?

He says America is exceptional when it is following the damn Constitution.

Man, some of you guys are something else. Worse than damn huffpo.

[idiom]

I think whenever this question comes up, the response needs to be:

"What will make us exceptional for the next hundred years? A Corrupt Central Bank? A 100% Surveillance Society? A Track Record of Bombing Indiscriminately? If we want to be a country the world looks up too, then we need to earn it and continue to earn it."

[Brett85]

If you read what he said carefully, you will see that he redefined what American exceptionalism is. The neocons defined it as needing to be globocop. Rand is changing that.

No, the neocons redefined the definition of the word. The original meaning of the word is exactly what Rand described.

[Matthew5]

Alright, ya'll take off your Rand Glasses and really look at what he wrote. Can't believe I have to post this again, but I'm guessing y'all are ignoring it.

Did he say that American Execptionalism can be found in the Constitution. Yes.

But what did he also say?


And both countries certainly face real and present threats from Islamic extremists, both at home and in areas of strategic importance.

Um, the only strategic importance is the border surrounding the 50 states. But Rand leaves the door open for a neocon seed to be planted (if it hasn't already).

Secondly:


American is indeed exceptional. Our history has proved it so. While we all share the same Creator, we do not all share the same richness of history regarding human rights, freedom and democracy. There has been in the past 200 years a city on the hill that has shone brighter than all others. We will not be ashamed of that. May God allow us to continue to model this example to the world in these difficult times.

He also says our exceptionalism is found in our history. It is not. This ignores a huge swath of American history to claim we're the world leaders in human rights when we trailed England in slavery and dang near Communist Russia in representation of women. Not to mention a whole other host of travesties.

So the Randophiles really need to take a critical look at what he wrote here. Did you say it was an excuse to bomb other nations? No, although the areas of strategic importance should be alarming.

It's a pissing contest that really makes him come off looking like either someone with a Napoleon Complex or a political opportunist.

[klamath]

I agree with many of Putin's points however it doesn't make him not a hypocrite. He is arming Syria to the teeth just like the western and other middle eastern countries are arming the rebels. The WORLD is interfering in in Syria. They wouldn't have the weapons to kill each other without the rest of the world. They would be thunking each other with rocks.

[Matthew5]

I agree with many of Putin's points however it doesn't make him not a hypocrite. He is arming Syria to the teeth just like the western and other middle eastern countries are arming the rebels. The WORLD is interfering in in Syria. They wouldn't have the weapons to kill each other without the rest of the world. They would be thunking each other with rocks.

And America doesn't do the same? One word: Egypt.

Again, Rand looks like a fool for trying to school Putin when we can be accused of just as much.

[LibertyEagle]

No, the neocons redefined the definition of the word. The original meaning of the word is exactly what Rand described.

Whatever. You got my point.

[LibertyEagle]

Alright, ya'll take off your Rand Glasses and really look at what he wrote. Can't believe I have to post this again, but I'm guessing y'all are ignoring it.

Did he say that American Execptionalism can be found in the Constitution. Yes.

But what did he also say?



Um, the only strategic importance is the border surrounding the 50 states. But Rand leaves the door open for a neocon seed to be planted (if it hasn't already).

Secondly:



He also says our exceptionalism is found in our history. It is not. This ignores a huge swath of American history to claim we're the world leaders in human rights when we trailed England in slavery and dang near Communist Russia in representation of women. Not to mention a whole other host of travesties.

So the Randophiles really need to take a critical look at what he wrote here. Did you say it was an excuse to bomb other nations? No, although the areas of strategic importance should be alarming.

It's a pissing contest that really makes him come off looking like either someone with a Napoleon Complex or a political opportunist.

Sorry, but you are nuts.

Calling the U.S. a piece of shit would be the kiss of death for him politically. Not to mention US!! Political opportunist? Are you frickin' for real? He is going to run for President. Is this news to you??? He has been changing hearts and minds out there (people who thought Ron was a nutjob) since he got into office. It's not going to be immediate; it is a process. He is leading them back home.

This did used to be the best country on the face of the earth. Which is why people wanted to come here so badly. He is doing his best to remind them of what we used to stand for and it is working. Slowly, but it is working.


He also says our exceptionalism is found in our history. It is not. This ignores a huge swath of American history to claim we're the world leaders in human rights when we trailed England in slavery and dang near Communist Russia in representation of women. Not to mention a whole other host of travesties.

Our public school system at work, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Yes, indeedy, Communist Russia was dandy with everyone. They either starved them en masse, shot 'em, or put them in gulags. Real liberty lovers, those Commies.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Alright, ya'll take off your Rand Glasses and really look at what he wrote. Can't believe I have to post this again, but I'm guessing y'all are ignoring it.

Did he say that American Execptionalism can be found in the Constitution. Yes.

But what did he also say?



Um, the only strategic importance is the border surrounding the 50 states. But Rand leaves the door open for a neocon seed to be planted (if it hasn't already).

Secondly:



He also says our exceptionalism is found in our history. It is not. This ignores a huge swath of American history to claim we're the world leaders in human rights when we trailed England in slavery and dang near Communist Russia in representation of women. Not to mention a whole other host of travesties.

So the Randophiles really need to take a critical look at what he wrote here. Did you say it was an excuse to bomb other nations? No, although the areas of strategic importance should be alarming.

It's a pissing contest that really makes him come off looking like either someone with a Napoleon Complex or a political opportunist.

Ron said he would go to Congress, and ultimately to war, if the Panama Canal fell into hostile hands and threatened national security.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsUxowtiu3g

[Matthew5]

Sorry, but you are nuts.

Calling the U.S. a piece of shit would be the kiss of death for him politically. Not to mention US!! Political opportunist? Are you frickin' for real? He is going to run for President. Is this news to you??? He has been changing hearts and minds out there (people who thought Ron was a nutjob) since he got into office. It's not going to be immediate; it is a process. He is leading them back home.

This did used to be the best country on the face of the earth. Which is why people wanted to come here so badly. He is doing his best to remind them of what we used to stand for and it is working. Slowly, but it is working.

I never suggested he say these things. :rolleyes:

My suggestion was for him not to say anything at all. Putin is scoring points with Rand's base because he's getting major jabs in on Obama and Kerry. Why not just sit back, smile, and continue leading the anti-Syrian intervention charge? It's a diversion that makes him look silly. But why let a good crisis go to waste, right? This is what I meant by political opportunism.

[klamath]

And America doesn't do the same? One word: Egypt.

Again, Rand looks like a fool for trying to school Putin when we can be accused of just as much. As I said The "world" arms the Syrians and Most of the conflicts of the world. To the America is the 'exceptional evil crowd' this is invisible. Rand doesn't look like a fool because HE has been leading the opposition to AMERICAN intervention, Putin has been interfering and is interfering so he can't hardly claim he is leading Russia anti intervention wing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron said he would go to Congress, and ultimately to war, if the Panama Canal fell into hostile hands and threatened national security.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsUxowtiu3g

And President Ron Paul would be a warmonger and tyrant if he did.

[asurfaholic]

As I said The "world" arms the Syrians and Most of the conflicts of the world. To the America is the 'exceptional evil crowd' this is invisible. Rand doesn't look like a fool because HE has been leading the opposition to AMERICAN intervention, Putin has been interfering and is interfering so he can't hardly claim he is leading Russia anti intervention wing.

I dunno. I look at it more like this. Syria is a close ally with regional security issues. Syria is being attacked by the outside world. Without the rebels being armed and financed by US, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, and others- syria would be capable of handling its own affairs.

I view it like this- if China started importing terrorists and weapons, and money, and more weapons, and more money, and more terrorists to CANADA, or MEXICO- we would be perfectly justified and I would support sending support to repel the foreign support and squash the opposition. It would be an actual legitimate case of our national interest and regional security being jeapordized. (Of course knowing our govt, they'd probably encourage such an action to further justify a growing domestic army.)

Putin is not in the wrong here, in this particular case.

[Occam's Banana]

FIFY. That era was pretty much the formal introduction to US foreign empire building and militant chauvinism (depending on how you reckon it) IMO. Otherwise an excellent post. :)

I'd put the "formal" or "official" starting point for the (international) American Empire at 1898 and the Spanish-American War (which saw the founding of the American Anti-Imperialist League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League)). Of course, there were many incidences in laying the groundwork for American imperium long before that point - such as Commodore Perry's forcible "opening" of Japan as far back as 1853 (the same year, incidentally, that the "Monroe Doctrine" - which had been the basis of much of American foreign policy since 1823 - was first referred to by that name).

[LibertyEagle]

And President Ron Paul would be a warmonger and tyrant if he did.

The hell he would! Our government should never have handed the Panama Canal back to begin with. We built it and it is vital to our national defense.

[LibertyEagle]

I never suggested he say these things. :rolleyes:

My suggestion was for him not to say anything at all. Putin is scoring points with Rand's base because he's getting major jabs in on Obama and Kerry. Why not just sit back, smile, and continue leading the anti-Syrian intervention charge? It's a diversion that makes him look silly. But why let a good crisis go to waste, right? This is what I meant by political opportunism.

He's not trying to appeal to you. He's trying to appeal to the mass of Republican voters. He is positioning himself as the top guy in the GOP.

[anaconda]

Putin's piece was brilliant and superbly written. Rand's comment regarding the "the shining light on the hill for 200 years" was so completely corny that I emailed his D.C. office to tell him so. In light of the U.S. military and CIA terrorizing the planet for decades.

UPDATE: I did, however, thank him profusely for his tireless and continued fight in the cause of liberty. I also mentioned that I thought I understood the politics behind his rebuttal.

[Brett85]

Alright, ya'll take off your Rand Glasses and really look at what he wrote. Can't believe I have to post this again, but I'm guessing y'all are ignoring it.

Did he say that American Execptionalism can be found in the Constitution. Yes.

But what did he also say?



Um, the only strategic importance is the border surrounding the 50 states. But Rand leaves the door open for a neocon seed to be planted (if it hasn't already).

Secondly:



He also says our exceptionalism is found in our history. It is not. This ignores a huge swath of American history to claim we're the world leaders in human rights when we trailed England in slavery and dang near Communist Russia in representation of women. Not to mention a whole other host of travesties.

So the Randophiles really need to take a critical look at what he wrote here. Did you say it was an excuse to bomb other nations? No, although the areas of strategic importance should be alarming.

It's a pissing contest that really makes him come off looking like either someone with a Napoleon Complex or a political opportunist.

Whatever. For every anarchist like you Rand loses, he gains 50 Red State-free republic types, which is what he has to do to win and become President.

[klamath]

I dunno. I look at it more like this. Syria is a close ally with regional security issues. Syria is being attacked by the outside world. Without the rebels being armed and financed by US, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, and others- syria would be capable of handling its own affairs.

I view it like this- if China started importing terrorists and weapons, and money, and more weapons, and more money, and more terrorists to CANADA, or MEXICO- we would be perfectly justified and I would support sending support to repel the foreign support and squash the opposition. It would be an actual legitimate case of our national interest and regional security being jeapordized. (Of course knowing our govt, they'd probably encourage such an action to further justify a growing domestic army.)

Putin is not in the wrong here, in this particular case.
No, Syria would not be able to handle its own without Russian support and if you are trying to justify it by regional security Israel, Saudi, Jordan, turkey, have a hell of lot more reasons to interfer than Russia.
But once again, America is exceptionally evil people are strong around here.

[PatriotOne]

Whatever. For every anarchist like you Rand loses, he gains 50 Red State-free republic types, which is what he has to do to win and become President.

Sooooooooooo......burning the American flag bad strategy? :p

[Matthew5]

Whatever. For every anarchist like you Rand loses, he gains 50 Red State-free republic types, which is what he has to do to win and become President.

I've already said that I don't have a dog in this hunt. He'll never court my vote in a million years, so I'm fully aware of what he's trying to accomplish here. I'll commend people when they do decent things within the framework of republican government. I enjoyed his Drone Filibuster and applauded his efforts.

But his political goals shouldn't come in the way of the truth. But then, that is asking quite a bit of a politician. ;)

[EBounding]

Whatever. For every anarchist like you Rand loses, he gains 50 Red State-free republic types, which is what he has to do to win and become President.

And Rand still has plenty of anarchists on his side http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ssh.gif. I don't consider myself one, but a number of people in my small GOP precinct caucus are all ancaps.

[Brett85]

I've already said that I don't have a dog in this hunt. He'll never court my vote in a million years, so I'm fully aware of what he's trying to accomplish here. I'll commend people when they do decent things within the framework of republican government. I enjoyed his Drone Filibuster and applauded his efforts.

But his political goals shouldn't come in the way of the truth. But then, that is asking quite a bit of a politician. ;)

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. You know that it's not possible to always tell the truth and actually have a chance to become President.

[idiom]

It would be a problem if anarchists voted.... :P

Lookit, he is broaching the big issues, restating American Exceptionalism is terms of liberty, talking about blowback, and doing it all without getting shellacked.

Some people enjoy being outcasts. Political hipsters. They liked liberty before everyone else. All the new comers are not worthy of being in favour of liberty.

[Brett85]

And Rand still has plenty of anarchists on his side http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-ssh.gif. I don't consider myself one, but a number of people in my small GOP precinct caucus are all ancaps.

Perhaps some anarchists are more practical and politically astute, like Murray Rothbard was.

[Matthew5]

No, Syria would not be able to handle its own without Russian support and if you are trying to justify it by regional security Israel, Saudi, Jordan, turkey, have a hell of lot more reasons to interfer than Russia.
But once again, America is exceptionally evil people are strong around here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html


As-Safir said Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

[Matthew5]

Truth is treason in an empire of lies. You know that it's not possible to always tell the truth and actually have a chance to become President.

So lie when it's politically convenient is what you're saying? :confused:

[Brett85]

So lie when it's politically convenient is what you're saying? :confused:

Just vote the right way and don't say things that intentionally inflame and offend people, like Ron often did.

[Matthew5]

....like Ron often did.

lol! You mean when he talked about blowback and the government possibly fencing in its own people on a nationally televised debates? Please...Ron didn't let anything stop him, not even his political aspirations.

[Brett85]

lol! You mean when he talked about blowback and the government possibly fencing in its own people on a nationally televised debates? Please...Ron didn't let anything stop him, not even his political aspirations.

Right, so if you only care about spreading a message and not actually having a chance to win anything, that's fine. Others would actually prefer to work within the political process and actually enact change in America.

[Brett85]

And I'm not saying that he shouldn't have talked about blowback, just that he should've been more careful in how he presented that argument. People still think that he says that we "deserved" to get attacked on 9-11, because Ron has never made it clear that that's not what he's saying.

[Matthew5]

Right, so if you only care about spreading a message and not actually having a chance to win anything, that's fine. Others would actually prefer to work within the political process and actually enact change in America.

I'll just leave it at this: I prefer honest people, regardless of their occupation or career paths. Call me a romantic, I guess. :)

[Matthew5]

And I'm not saying that he shouldn't have talked about blowback, just that he should've been more careful in how he presented that argument. People still think that he says that we "deserved" to get attacked on 9-11, because Ron has never made it clear that that's not what he's saying.

Na, he was as careful as one could be when handling truth bombs. There's still a shattering effect once it drops. You don't expose the evil of government and expect it to not ruffle any feathers.

[klamath]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.htmlSo what the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying because Russia was threatened they have the right to interfere. We get threatened all the time but it still doesn't make it right to interfere.

[Brett85]

Na, he was as careful as one could be when handling truth bombs. There's still a shattering effect once it drops. You don't expose the evil of government and expect it to not ruffle any feathers.

No, the way Rand has explained it in the past is the right way to explain it. He has always started out by clarifying that we didn't deserve to get attacked on 9-11, and that Ron has never said that. He points out that we have the right to defend ourselves and our country. He just points out that there are unintended consequences to our foreign policy decisions, even though we may have had good intentions in what we were doing.

[Matthew5]

So what the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying because Russia was threatened they have the right to interfere. We get threatened all the time but it still doesn't make it right to interfere.

It was to show you that they do in fact have a vested interest in the region. Militant Islamist are in your neighborhood and you have other nations sending veiled threats about a world-level event in your country.

[cajuncocoa]

Whatever. For every anarchist like you Rand loses, he gains 50 Red State-free republic types, which is what he has to do to win and become President.

That's good for his election chances, but if Rand has to keep pandering to these people (say, to get re-elected) things aren't going to change very much in a Rand Paul administration. Still going to vote for him though.

[cajuncocoa]

I'll just leave it at this: I prefer honest people, regardless of their occupation or career paths. Call me a romantic, I guess. :)

Yeah, I do too...and I've said so. All you get for having that opinion is derision from those who think you're just not getting it.

[fr33]

A better tactic would have been to approach it from this side: "The American people are exceptional but their government is not. etc."

[Matthew5]

A better tactic would have been to approach it from this side: "The American people are exceptional but their government is not. etc."

A much better direction from a political standpoint.

[Brett85]

That's good for his election chances, but if Rand has to keep pandering to these people (say, to get re-elected) things aren't going to change very much in a Rand Paul administration. Still going to vote for him though.

I've been critical of some of Rand's votes and statements, as you know, but I just didn't see anything wrong with what he said in this article.

[klamath]

It was to show you that they do in fact have a vested interest in the region. Militant Islamist are in your neighborhood and you have other nations sending veiled threats about a world-level event in your country. It is called Blowback Russia. Don't mess around in a muslim country that is a long ways from your border as you may stir up shit on your own border.

[ClydeCoulter]

No, the way Rand has explained it in the past is the right way to explain it. He has always started out by clarifying that we didn't deserve to get attacked on 9-11, and that Ron has never said that. He points out that we have the right to defend ourselves and our country. He just points out that there are unintended consequences to our foreign policy decisions, even though we may have had good intentions in what we were doing.

So, how much damage does one need to do to deserve retribution?

[cajuncocoa]

I've been critical of some of Rand's votes and statements, as you know, but I just didn't see anything wrong with what he said in this article.
Just because "American exceptionalism" is a buzz term for neocons. They won't care how he redefined it.

[Brett85]

So, how much damage does one need to do to deserve retribution?

The American people who were killed on 9-11 never did any damage to anyone overseas.

[Brett85]

Just because "American exceptionalism" is a buzz term for neocons. They won't care how he redefined it.

Um, don't you realize that's why he's talking about it? He doesn't want them to try to paint him as some kind of "pacifist, blame American firster," which is what they're trying to do. This kind of article helps to shield Rand from those attacks.

[ClydeCoulter]

The American people who were killed on 9-11 never did any damage to anyone overseas.

I understand. What did the guy tending to his orchard when he was suddenly blown to bits do to us? Those that have little means use the means that they have.

[klamath]

Just because "American exceptionalism" is a buzz term for neocons. They won't care how he redefined it.So. American and Americans are "Exceptionally evil" is a libertarian buzz term.

[Matthew5]

It is called Blowback Russia. Don't mess around in a muslim country that is a long ways from your border as you may stir up shit on your own border.

What "stuff" is being stirred? They're allies and were way before (1950's I believe) the U.S. started funding the rebels. Although I guess one could claim the CIA was active in the region by then.

[ClydeCoulter]

People talk about "When will Americans stand up!"

Maybe when they see their children and friends dying and getting their arms and legs blown off, maybe when they have suffered as others have at our hands, then, then perhaps some of them will begin to understand those brown people.

And this is only in relation to 2 holes punched into 2 towers, if that is even true. Blowback? Maybe.

[Brett85]

I understand. What did the guy tending to his orchard when he was suddenly blown to bits do to us? Those that have little means use the means that they have.

Regardless, it's politically stupid to actually make it sound like we deserved to get attacked on 9-11. Rand is smart and isn't going to do that.

[ClydeCoulter]

Regardless, it's politically stupid to actually make it sound like we deserved to get attacked on 9-11. Rand is smart and isn't going to do that.

My point was, perhaps Ron didn't want to lie about what he thought, so he stayed silent on that part.

[Brett85]

My point was, perhaps Ron didn't want to lie about what he thought, so he stayed silent on that part.

I don't think Ron believes that we deserved to get attacked. There was another interview where Ron explained his position in more detail. He compared terrorist attacks to a situation where the police investigate a murder that occured in a person's home. The first question the police ask is what the motive was, in order to understand why the crime occured and find the person who did it. The police aren't saying that the person who was murdered deserved to be murdered. They are just trying to understand the motive in order to catch the person who did it. In the same way, we should understand the motive in order to make terrorist attacks less likely in the future. That was the point that Ron made in an interview in which he had more time to explain his views, and he did a good job of explaining his position in that particular interview.

[Bastiat's The Law]

A better tactic would have been to approach it from this side: "The American people are exceptional but their government is not. etc."
"The founding of America was exceptional; but today it's people are mediocre, and its government in its current amalgamation is abhorrent."

That's my working title :rolleyes:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

150 posts on this thread? I haven't read anything but the last page; is this another blow-up thread of fail?

[Brett85]

150 posts on this thread? I haven't read anything but the last page; is this another blow-up thread of fail?

Yeah, some people here think that it's somehow a violation of the principles of liberty to ever say anything good about America.

[ClydeCoulter]

I don't think Ron believes that we deserved to get attacked. There was another interview where Ron explained his position in more detail. He compared terrorist attacks to a situation where the police investigate a murder that occured in a person's home. The first question the police ask is what the motive was, in order to understand why the crime occured and find the person who did it. The police aren't saying that the person who was murdered deserved to be murdered. They are just trying to understand the motive in order to catch the person who did it. In the same way, we should understand the motive in order to make terrorist attacks less likely in the future. That was the point that Ron made in an interview in which he had more time to explain his views, and he did a good job of explaining his position in that particular interview.

Again, I understand.

And once you find out that the motive was because the person at this home had murdered thousands of other people in their homes, you start getting the feeling that maybe ...?

[klamath]

What "stuff" is being stirred? They're allies and were way before (1950's I believe) the U.S. started funding the rebels. Although I guess one could claim the CIA was active in the region by then.Pouring arms into a county and supporting a dictator that supports your interests ie military base is EXACTLY the same as what America does.
sorry not buying your thin arguments on why it is ok for Russia to intervene and interfere.

[green73]

you just sit at your part time job and dream up new non existent drama all day?

I'm a workaholic. Thankfully, one of my jobs consists of being paid by women to have sex with them.

Whereas the only sex you get is from your hand as you type inane comments on internet forums.

[Matthew5]

Pouring arms into a county and supporting a dictator that supports your interests ie military base is EXACTLY the same as what America does.
sorry not buying your thin arguments on why it is ok for Russia to intervene and interfere.

I'm not arguing whether it's ok or not...you couldn't understand why Russia would be interested. I'm giving you reasons why.

[jtstellar]

a lot of people had a bad day and are looking for some sorry excuse to vent on

seems to be the takeaway from this

[Matthew5]

a lot of people had a bad day and are looking for some sorry excuse to vent on

seems to be the takeaway from this

It's Friday and my new baby is due any day now...It's been an excellent day. :)

[Saint Vitus]

America is exceptional. Exceptionally corrupt. Exceptionally bloodthirsty. Exceptionally meddlesome. Exceptionally morally bankrupt. Exceptionally stupid in putting a foreign nation's interests ahead of our own.

[cajuncocoa]

a lot of people had a bad day and are looking for some sorry excuse to vent on

seems to be the takeaway from this
Speak for yourself. My day was wonderful.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, some people here think that it's somehow a violation of the principles of liberty to ever say anything good about America.
Another logical fallacy.

[klamath]

I'm not arguing whether it's ok or not...you couldn't understand why Russia would be interested. I'm giving you reasons why.I understand exactly why Putin is interested just as I understand exactly why Obama and neocons are interested. I argue that they are both wrong.

[cajuncocoa]

So. American and Americans are "Exceptionally evil" is a libertarian buzz term.
:rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

Um, don't you realize that's why he's talking about it? He doesn't want them to try to paint him as some kind of "pacifist, blame American firster," which is what they're trying to do. This kind of article helps to shield Rand from those attacks.
Yep, we don't need those damned pacifists getting any ideas! The GOP must remain warmongers-only.

[Matthew5]

Yep, we don't need those damned pacifists getting any ideas! The GOP must remain warmongers-only.

Hey boy...this here tent is big, but it ain't that big!

:p

[Bastiat's The Law]

This is how you sell non-interventionism to the masses @ 17:14


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw70EItcJdU

[RonPaulFanInGA]

:rolleyes:

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.

[cajuncocoa]

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.not all libertarians are anarchos. And saying "America is good" means something completely different from "American exceptionalism"

[ClydeCoulter]

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.

Below average attempt at division.

[Saint Vitus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/MittRomney_NoApology_Cover_lowres.jpg

This really does seem Romney-esque. Goddamn, I hate politics.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Below average attempt at division.

Thanks for the non-response.

[Matthew5]

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.

B, because we'd love to see the fallout surrounding a politician recanting his political beliefs. :D

[green73]

Another logical fallacy.

I would pay to see he and LE debate sometime. Talk about a fallacy death battle!

[Occam's Banana]

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.

Collectivized reification is reified collectivism.
- Sincerely, the "anarcho crowd"
:rolleyes:

[Saint Vitus]

"The United States until now has resisted arming one side of the Syrian civil war" - Rand Paul


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s320/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

[green73]

"The United States until now has resisted arming one side of the Syrian civil war" - Rand Paul


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ELFl2_1q7DI/TObn1HnV2fI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/5JkvAtpbv7k/s320/Not_sure_if_serious.jpg

LOL

[kcchiefs6465]

America is exceptional. Exceptionally corrupt. Exceptionally bloodthirsty. Exceptionally meddlesome. Exceptionally morally bankrupt. Exceptionally stupid in putting a foreign nation's interests ahead of our own.
Can someone cover this for me.

[green73]

Can someone cover this for me.

Sorry.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Saint Vitus again.

[fr33]

A better tactic would have been to approach it from this side: "The American people are exceptional but their government is not. etc."

And addition to that, Rand could have acted more diplomatic. Being a braggart to foreigners who are engaging in talks about diplomacy is what props up the concept of American Exceptionalism. He is in a position to talk about diplomacy, which should be the only option on Syria.

Please consider all of the above constructive criticism.

[kcchiefs6465]

And I'm not saying that he shouldn't have talked about blowback, just that he should've been more careful in how he presented that argument. People still think that he says that we "deserved" to get attacked on 9-11, because Ron has never made it clear that that's not what he's saying.
And people still wouldn't look at a book if it smacked them in the face.

What can you do?

When a group of by and large "Christians" boo the Golden Rule, something is wrong with the audience, not the speaker. I mean FFS, how much more dumbed down can a philosophy get than what is taught to toddlers?

Oh, and as to Ron Paul "never ma[king] it clear that that's not what he's saying" he went out of his way to hold their hand. "I'm not saying we deserved it", I can hear him now, during the debates. And not just once. It does not surprise me that you'd misrepresent what he said. It is a recurring theme for you.

[jtstellar]

cia arming the rebel doesn't mean i ever gave them the authority to

nor should rand be responsible for what the cia is doing, especially when they can just flat out deny it. you guys are seriously all over the place.. rand's failure to explain what the cia is doing while he already has to cover grounds for the common sensical position on syria is apparently a huge problem on his part.. most of these interviews are less than 10 minutes so maybe you should just stick to something else. if you want to be inclusive of what america does in covert operations around the world, the united states will honestly sound no better than rogue 3rd world countries. is that why you have a problem with rand? because that sounds more like you have problem with politics in general. how do you get from restaurant waitress who hasn't heard of syria, point A, to "united states is an evil regime" point B within 10 minutes? rand is the one trying to talk to that waitress, while you are busy bitching

you guys are so retarded it's hilarious.

answer to that question is: you stick to what's in public's knowledge sphere and work with the tools you have on hand to make your case. you guys mention LE debating traditional conservative.. i would love to see you debate progressives or neo-cons who don't have the knowledge base to entertain your "LOL" one-liners. they don't even know what the fuck you're being sarcastic about, so by your logic, you will have to inform them as you go, if you don't lose them along the way because credibility becomes problem. they can even drag you into a debate of credible sources and that will last forever. most likely you'll just end up choking like the we-are-change guys that were once interviewed on tv because they were trying to say too many things at once.. they just ended up shrieking 'that's a lie!' because they were overwhelmed by emotions from trying to say too many things at once and hitting a brick wall during that process.. and no i'm not trying to insult them, but you guys, give those flappy fingers a rest.. seriously


LOL

cia counts as falling under the purview of the american people rand represents? if not

LOL

get a job seriously.. are some of you guys eating well lately? some of you are totally falling off the deep end

[jtstellar]

holy shit repressed rand haters out in droves today

reprisal for past humiliation? rand must have done too many good things lately to make your positions feel threatened.. gotta push the dial back somewhat, ya know, can't let rand off that easily.

i know you guys just fucking hate the fact that ex-neocons are now converting, albeit slowly, and apparently they won't pay for their past mistakes in the form of public humiliation, because rand is "letting them off easy" and not making space for you to ascend to prominence in the public sphere in the vacuum retrieved from neocons. well, i'm sorry, but gee, your petty hatred as reason to bash someone doing great work, sounds kinda pathetic. or maybe it's not great work for you after all, because it benefits rest 90% americans but not you

[Tod]

Too bad Rand didn't get his op-ed published BEFORE Rubio. :(

[randomname]

Jim DeMint just published a response as well, basically parrotting Rand:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-13/tea-party-founder-responds-putin-op-ed

[LibertyEagle]

Yep, we don't need those damned pacifists getting any ideas! The GOP must remain warmongers-only.

There is another option, ya know. When we defend our nation when we are attacked or if there is an imminent threat. This is not warmongering, nor is it pacifism.

[cajuncocoa]

There is another option, ya know. When we defend our nation when we are attacked or if there is an imminent threat. This is not warmongering, nor is it pacifism.
Sure, but we haven't been attacked by another country since 1941.

[klamath]

Which of the following statements would be more likely to draw the ire of the anarcho crowd, and provoke a response?

A. America is good.

B. America is evil.
A. Mouth frothing rage. Even to mention good parts brings it on.
When you read the news comments in the MSN articles about Rand fighting his heart out to stop war the most vicious comments are aways from the libertarian purists.

[Brett85]

America is exceptional. Exceptionally corrupt. Exceptionally bloodthirsty. Exceptionally meddlesome. Exceptionally morally bankrupt. Exceptionally stupid in putting a foreign nation's interests ahead of our own.

Then why do you even live here? Why not just move to Somalia where you would have your anarchist utopia?

[Brett85]

Jim DeMint just published a response as well, basically parrotting Rand:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-13/tea-party-founder-responds-putin-op-ed

That's ridiculous as well. You apparently didn't read Rand's column either. Demint agreed with Rubio's definition of American exceptionalism in the article, that we're somehow exceptional because of the things that we do overseas. Rand rejects that argument and believes that we're exceptional because of the way that our country was founded and our Constitution.

[cajuncocoa]

Then why do you even live here? Why not just move to Somalia where you would have your anarchist utopia?

http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b012877707dd5970c-pi


....or maybe you could work to change what you don't love. I guess I thought that's what we're all doing by being here.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm going to make a new thread for this, but it belongs here too:

American Exceptionalism: Putin, the Neocons, and Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/daniel-mcadams/american-exceptionalism-2/) By Daniel McAdams (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/daniel-mcadams/?post_type=article)
The Ron Paul Institute (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/)
September 14, 2013



When Russian President Vladimir Putin took his American counterpart to task in a recent New York Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all) over Obama’s invocation of the standard neoconservative boilerplate “American exceptionalism” to justify an aggressive US foreign policy, US neocons shrieked in unison. How dare he, they cried.


But to the neoconservatives, American exceptionalism has nothing to do with civil liberties, personal freedom, limited government, free markets, and the like. It is only the exeptionalism of the US sword, going abroad to seek monsters to destroy. It is only the exeptionalism of military might to force the world to follow US dictates.
Putin pushed back against this kind of false and a historic American exceptionalism and, likely because his argument made so much sense to the average American who is sick of war and aggression overseas, the neoconservatives suffered fits of convulsions and intestinal distress. Neoconserative Senator Robert Menendez, who has long dreamed of another Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, felt like he “wanted to vomit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/menendez-putin-vomit_n_3910927.html)” after reading Putin’s words. House Speaker John Boehner felt “insulted (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-boehner-insulted-by-putin-op-ed-96715.html)” by Putin. John McCain felt his intelligence insulted (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-putins-op-ed-insults-americans-intelligence) by Putin’s comments.


What did Putin say that caused Washington such fits? He reminded the US, founded as it was generally on Christian principles, that the Creator did not make exceptional nations, but rather created all men in His own image:

I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Not long ago, Ron Paul was asked to explain his view of American exeptionalism. Why did he seem to disagree with the neoconservatives who would invoke this term as the bloody shirt was once waved in the days of old? Here is Ron Paul’s view of the real American exceptionalism, rooted in a patriotism that seeks not to force our way of life on others at the barrel of a gun, but rather to do our best, acknowledge and work on our shortcomings, and endeavor to set an example of the kind of peace and prosperity that can be achieved in a free society that respects individual liberty:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LphCHQQygR8#t=58

[tod evans]

^^^^^^^^This should end this thread..^^^^^^^^^^^^

(Should)

[klamath]

I'm going to make a new thread for this, but it belongs here too:

American Exceptionalism: Putin, the Neocons, and Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/daniel-mcadams/american-exceptionalism-2/) By Daniel McAdams (http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/daniel-mcadams/?post_type=article)
The Ron Paul Institute (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/)
September 14, 2013



When Russian President Vladimir Putin took his American counterpart to task in a recent New York Times Editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all) over Obama’s invocation of the standard neoconservative boilerplate “American exceptionalism” to justify an aggressive US foreign policy, US neocons shrieked in unison. How dare he, they cried.


But to the neoconservatives, American exceptionalism has nothing to do with civil liberties, personal freedom, limited government, free markets, and the like. It is only the exeptionalism of the US sword, going abroad to seek monsters to destroy. It is only the exeptionalism of military might to force the world to follow US dictates.
Putin pushed back against this kind of false and a historic American exceptionalism and, likely because his argument made so much sense to the average American who is sick of war and aggression overseas, the neoconservatives suffered fits of convulsions and intestinal distress. Neoconserative Senator Robert Menendez, who has long dreamed of another Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, felt like he “wanted to vomit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/menendez-putin-vomit_n_3910927.html)” after reading Putin’s words. House Speaker John Boehner felt “insulted (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/john-boehner-insulted-by-putin-op-ed-96715.html)” by Putin. John McCain felt his intelligence insulted (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mccain-putins-op-ed-insults-americans-intelligence) by Putin’s comments.


What did Putin say that caused Washington such fits? He reminded the US, founded as it was generally on Christian principles, that the Creator did not make exceptional nations, but rather created all men in His own image:

I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Not long ago, Ron Paul was asked to explain his view of American exeptionalism. Why did he seem to disagree with the neoconservatives who would invoke this term as the bloody shirt was once waved in the days of old? Here is Ron Paul’s view of the real American exceptionalism, rooted in a patriotism that seeks not to force our way of life on others at the barrel of a gun, but rather to do our best, acknowledge and work on our shortcomings, and endeavor to set an example of the kind of peace and prosperity that can be achieved in a free society that respects individual liberty:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LphCHQQygR8#t=58yeaw but even though Rand said the same thing, the suppressed rand haters leap forth with frothing rage. If Ron believed like some of the people on these forums he would have responded back with rage. "America isn't exceptional, except being exceptionally EVIL!"

[familydog]

Kudos to Rand. He is absolutely correct to point out that America is exceptional. It's the only country to turn from the freest nation on Earth to the most totalitarian nation on Earth. All in a matter of a century or so.

[Brett85]

http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b012877707dd5970c-pi


....or maybe you could work to change what you don't love. I guess I thought that's what we're all doing by being here.

There can be a middle ground between saying that America never does anything wrong on the one hand, and saying that we're basically an evil country that never does anything good, like the member I responded to said. There are even some members here like Matthew5 who even hate our founding fathers and the way our country was founded. I just don't see why people like that would want to live here. That goes way beyond simply "not loving" America and criticizing America when it does something wrong.

[Brett85]

Kudos to Rand. He is absolutely correct to point out that America is exceptional. It's the only country to turn from the freest nation on Earth to the most totalitarian nation on Earth. All in a matter of a century or so.

The most totalitarian nation on earth? Maybe you forgot about Iran and North Korea? Some of these comments are just mind boggling.

[LibertyEagle]

yeaw but even though Rand said the same thing, the suppressed rand haters leap forth with frothing rage. If Ron believed like some of the people on these forums he would have responded back with rage. "America isn't exceptional, except being exceptionally EVIL!"

Yup and it is getting pretty damned old. I seriously hope these folks who feel that way stay as far away from Rand as they can possibly get.

[klamath]

There can be a middle ground between saying that America never does anything wrong on the one hand, and saying that we're basically an evil country that never does anything good, like the member I responded to said. There are even some members here like Matthew5 who even hate our founding fathers and the way our country was founded. I just don't see why people like that would want to live here. That goes way beyond simply "not loving" America and criticizing America when it does something wrong.I think a lot of the mentality comes for a continual obsessing on every evil thing wrong with America. Even when there is something good they have the obsession to look for some evil double crossing plot in the background. when you do that you soon get the vision that all is evil around you.

If America is so evil it is either the people that are evil, which includes THEM or it is the constitution that turned an average people into something exceptionally evil. I am sure the anarchists would agree.

[cajuncocoa]

There can be a middle ground between saying that America never does anything wrong on the one hand, and saying that we're basically an evil country that never does anything good, like the member I responded to said. There are even some members here like Matthew5 who even hate our founding fathers and the way our country was founded. I just don't see why people like that would want to live here. That goes way beyond simply "not loving" America and criticizing America when it does something wrong.
Well, all I can say is, that's not how I feel. I don't think America is evil, but I do think we've had some pretty evil people in positions of power over the last decade. It's not good enough to say "we're still the best and most free country on the face of the earth." While that may be true, we've lost a lot of our freedoms since 2001. That's not acceptable, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so under the threat of being called "unpatriotic". Things must change.

[cajuncocoa]

Yup and it is getting pretty damned old. I seriously hope these folks who feel that way stay as far away from Rand as they can possibly get.

I'm pretty sure they will, LE. Good grief, you sound just like CaptLou.

[Brett85]

Well, all I can say is, that's not how I feel. I don't think America is evil, but I do think we've had some pretty evil people in positions of power over the last decade. It's not good enough to say "we're still the best and most free country on the face of the earth." While that may be true, we've lost a lot of our freedoms since 2001. That's not acceptable, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so under the threat of being called "unpatriotic". Things must change.

I don't know if I would even say that we're the most free country on the face of the earth. I just wouldn't make some idiotic statement like "Familydog" did and say that we're the most totalitarian nation on earth. Those are the kind of comments I was referring to.

[familydog]

The most totalitarian nation on earth? Maybe you forgot about Iran and North Korea? Some of these comments are just mind boggling.

This is about relative freedom. Iran and North Korea were never free.

[Brett85]

This is about relative freedom. Iran and North Korea were never free.

Well, that's not what you said originally.

[klamath]

This is about relative freedom. Iran and North Korea were never free.Well you said it on a public forum yet you are not in prison unless you got internet privileges in prison which makes it a pretty damned plush prison for the most evil country on earth.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm pretty sure they will, LE. Good grief, you sound just like CaptLou.

Maybe because I agree with him on that point. This thread is frickin' disgraceful and an embarrassment!

It doesn't take a ton of brains to know that to win Americans over to our cause, we can't run around sounding like some kind of America-hating commies. Unless that is the sort you are trying to win over.

The point is to make the case for what once made America the envy of the world. To remind people what we used to hold dear and what made us free and prosperous. That those are the things that made us exceptional. That those are the principles we must hold dear again. That when we do, then once again we can be an example for others around the world.


Here is Ron Paul’s view of the real American exceptionalism, rooted in a patriotism that seeks not to force our way of life on others at the barrel of a gun, but rather to do our best, acknowledge and work on our shortcomings, and endeavor to set an example of the kind of peace and prosperity that can be achieved in a free society that respects individual liberty.

The above is good. Note that patriotism isn't ridiculed, but it is defined. No one is suggesting that flags are burned, either, or was anyone hating on our Founding Fathers or wishing the Constitution would be overthrown. Amazing stuff. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, the way we win this is by showing ourselves to be the ones who truly love this nation and have the recipe to put her back on her feet again and shining brightly.

[familydog]

Well you said it on a public forum yet you are not in prison unless you got internet privileges in prison which makes it a pretty damned plush prison for the most evil country on earth.

I guess I just don't have sympathy for my abusers.

[Brett85]

I guess I just don't have sympathy for my abusers.

So they do allow you to have a computer in prison?

[familydog]

So they do allow you to have a computer in prison?

You think you are free when the government hides the walls of your cage. Yes, I have a computer in my prison known as America.

[LibertyEagle]

I guess I just don't have sympathy for my abusers.

The COUNTRY didn't abuse you. You may hate the people occupying our government, but that is a different thing altogether.

[LibertyEagle]

You think you are free when the government hides the walls of your cage. Yes, I have a computer in my prison known as America.

Doesn't a prison have walls that keep you from escaping? Are you currently unable to escape America, if that is what you so choose?

[Brett85]

Doesn't a prison have walls that keep you from escaping? Are you currently unable to escape America, if that is what you so choose?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again."

[klamath]

You think you are free when the government hides the walls of your cage. Yes, I have a computer in my prison known as America.I am sure if you go to the forest of northern Montana or the deserts of AR you could walk right through the invisible borders and be free from your prison.

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe because I agree with him on that point. This thread is frickin' disgraceful and an embarrassment!

It doesn't take a ton of brains to know that to win Americans over to our cause, we can't run around sounding like some kind of America-hating commies. Unless that is the sort you are trying to win over.

The point is to make the case for what once made America the envy of the world. To remind people what we used to hold dear and what made us free and prosperous. That those are the things that made us exceptional. That those are the principles we must hold dear again. That when we do, then once again we can be an example for others around the world.



The above is good. Note that patriotism isn't ridiculed, but it is defined. No one is suggesting that flags are burned, either, or was anyone hating on our Founding Fathers or wishing the Constitution would be overthrown. Amazing stuff. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, the way we win this is by showing ourselves to be the ones who truly love this nation and have the recipe to put her back on her feet again and shining brightly.LE, please note that nowhere in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter) have I EVER said that I hate this country, the Founding Fathers, or the principles upon which our Constitution was written. I long for the country I thought we had when I learned about history and civics in grade school, but I don't think we ever really had that. In order to change, people need to recognize something's wrong and fix it. We can no longer enable the people who live to wrap themselves in the flag chanting "USA! USA!" They are living a lie. Telling them that may not be the best way to win an election, but it's the ONLY way to really change the circumstances.

[tod evans]

I guess I just don't have sympathy for my abusers.


The COUNTRY didn't abuse you. You may hate the people occupying our government, but that is a different thing altogether.

I can assure you this person has absolutely no idea what actually constitutes "abuse"....

This twisting of words to push agendas pisses me off..:mad:

[Brett85]

LE, please note that nowhere in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter) have I EVER said that I hate this country, the Founding Fathers, or the principles upon which our Constitution was written.

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all with what Rand wrote in this article.

[cajuncocoa]

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all with what Rand wrote in this article.I don't have a HUGE problem with it...but you overlooked this:


people need to recognize something's wrong and fix it. We can no longer enable the people who live to wrap themselves in the flag chanting "USA! USA!" They are living a lie. Telling them that may not be the best way to win an election, but it's the ONLY way to really change the circumstances.

[familydog]

The COUNTRY didn't abuse you. You may hate the people occupying our government, but that is a different thing altogether.

You're right. Countries are imaginary.

[familydog]

I am sure if you go to the forest of northern Montana or the deserts of AR you could walk right through the invisible borders and be free from your prison.

The fact that you are telling me to move there to be free proves my point.

[Matthew5]

There are even some members here like Matthew5 who even hate our founding fathers and the way our country was founded. I just don't see why people like that would want to live here. That goes way beyond simply "not loving" America and criticizing America when it does something wrong.

I must admit, I'm having a difficult time looking past your statist diatribes. But allow me to explain...despite the atrocities of the U.S. government, I actually like my culture, society, and network of friends and family. I believe the best way to be an American is to live freely, have peaceful voluntary interactions, and love others.

You seem to equate the American government with your country. I won't go in to the many ways this is a bad idea, but I will say this, I'm sorry that I don't agree with your narrative on how this nation was founded. I live in a highly populated area of Native Americans, listen to their stories some time. Ask them about American Exceptionalism and the Manifest Destiny that killed their young and elderly on the Trail of Tears. Of how U.S. soldiers starved people to death in the freezing cold because of poor planning and budget expenses. Look them in the eye and tell them you're proud of it, and it makes you exceptional.

We shouldn't boast that we have been a beacon on a hill from our infancy when so many millions suffered under our "exceptionalism". But screw me, right? :rolleyes:

[Matthew5]

I don't pretend that the American ideals (which I never disagreed with) were accessible to all Americans since 1776. It's been one long history of repression since then. Just because you haven't been the target group for the first 130 years, doesn't mean that we should ignore it. I wouldn't be so brazen to claim we've been exceptional for 230 years.

And I'll say that of DeMint and Rubio too. I'm an equal opportunity, frothing, hater. :)

[cajuncocoa]

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all with what Rand wrote in this article.

I overlooked something myself in my original response to this comment above. I didn't get involved in this thread because I have a problem with what Rand said. I got involved because many (see first page) recognized he was pandering to the ignorant masses but still think that's a brilliant strategy. I commented that if Rubio or McCain had made similar remarks they would be excoriated here (and you know I'm right. green73 even linked to a thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427639-Marco-Rubio-Putin-is-Wrong-The-U-S-is-Exceptional) that proved it). We can't go on enabling the ignorant. It's abusive, and it gets us nowhere.

[Carlybee]

Lulz at some of these comments. Our European forbearers were imperialistic from the get go. We decimated the Indians. We kept humans as slaves. The only thing ever exceptional about us was the Constitution which sadly forgot to end slavery and then later becoming a world leader in industrialization which allowed anyone with enough inspiration and work ethic to build wealth and the fact that a lot of people but not all had the opportunity to do so. Since then our manufacturing jobs left, our factories closed, the government reads our emails, every state is on the road to being a police state and our chief export is war. Those things do not make us exceptional. The Constitution, the one constant, is shredded daily. You can deny it all you want and pretend we are not a shadow of what we once were but it doesn't mean its not the truth.

[Matthew5]

Lulz at some of these comments. Our European forbearers were imperialistic from the get go. We decimated the Indians. We kept humans as slaves. The only thing ever exceptional about us was the Constitution which sadly forgot to end slavery and then later becoming a world leader in industrialization which allowed anyone with enough inspiration and work ethic to build wealth and the fact that a lot of people but not all had the opportunity to do so. Since then our manufacturing jobs left, our factories closed, the government reads our emails, every state is on the road to being a police state and our chief export is war. Those things do not make us exceptional. The Constitution, the one constant, is shredded daily. You can deny it all you want and pretend we are not a shadow of what we once were but it doesn't mean its not the truth.

+rep, but I will say that the Constitution hasn't been a constant. Lest we forget Prohibition. ;)

[Carlybee]

+rep, but I will say that the Constitution hasn't been a constant. Lest we forget Prohibition. ;)

True..I should have said "in general"..obviously it has been chipped away at, but the founders themselves built that provision in when they allowed for amendments. (double edged sword). And who would have imagined our fearless leaders would have figured out ways to bypass the Constitution completely. The SCOTUS ruling Obamacare was constitutional is a prime example.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, please note that nowhere in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter) have I EVER said that I hate this country, the Founding Fathers, or the principles upon which our Constitution was written. I long for the country I thought we had when I learned about history and civics in grade school, but I don't think we ever really had that. In order to change, people need to recognize something's wrong and fix it. We can no longer enable the people who live to wrap themselves in the flag chanting "USA! USA!" They are living a lie.

Cajun, I think we just disagree on how to get there. See, I think we get there by painting a picture of how it will be and showing how we get there. Some here, seem to think that we just hate on everything this country is, was and will be, and you see, I think that paints a horrible picture of what the liberty movement is and will put a dagger in any hopes we have of changing anything.


Telling them that may not be the best way to win an election, but it's the ONLY way to really change the circumstances.

No, it will however make Republicans run from you as fast as they can, because they will affiliate you in their minds as some kind of commie. You can hate on it all you want, but what I said is the truth.

[Carlybee]

Cajun, I think we just disagree on how to get there. See, I think we get there by painting a picture of how it will be and showing how we get there. Some here, seem to think that we just hate on everything this country is, was and will be, and you see, I think that paints a horrible picture of what the liberty movement is and will put a dagger in any hopes we have of changing anything.

That doesn't really make any sense. That's like putting lipstick on a pig and expecting it to get lucky Saturday night. Being honest with the public and educating them as to what HAS to be done if we are to remain free, is paramount. I understand Rand did this for political reasons, and maybe he really does believe it, but I know he has to know in his heart just how fubared we are and what it has done to our credibility around the world. People want honest discourse.

[LibertyEagle]

You're right. Countries are imaginary.

Thank God that Ron Paul doesn't agree with you.


"A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all.
Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for
almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than
a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this
country was founded upon. " -- Ron Paul

[LibertyEagle]

That doesn't really make any sense. That's like putting lipstick on a pig and expecting it to get lucky Saturday night. Being honest with the public and educating them as to what HAS to be done if we are to remain free, is paramount. I understand Rand did this for political reasons, and maybe he really does believe it, but I know he has to know in his heart just how fubared we are and what it has done to our credibility around the world. People want honest discourse.

:rolleyes:

You clearly know absolutely zero about marketing ideas. People want to be given hope. If you want to get to the desired outcome, show them how wonderful it will be and get them bought into it. Then show them how to get there.

It's marketing 101.

So, decide. Do you just want to GRIPE, MOAN AND BITCH, or do you want to change anything? If you do, burning the flag and doing other acts that lump you in with frickin' communists, will not accomplish your goal. The only people you will attract are communist types.

[Carlybee]

:rolleyes:

You clearly know absolutely zero about marketing ideas. People want to be given hope. If you want to get to the desired outcome, show them how wonderful it will be and get them bought into it. Then show them how to get there.

It's marketing 101.

People are not stupid anymore and they know when they are being sold snake oil. We have worked hard to make people see the fallacy of the left/right paradigm, and people are waking up. There is a difference between effective marketing and trying to sell lemons to an increasingly informed public. Letting people know there is an alternative to the status quo is what giving hope should be, not trying to give them the same things that got us here in the first place.

[Matthew5]

:rolleyes:

You clearly know absolutely zero about marketing ideas. People want to be given hope. If you want to get to the desired outcome, show them how wonderful it will be and get them bought into it. Then show them how to get there.

It's marketing 101.

Thankfully, Ron Paul didn't take your approach. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would still be asleep if Ron Paul was concerned about marketing 101.

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree with almost all of you, from some point of view.

Each has their perspective, there is the ideal and the real (current situation). There is "where we are" and there is "where we want to be". There are various roads to get from here to there, and maybe even slight variations of thought on where "here" and "there" are.

But we cannot deny the reality of where "here" is (or it makes it difficult to know how to get "there"). Can we lead some to "there" without getting them to know/see where "here" is? Maybe, to some extent. Some will follow to "there" if it appears greener than "here". Some won't follow to "there" so long as "here" looks better. And that is a more difficult thing to determine.

I think the discourse is becoming more civil and thoughtful and I'm comforted by that. :)

[Matthew5]

:rolleyes:

You clearly know absolutely zero about marketing ideas. People want to be given hope. If you want to get to the desired outcome, show them how wonderful it will be and get them bought into it. Then show them how to get there.

It's marketing 101.

So, decide. Do you just want to GRIPE, MOAN AND BITCH, or do you want to change anything? If you do, burning the flag and doing other acts that lump you in with frickin' communists, will not accomplish your goal. The only people you will attract are communist types.

BTW, Ron gave me hope and he didn't shy away from the truth. He acquired my vote.

[LibertyEagle]

People are not stupid anymore and they know when they are being sold snake oil. We have worked hard to make people see the fallacy of the left/right paradigm, and people are waking up. There is a difference between effective marketing and trying to sell lemons to an increasingly informed public.

What I described wasn't selling any kind of oil, snake or otherwise.

If you do not know where you are going, then you surely will never get there. Just tearing down everything is what commies do.

[LibertyEagle]

BTW, Ron gave me hope and he didn't shy away from the truth. He acquired my vote.

Oh sheesh. No one is saying to shy away from jack shit. I am telling you that to get people to get on-board, you have to show them what you are trying to create and get them to buy into that. Then, they will willingly do whatever it requires to get there. Where in hell did I say that there wouldn't be a contrast between what we want and what we are doing now? I didn't. But, you are getting the cart before the horse.

By the way, didn't you say in another thread that you weren't old enough to vote, or was that someone else?

[Carlybee]

What I described wasn't selling any kind of oil, snake or otherwise.

If you do not know where you are going, then you surely will never get there. Just tearing down everything is what commies do.


You are calling me a commie? The 50s called and want their dialogue back. No one can tear down what has been torn down. As I said you can put lipstick on a pig but it just looks like a pig with lipstick. In a free society governments don't spy on their own citizens, set up rolling checkpoints, give involuntary procto exams at the airport, etc etc ad nauseum. Please tell me how those things make us exceptional? At some point supporting the status quo is intellectually dishonest.

[LibertyEagle]

Thankfully, Ron Paul didn't take your approach. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of Americans who would still be asleep if Ron Paul was concerned about marketing 101.

Just imagine how many more he could have gotten, because then, many many more people wouldn't have misunderstood what he was all about. Ron Paul would have done what Reagan only talked about and he was right here before them. Unfortunately, Ron's approach didn't allow them to see it.

[Brett85]

I must admit, I'm having a difficult time looking past your statist diatribes.

I guess to you, anyone who doesn't want to completely abolish the state is a "statist." I believe in limited government, as did our founders who I admire and respect.

[LibertyEagle]

You are calling me a commie? The 50s called and want their dialogue back. No one can tear down what has been torn down. As I said you can put lipstick on a pig but it just looks like a pig with lipstick. In a free society governments don't spy on their own citizens, set up rolling checkpoints, give involuntary procto exams at the airport, etc etc ad nauseum. Please tell me how those things make us exceptional? At some point supporting the status quo is intellectually dishonest.

No, I didn't call you a commie. I told you what commies did and what certain actions would be associated with.

Damn Carly, I must really suck at explaining this. I know just as well as you do what our government has been up to. But, I do not blame the country; I blame those occupying our government. I love my country and I thought we all were trying to get her back on the right track.

All I am talking about is how to win Republicans over. Paint a picture of somewhere they want to be. Get them to buy in. Show them the steps to get there.

I didn't for one second say that you didn't stand up against things as they occur. But, I believe we have to keep painting the picture. If it is something that people really want, they will back you on nearly everything in-between.

[KingNothing]

We used to be exceptional. Now we just kinda suck.

We were never exceptional, but the ideas that brought America into existence certainly were.

From the jump we had slavery and ethnic cleansing of natives and a series of wars that had no business being waged. But, our founding documents and things written by the men who put them together, and the ideals that caused millions of people from around the world to freely immigrate to America absolutely are exceptional.

[Natural Citizen]

LE, you lack the correct temperament for the trade when communicating with people. Aside from that, I sure wish I knew half as much as you seem to think you know.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, you lack the correct temperament for the trade when communicating with people. Aside from that, I sure wish I knew half as much as you seem to think you know.

Probably. I have been around here for a very long time and it has gotten rather frustrating to see people who are worse enemies to everything Ron Paul ever stood for than any damn globalist ever was.

[KingNothing]

Just imagine how many more he could have gotten, because then, many many more people wouldn't have misunderstood what he was all about. Ron Paul would have done what Reagan only talked about and he was right here before them. Unfortunately, Ron's approach didn't allow them to see it.

Ron wasn't a big enough megalomaniac to believe he could actually win the presidency, though. Now, with that said, I think Ron played it perfectly. He set the stage for the true believers and early adopters to take on the establishment in waves. I'm fine with that. As an aside, I think it's funny that most of the people who criticize people like Rand for not being as "honest" (read, abrasive) as Ron in order to win votes and support also believe(d) that America wouldn't even last until 2012, or 2016, or 2020. Seriously. How many conversations have you read on this message board involving people saying "Paul has to win, or America is toast! We won't even have another election!" and then suggest that we MUST embrace all sorts of bombastic rhetoric which only alienates potential voters?

I'm not sure if it is cognitive dissonance, or just stupidity.

[Matthew5]

By the way, didn't you say in another thread that you weren't old enough to vote, or was that someone else?

I believe you have me confused with someone else.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Cold War was popular. The neo-conservatives used it to their advantage. They want to use it again. Rand is beating them at their own game.

[Matthew5]

I guess to you, anyone who doesn't want to completely abolish the state is a "statist." I believe in limited government, as did our founders who I admire and respect.

Nope, anyone who ignores history and excuses a state's centuries-old standard operating procedure would have statist tendencies.

[ClydeCoulter]

Ron wasn't a big enough megalomaniac to believe he could actually win the presidency, though. Now, with that said, I think Ron played it perfectly. He set the stage for the true believers and early adopters to take on the establishment in waves. I'm fine with that. As an aside, I think it's funny that most of the people who criticize people like Rand for not being as "honest" (read, abrasive) as Ron in order to win votes and support also believe(d) that America wouldn't even last until 2012, or 2016, or 2020. Seriously. How many conversations have you read on this message board involving people saying "Paul has to win, or America is toast! We won't even have another election!" and then suggest that we MUST embrace all sorts of bombastic rhetoric which only alienates potential voters?

I'm not sure if it is cognitive dissonance, or just stupidity.

Maybe it's because there are more and more large pushes from the system.

Do you not remember how the election went? There's a sticky thread here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385414-Compilation-and-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-of-fraud-abuse-shenanigans-in-GOP-conventions , if you need reminding.

Then, the massive police presence in Boston, etc...

The signs are there, it's just happening in incremental fashion. Even Ron says, the dollar will fall, we just can't predict when.

I saw a post earlier from someone where they quoted a German saying "We thought the war was going really well until the bombs started dropping over our heads" (paraphrased).

Yes, there is cognitive dissonance, in various fashions.

[Brett85]

Nope, anyone who ignores history and excuses a state's centuries-old standard operating procedure would have statist tendencies.

So I guess Ron Paul is a statist since he supports returning to the Constitution and likes the way in which our country was founded? I swear, some of you have an ideology that's almost 180 degress opposite of what Ron has always stood for.

[ClydeCoulter]

So I guess Ron Paul is a statist since he supports returning to the Constitution and likes the way in which our country was founded? I swear, some of you have an ideology that's almost 180 degress opposite of what Ron has always stood for.

Yes, Ron says that following the Constitution would be a good start.

[Brett85]

Yes, Ron says that following the Constitution would be a good start.

I've never heard him go beyond that. He believes in limited government. He's not an anarchist.

[ClydeCoulter]

I've never heard him go beyond that. He believes in limited government. He's not an anarchist.

I wouldn't assume what his end-game would be, one way or another. I can only take him for what he says and does in public.

edit: But, I understand that if you miss your turn, you might go back and take that turn instead of going further out of the way.