Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: trying to help a person switch, things he disagrees wit rp on

  1. #1

    Default trying to help a person switch, things he disagrees wit rp on

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.


    Dumbest law ever.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Congressman Paul advocates a strict non-interventionist foreign policy that avoids entangling alliances.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In many public speeches Paul has called for the return to hard currency through re-introduction of the gold standard, the effect of which would result in the United States Government making large purchases of gold and issuing currency only to the extent of its ownership of gold. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. [13][14]


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    During a speech in New Hampshire in February of 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment,[21] the same that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One Section 3.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Since the Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general, he opposes federal participation in the drug war.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurers have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    He has been criticized at times for his voting record, being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal.


    Need some help explaining why RP is right



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3

    Default

    agreed.
    Vote for Miss Ron Paul Summer '08... Visit http://www.MissRonPaul.com/
    Stay Informed... Visit http://www.BlogRonPaul.com/

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.


    Dumbest law ever.
    In one of his first debates, Ron said the fence was the least pertinent reason he voted for it. It was the only tool available to him to force the government to take the problem seriously, and a shot across the Senate bow to tell them amnesty wasn't going to happen.

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=478


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Congressman Paul advocates a strict non-interventionist foreign policy that avoids entangling alliances.
    Do we really need to explain this?


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve.
    Again, do we need to explain this? The federal government has no authority to do ANY of this!


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In many public speeches Paul has called for the return to hard currency through re-introduction of the gold standard, the effect of which would result in the United States Government making large purchases of gold and issuing currency only to the extent of its ownership of gold. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. [13][14]
    He wants to legalize gold and silver as legal tender. That's different than pegging the current fiat system to gold a la the defunct Breton Woods agreement.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    During a speech in New Hampshire in February of 2007 Paul called for a repeal of the 17th amendment,[21] the same that allows for direct election of U.S. Senators. Instead Paul would have members of state legislatures vote for U.S. Senators as they had done under Article One Section 3.
    The 17th amendment killed states rights. The federal government was supposed to be an administration for the common benefit of the states. Do you think the federal government would have been allowed to have a tax rate EXCEEDING state tax rates had the 17th not been passed?


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice.
    McCain-Feingold should have been called the Incumbent Entrenchment Act. It shouldn't be surprising why this passed. It's also unconstitutional.

    It's campaign finance laws which make an independent run impossible without first being a billionaire.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Since the Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general, he opposes federal participation in the drug war.
    And?

    The Drug War has done more to eviscerate our rights than the War on Terrorism!


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurers have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.
    It's called the Magna Carta. Look it up.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    He has been criticized at times for his voting record, being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal.
    Not to mention Reagan!

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=870

    Ron has also spoken on this issue many times, like his interview with Wolf Blitzer.


    Need some help explaining why RP is right
    One has to wonder if you've listened to the man.
    RON PAUL
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    (copy and paste this text for your own R[ƎVO˩]UTION!)

  6. #5

    Default

    Tell him to watch this video....then tell Ron Paul will save him a lot of money with the Iraq war...tell him that if he cares about his bank account its common sense to vote for the biggest tax cutter

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh-T2iGkLJY
    Last edited by qh4dotcom; 03-09-2008 at 10:41 PM.

  7. #6

  8. #7

    Default

    Yeah, you definately need to research "WHY" he votes on everything. When I first heard about him, I thought I disagreed with him on nearly everything. Then I saw him in a few debates and started to read some of his writings and realized that he isn't necessarily AGAINST everything he votes against the federal government doing, he just realizes that according to the constitution it isn't the federal government's job, and that in most cases it gives them too much power or rips the tax payers off, etc etc.

    Once you understand him, there is no disagreeing.

  9. #8

    Default

    It's still a stupid law. That's like voting for a law to put ***s in a concentration camp to get out the message that you don't think *** marriage should be legalized. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you know what I mean. It's extreme and doesn't accomplish the purpose he intended.

    Quote:



    The US has a responsibility to intervene in some instances. Non-interventionist foreign policy is what allowed Hitler to rise to power and start WWII.

    Quote:


    Of course it has the authority, and if it doesn't, then it should. Keynesian economics, google it.

    Quote:


    I will admit that I have no idea what the Breton Woods agreement is. However, switching to a system of using precious metals as money, if that is really what he wants, it an even dumber idea than just using the gold standard.

    Quote:


    I could care less about "state's rights." States aren't individuals. The last thing we need is politicians electing other politicians. The more opportunity we have to allow the direct will of the people to be represented (at all levels of government), the better.

    Quote:


    Campaign finance laws fight corruption and make it harder (although, of course, still not impossible) for politicians to be "bought." And it is perfectly possible for independents to raise money if they aren't rich. It just can't come from rich individuals with an agenda or corporate lobbyists.

    Quote:


    If you are referring to your right to sell, purchase, and/or consume addictive, dangerous, mind-altering substances, you will get no sympathy from me.

    Quote:


    Yes, America should be governed by a document signed by the king of a different nation, nearly 800 years ago.



    ---------
    his response

  10. #9
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Tell him to enjoy his kool-aid, Ron Paul people are interested in TRUTH, not the canned lies of McCain and Fox. To wit - that the rise of Adolph Hitler was caused by a non-interventionist foreign policy is not merely a violation of Godwin;s Law, but an outright lie.

    The rise of Hitler was enabled by the INTERVENTIONIST policies of western nations against Germany following WW1. The people of Germany were desperate for someone who would stand up to the embargoes and restrictions that had been placed on their nation.

    But please, tell him not to allow the TRUTH to stand in the way of decent propaganda. Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and when America collapses into chaos and ruin, he can look into the nearest mirror and quite readily point fingers at who is to blame.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurers have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case.

    This is already the case... its called jury nullification. Juries are not bound to return verdicts in accordance with the law. Essentially they have the power to decide whether they wish to ignore what they may deem an unjust law. If I remember right their are RP videos where he discusses this.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Tell him to enjoy his kool-aid, Ron Paul people are interested in TRUTH, not the canned lies of McCain and Fox. To wit - that the rise of Adolph Hitler was caused by a non-interventionist foreign policy is not merely a violation of Godwin;s Law, but an outright lie.

    The rise of Hitler was enabled by the INTERVENTIONIST policies of western nations against Germany following WW1. The people of Germany were desperate for someone who would stand up to the embargoes and restrictions that had been placed on their nation.

    But please, tell him not to allow the TRUTH to stand in the way of decent propaganda. Just keep drinking the Kool-Aid and when America collapses into chaos and ruin, he can look into the nearest mirror and quite readily point fingers at who is to blame.
    Yeah definitely say that l;ast bit. Being a pompous dick is sure to win him over.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:


    Non-interventionist foreign policy is what allowed Hitler to rise to power and start WWII.
    No, the correct answer is "President George Bush's Grandfather", yes, "Prescott Bush" is the correct answer, and he was charged with trading with the enemy for, well, the financing of Hitler's regime and providing them with essential military equipment well after the war with the US began.

    Last edited by dannno; 03-13-2008 at 05:39 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  14. #13
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    It's still a stupid law. That's like voting for a law to put ***s in a concentration camp to get out the message that you don't think *** marriage should be legalized. Maybe that's a bad analogy, but you know what I mean. It's extreme and doesn't accomplish the purpose he intended.
    That's beyond a bad analogy, it's a non sequitur. The reason Ron Paul voted for that bill was because it also contained measures to end the availability of social programs for illegal aliens. Ron Paul has publicly stated on several occasions that he disagrees with the building of the wall, and that even it built it will accomplish nothing.

    Ron Paul's platform on ending illegal immigration is centered on ending the availability of welfare and publicly funded social programs for illegal immigrants, which provisions that bill also contained, and which provisions were the only reason he voted in favor of the bill.

    Quote:



    The US has a responsibility to intervene in some instances. Non-interventionist foreign policy is what allowed Hitler to rise to power and start WWII.
    Addressed above. The US has no responsibility to use force of arms to intervene in any situation in which 1) the US Congress does not declare war.

    And Just War doctrine denies the just cause of any war which is not the response of a direct attack or imminent attack upon the US and her direct interests.

    Interventionism involves a lot more than simply force of arms and warfare. Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Adolph Hitler, and if not for historical revisionism, then more people would know that. Likewise American interventionism in the 50's (specifically the overthrowing of the Iranian gov't and the installation of the Shah) CAUSED the Middle East's hostility towards the US, and likewise interventionism in CREATING Al Qaida in an effort to combat the USSR in Afghanistan CREATED Al Qaida in the first place.

    The concept that non-interventionism created Hitler is just propagandistic nonsense from the same man who thought that Putin was the president of Germany.

    Quote:


    Of course it has the authority, and if it doesn't, then it should. Keynesian economics, google it.
    Keynesian economics has been universally debunked, and is the cause of the onset of our current depression and fiscal collapse of the US Dollar. Even Allan Greenspan is not a Keynesian -- he bounces back and forth between Monatarism and the Austrian School.

    The only people left who uphold Keynesian economics are the big government interests who stand to profit from the fiscal irresponsibility of the "broken window" theory of economic development.

    Quote:


    I will admit that I have no idea what the Breton Woods agreement is. However, switching to a system of using precious metals as money, if that is really what he wants, it an even dumber idea than just using the gold standard.
    Not switching, legalizing. Ron Paul's plan is to revoke the tax on hard commodities such ad gold and silver, and legalize their use as a COMPETING currency, then allowing the free market to choose for themselves which currency is stronger.

    As it is, the Federal Reserve is headed headlong towards bankruptcy, and the legalization of competing currency will allow Americans to get out of the collapsing dollar before it takes them down with it.

    The long range plan then, is to allow Americans to remove themselves from a failing system (which we are currently obligated to remain in by law) and then allowing the "best currency system to win."

    This will allow the Federal Reserve system to go bankrupt SLOWLY (as opposed to quickly, like it is doing now) by removing pressure, and allowing Americans enough time to extract themselves from it before it collapses completely.

    As it stands, we have no other option, and are required by LAW to remain within an unconstitutional monetary system that is failing quickly, and we have nowhere to go to escape the coming financial ruin of depression and hyperinflation.

    Quote:


    I could care less about "state's rights." States aren't individuals. The last thing we need is politicians electing other politicians. The more opportunity we have to allow the direct will of the people to be represented (at all levels of government), the better.
    States are not individuals, the are supposed to be sovereign nations unified by a common defense. Have you even read the Constitution?

    "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    If something that the Federal Government does, does not fall into one of those seven categories, then it is in violation of the purpose and intent of the founding document of this nation.

    And besides, if You are truly opposed to State's Rights, then you should be leading a movement to revoke the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    Quote:


    Campaign finance laws fight corruption and make it harder (although, of course, still not impossible) for politicians to be "bought." And it is perfectly possible for independents to raise money if they aren't rich. It just can't come from rich individuals with an agenda or corporate lobbyists.
    McCain Feingold did nothing of the sort. McCain Feingold's main purpose was to prevent coordination between an official campaign and any grassroots effort. In the last 15-20 years, we have been subject to a whole hose of misnamed bills. These include the "Patriot Act" which is anything BUT patriotic, and the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which if anything INCREASED the access of corruption to our current political system.

    John McCain is a skilled propagandist, and was able to sell the concept of creating a bill that PROTECTED lobbyists and special interests, RESTRICTED the ability of grassroots efforts to work with an official campaign, and directly VIOLATED the first amendment by restricting speech on the part of 'free' individuals, by tagging it with the NAME of "campaign Finance Reform."

    Do you likewise believe that if America produced a bill stating that "all non-evangelical Christians should be gassed to death" that it should be supported so long as we NAME it the "Religious Freedom Protection Act"?

    Quote:


    If you are referring to your right to sell, purchase, and/or consume addictive, dangerous, mind-altering substances, you will get no sympathy from me.
    This has nothing to do with someones right to buy and sell anything, it has everything to do with the Constitutional limits on Government power. If you think the Federal Government should be involved in dictating what people are and are not allowed to consume, then you should be required to do it legally, via an amendment to the US Constitution. At least during the Prohibition of Alcohol, our politicians respected the Constitution enough to do it with a Constitutional Amendment. The way it is being done today is ILLEGAL. And where exactly does it end? If our government can ban cannabis because it is harmful and addictive, then what about McDonalds? Chocolate? Ice Cream?

    The reality is, that the Federal government has no business regulating what people are or are not of their own free will allowed to consume.

    The effect of the war on drugs, on the ground, is truly frightening.

    Our prisons are bursting at the seams filled with non-violent offenders. Crack dealers on the streets are making outrageous profits and selling poison. We have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to stop the flow of drugs, which are MORE available today than when the war on drugs started.

    Just like in the 1930's, the prohibition of alcohol CREATED bootlegging, revenuers, and the mob, violent criminals like Al Capone and violent crimes like the St Valentines Day Massacre, today prohibition of drugs has CREATED a vast criminal infrastructure and gangs, like the Bloods, the Crips, and MS-13.

    The War on Drugs has been an utter failure on all points. Hundreds of Billions have been spent, and the drugs they sought to prevent are more available than ever. Violent crime is rising in every corner of the nation around the illegal drug trade, and people are dying in the streets each and every day, usually including innocent bystanders.

    Quote:


    Yes, America should be governed by a document signed by the king of a different nation, nearly 800 years ago.



    ---------
    his response
    America SHOULD be governed by a document called the US Constitution, which the vast majority of Washington DC has forgotten about. I, on the other hand, took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will take that oath seriously until the day I die. I am also willing to give my last breath and last drop of blood to uphold that oath I took as a US Marine, and that is why Ron Paul is the ONLY Presidential candidate I can in good conscience support.

    We MUST restore a respect for the US Constitution in America and in Washington DC. Without that, America will fail, and is well on her way to failing already.
    Last edited by GunnyFreedom; 03-13-2008 at 06:40 PM.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  15. #14
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
    Yeah definitely say that l;ast bit. Being a pompous dick is sure to win him over.
    Truth is truth. When I was out canvassing, I ran into people who said that the Patriot Act was Big Brother, but we needed it, and we needed it to be even stronger than it was (McCain supporters). I also ran into people who claimed that if Jesus Christ was here today, He would be in Iraq carrying a rifle (Huckabee supporters).

    At some point, you just have to recognize that someone is an idiot, turn heel and walk away.

    Sorry, but truth is truth and facts are facts.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Truth is truth. When I was out canvassing, I ran into people who said that the Patriot Act was Big Brother, but we needed it, and we needed it to be even stronger than it was (McCain supporters). I also ran into people who claimed that if Jesus Christ was here today, He would be in Iraq carrying a rifle (Huckabee supporters).

    At some point, you just have to recognize that someone is an idiot, turn heel and walk away.

    Sorry, but truth is truth and facts are facts.
    Truth is truth and facts are facts, but if the manner in which they are delivered serves no other purpose than to antagonize, than we're not talking about facts anymore.

  17. #16
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
    Truth is truth and facts are facts, but if the manner in which they are delivered serves no other purpose than to antagonize, than we're not talking about facts anymore.
    We have a fine American tradition of ridiculing idiots whose ideas would destroy us. If America had HALF the backbone she had in the 18th century, then people like Sean Hannity would not have merely had a snowball tossed at him, he would have been tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a rail.

    I daresay that one of the reasons the Ron Paul movement failed to gain traction amongst the electorate is because we were too timid.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    We have a fine American tradition of ridiculing idiots whose ideas would destroy us. If America had HALF the backbone she had in the 18th century, then people like Sean Hannity would not have merely had a snowball tossed at him, he would have been tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a rail.

    I daresay that one of the reasons the Ron Paul movement failed to gain traction amongst the electorate is because we were too timid.
    There's a big difference between being adamant and being an asshole. When people are attacked they don't listen, they attack back.

  19. #18
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Well, I'd bet if you were the guy being tarred, feathered, and rode out of town on a rail, you would say that the people who did it were assholes.

    On the one hand, we had way too many antisemites and white supremacists and conspiracy nuts, and on the other hand the people who weren't any of those were too afraid to stand up and make themselves heard.

    I'm through pretending. I will treat an idiot like an idiot. You can like it or hate it, but I for one learn from the mistakes of the past.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  20. #19

    Default

    I believe it was in the "Jesus Camp" thread where we were advised to stop treating the brainwashed as retards

    I love my mom, but... holy *k, she insists that Iran poses a significant threat to America if they were to pursue nuclear energy?

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote:


    I will admit that I have no idea what the Breton Woods agreement is. However, switching to a system of using precious metals as money, if that is really what he wants, it an even dumber idea than just using the gold standard.
    Typical Roger Hedgecock-type response. They tell you the Gold Standard or trading with Hard Currency is a dumb idea, but never explain reasons why.

    They tell you it's dumb hoping you would just go away.

    Gold and Silver put spending limits on the government. Hard assets are products of the marketplace, not empty promises whose fulfillment gets passed on to future generations. They are the keys to lasting prosperity and confidence. How is that so dumb?
    If you want less oppressive government, quit trying to expand it.

  22. #21
    Member Carole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Huntington, W. Va.
    Posts
    5,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico

    Dumbest law ever..

    He voted yes, but he has said repeatedly that the fence was his least favored part of the bill. At the time it was all that was really offered I think. He favors removing incentives to illegally immigrate, such as immediate health care, education benefits, and Social Security immediately upon immigrating. This would cause many illegals to return to Mexico. He understands it is ruining the economy and closing hospitals, increasing crime, and other problems. Denial of rewards for illegally entering America would be the strongest deterrent.
    Carole

    "Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. -Cong. Louis McFadden

  23. #22
    Member Carole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Huntington, W. Va.
    Posts
    5,036

    Default

    "The US has a responsibility to intervene in some instances. Non-interventionist foreign policy is what allowed Hitler to rise to power and start WWII."

    Actually it was not non-intervention that caused this. It was Manipulation by the same groups of elites that have spent the last 95 years manipulating our government. That group included Prescott Bush (of the New York bankers), a great grandfather of our current President.

    So really, you would have to say it was Private intervention by some Americans, some English, and others who allowed Hitler to become so strong. They helped to create the problem in order to profit from the ensuing wars. Just as they created Pearl Harbor through Roosevelt who purposely antagonized Japan by denying them oil in order to get them to attack Pearl Harbor and draw us into that WWII.

    History is replete with the behind the scenes staging of events in every possible way to manipulate Americans into being good patriots who would demand justice by going to war. Our entire history it seems is a lie.
    Last edited by Carole; 03-13-2008 at 09:40 PM.
    Carole

    "Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. -Cong. Louis McFadden

  24. #23
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    bah-dump bump (crash!)
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  25. #24

    Default

    thanks gunny, will post his reply

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote:

    Please explain how Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Hitler.

    Intervention, when used in a collective security alliance, can be important to stopping conflict and protecting every states sovereignty. The most clear cut example of collective security intervention is the united nations decision to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait as it is in direct violation of U.N. International Law.

    This brings up some questions
    Couldn't this Idea have been applied to have been applied to Hitler when invading Austria and then Poland? Yes, if there were an active collect security alliance or more powerful state to stop him.
    But I thought there was a League of Nations to try and stop another world war after the chaos of WW1? True, but it was incomplete and too weak to take any real action.
    Why did the League of Nations fail to stop Hitler?
    There are many reasons but three main ones
    1. Russia was excluded from the league due to European bias against communists states.
    2. U.S. isolationism. Not having such an important superpower as the U.S. greatly diminishes the leagues legitimacy and force.
    3. Appeasement policies.

    So on two counts non intervention can be attributed to the cause of WWII. First, the United States refusal to join a international institution that could've contained WW2. Secondly, the League's inability to intervene when necessary, instead it choose appeasement.

    Now, does this mean we should engage in world policing and intervention where ever we want? No. You state two perfect examples with the Shah and training of Al Qaeda where intervention is unnecessary and harmful to the global community. Another huge one is the Iraq war.

    My main conclusion is that intervention can be helpful to all states when used in a collective security situation. Individual interventions like the Iraq war is not.

    Ron Paul has taken staunch stances against the our involvement in the U.N. because of non interventionist beliefs and that he feels the U.N. threatens U.S. sovereignty. For this reason I cannot support him. I believe the U.N. is a positive influence for peace in the world and that giving up on it will only lead to the anarchical system of international relations that the world has seen for thousands of years.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:

    Please explain how Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Hitler.

    Intervention, when used in a collective security alliance, can be important to stopping conflict and protecting every states sovereignty. The most clear cut example of collective security intervention is the united nations decision to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait as it is in direct violation of U.N. International Law.

    This brings up some questions
    Couldn't this Idea have been applied to have been applied to Hitler when invading Austria and then Poland? Yes, if there were an active collect security alliance or more powerful state to stop him.
    But I thought there was a League of Nations to try and stop another world war after the chaos of WW1? True, but it was incomplete and too weak to take any real action.
    Why did the League of Nations fail to stop Hitler?
    There are many reasons but three main ones
    1. Russia was excluded from the league due to European bias against communists states.
    2. U.S. isolationism. Not having such an important superpower as the U.S. greatly diminishes the leagues legitimacy and force.
    3. Appeasement policies.

    So on two counts non intervention can be attributed to the cause of WWII. First, the United States refusal to join a international institution that could've contained WW2. Secondly, the League's inability to intervene when necessary, instead it choose appeasement.

    Now, does this mean we should engage in world policing and intervention where ever we want? No. You state two perfect examples with the Shah and training of Al Qaeda where intervention is unnecessary and harmful to the global community. Another huge one is the Iraq war.

    My main conclusion is that intervention can be helpful to all states when used in a collective security situation. Individual interventions like the Iraq war is not.

    Ron Paul has taken staunch stances against the our involvement in the U.N. because of non interventionist beliefs and that he feels the U.N. threatens U.S. sovereignty. For this reason I cannot support him. I believe the U.N. is a positive influence for peace in the world and that giving up on it will only lead to the anarchical system of international relations that the world has seen for thousands of years.
    The problem with his argument that non interventionism caused hitler is that we weren't non interventionists. We were very involved in Germany's politics, Hitler and the Nazi party wouldn't have gotten anywhere without our funding. They also wouldn't have had troop transport jeeps without help from Ford, or fuel for their planes without standard oil, but thats not relevant to your discussion.

    Both Churchill and our president were big fans of fascism before Germany started invading.

    Also, Iraq is not nazi germany, not even close. To quote Eisenhower: "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously who talked about such a thing."

    The league of nations, followed by the U.N., is just an example of us being taken to globalism in baby steps. The league of nations failed, the U.N. has failed, so why keep propping it up as a solution?

    Its similar to how regulation works here. Countries(big businesses) in favor with the U.N., usually by buying politicians(what a radical idea) get to break the rules whenever they want. However developing countries(small business competition) and anyone not in favor with the U.N. have the rules strictly enforced.

    Iraq is an example of this. We justified the invasion because Iraq had broken U.N. resolutions, even though we've done the same and so have all of our allies. Again, the U.N. is just another example of people looking to the creation of a gigantic beuracracy to solve their problems, and achieving the opposite of the desired effect.

    In this war we are the agressor. We've committed a hitler style pre-emptive invasion. We're completely destroying a sovereign nation. Why isn't the U.N. stopping us?

    Where was the U.N. when we were bombing Iraq for 10 years?

    Interventionist policies caused world war 2, viet nam, the korean war, and this war. There would be no al qeida and no islamic extremism without our creating them.

    His argument for interventionism is weak. He ignores its history of failure with excuses, and then blames that failure on non interventionism.

  28. #27

    Default

    Intervention by UN sanction not only is completely ineffective, it also undermines the sovereignty of the United States. If the legitimate interests of the US are threatened then we should declare war. Otherwise we are diffusing our responsibility and, ultimately, our effectiveness.

    The UN is a bad idea that just keeps getting worse with age.
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.C. S. Lewis

  29. #28
    une plume de Libertée GunnyFreedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Youngsville, NC
    Posts
    23,701
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:

    Please explain how Interventionism CAUSED the rise of Hitler.
    I am sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that the central platform of the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (which eventually became the Nazi Party) was opposition to the treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and left them open to foreign oversight and control.

    It was opposition to the treaties of Versailles and St. Germain that led to the initial populist surge which allowed Hitler to seize power in the reichstag.

    An article on Wiki discusses it:

    The stab-in-the-back legend (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally "Dagger stab legend") refers to a social myth and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort."

    The legend echoed the epic poem Nibelungenlied in which the dragon-slaying hero Siegfried is stabbed in the back by Hagen von Tronje. Der Dolchstoß is cited as an important factor in Adolf Hitler's later rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base largely from embittered WWI veterans, and those who were sympathetic to the Dolchstoß interpretation of Germany's then-recent history.

    Stab-in-the-back legend

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende
    Not only did the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) blame the failures of Germany in the past on foreign influence from within their borders, but also from foreign influence from without their borders.

    It was precisely DUE to the overwhelming restrictions placed on Germany at Versailles and St. Germain (which the German people viewed as a peace treaty, not a surrender) which created the populist resentment of foreign influence that allowed Hitler's meteoric rise to popular power, eventually seizing the Chancellorship.


    A summary of the treaty of Versailles can also be found on Wiki:

    The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 had a humiliating effect on the German people. Germany had once been a powerful nation; the second biggest industrial power in the world, after the USA. After its defeat in World War I, Germany was forced to accept the crippling terms enforced upon them by the Allies. This involved Germany losing their overseas colonies in Africa and Asia, as well as parts of German territory. Germany was also forced to accept guilt for starting the war.

    Germany also had further military restrictions – the air force was disbanded, the army was limited to 100,000 men and the navy was limited to 15,000 sailors, six battleships and no submarines. Germany was forbidden to put troops in the Rhineland and France was entrusted to patrol it with troops to enforce these restrictions.

    Germany also had to pay reparations for damages ensued by the war. This meant having to pay £6600 million (about $3 billion) in compensation. However, the land that Germany lost included 10% of its industry and 15% of its agricultural land. Therefore, this made the reparations extremely difficult for Germany to pay. In 1923, in order to collect their own compensation, the French occupied the Ruhr region in Germany – the biggest industrial area in the country. This made it even more difficult for Germany to pay other Allies the reparations.

    Kaiser Wilhelm fled from Germany and a new form of government was set up in his place – the Weimar Republic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
    And we can see, in the "25 points" published by Hitler himself and reiterated in Mein Kampf, that foreign influence was a primary factor in his disgruntlement:

    1 We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of people.

    2 We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

    4 Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

    19 We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

    22 We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

    23 We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

    (a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
    (b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
    (c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.
    The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.
    I'm still confused though, at how it is not blatantly obvious how such a strong knee-jerk nationalist movement is the natural result of international interventionism.

    The very antagonism of the German people against the socialists, communists, and Jews (which fueled Hitler's rise) was evident as early as 1919, which led to the labeling of these outcasts as "November Criminals" which theme later brought a great deal of popular support to the Nazi Party enabling the rise and seizure of power on the part of Adolph Hitler.


    OK this is just a beginning. there are in fact volumes and volumes of this to be categorized, but I'll start with the above.



    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    Quote:
    Intervention, when used in a collective security alliance, can be important to stopping conflict and protecting every states sovereignty. The most clear cut example of collective security intervention is the united nations decision to stop Iraq from invading Kuwait as it is in direct violation of U.N. International Law.
    As you proceed to mention further below, a good example of a policy does not negate it's bad examples. But this debate was not about the pros and cons of interventionism versus non-interventionism, this was surrounding the question of whether it was American non-interventionism which helped to create Hitler. That was a propagandistic lie promulgated by John McCain which has no basis in truth or reality. The reality, in fact, is precisely the opposite. It was international interventionism which created the popular resentment against "all the world" which led to the popular uprising of the Nazi Party, the ascension to power of Adolph Hitler, and the tacit approval of the German people for Hitler to launch World War 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    This brings up some questions
    Couldn't this Idea have been applied to have been applied to Hitler when invading Austria and then Poland? Yes, if there were an active collect security alliance or more powerful state to stop him.
    But I thought there was a League of Nations to try and stop another world war after the chaos of WW1? True, but it was incomplete and too weak to take any real action.
    Why did the League of Nations fail to stop Hitler?
    There are many reasons but three main ones
    1. Russia was excluded from the league due to European bias against communists states.
    2. U.S. isolationism. Not having such an important superpower as the U.S. greatly diminishes the leagues legitimacy and force.
    3. Appeasement policies.
    Well, first and foremost, the US was not really a 'superpower' in the 1930's. What we were, was resource-rich. We had undergone massive military drawdowns and divestment of 'peace dividends' until we were mostly a Naval power of minor note in the world.

    By the time Hitler invaded Poland, he was already 'created,' he was in power, and had the full backing of the German people. Why was this so? Because the German people were angry and fighting back against the restrictions that the international community had placed upon them, and enforced by force of arms.

    And another thing you don't seem to get, is that whether the structure had been the League of Nations, the UN, or a true one world government, the rise of Hitler was determined not by whatever international club was on the scene at the time, but by the German peoples reaction to the end of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles.

    Understand also that among the primary reasons for the US failing to ratify either the Treaty of Versailles itself or membership in the League of Nations, was due to the efforts of statesmen such as Henry Cabot Lodge who believed that the Versailles treaty was far too draconian, that it would lead to another world war with Germany, and should be significantly revised. That revision never took place, America never became a party to Versailles, and America never joined the League of Nations.

    That was as a direct result of influential men in American government believing that Versailles would spurn Germany to launch another World War due to the overwhelming harshness of Versailles.

    Turns out, in hindsight, they were right.

    Quote Originally Posted by babyjohn View Post
    So on two counts non intervention can be attributed to the cause of WWII. First, the United States refusal to join a international institution that could've contained WW2. Secondly, the League's inability to intervene when necessary, instead it choose appeasement.

    Now, does this mean we should engage in world policing and intervention where ever we want? No. You state two perfect examples with the Shah and training of Al Qaeda where intervention is unnecessary and harmful to the global community. Another huge one is the Iraq war.

    My main conclusion is that intervention can be helpful to all states when used in a collective security situation. Individual interventions like the Iraq war is not.

    Ron Paul has taken staunch stances against the our involvement in the U.N. because of non interventionist beliefs and that he feels the U.N. threatens U.S. sovereignty. For this reason I cannot support him. I believe the U.N. is a positive influence for peace in the world and that giving up on it will only lead to the anarchical system of international relations that the world has seen for thousands of years.
    Problem with your theory, is that it was a COLLECTIVE security situation which created the interventionist fervor of Versailles and the League of Nations. The very Versailles and League which led to the rise of Hitler.

    You decry the fact that the US did not join the League of Nations, because you think if we had we could have stopped Hitler. However, the very reason we did not join was because enough influential people held power in our government who believed wholeheartedly that this radical interventionism in Germany would create nationalist angst and lead to a second world war. Again, they were RIGHT. Versailles and the League kept sticking their thumbs in Germany's ear, and it pissed off the Germans so bad that they found Adolph Hitler, KNOWING HIS TRUE PLATFORM, and foisted him upon the world as an answer.

    Now you have a choice, history clearly records the factors leading to the creation and ascension of Adolph Hitler. You can either trust the overwhelming record of history, or the fantasies of one John McCain.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote:

    The Treaty of Versailles cannot be considered an interventionist policy for these reasons.

    Woodrow Wilson proposed that a U.N.-like body be created after WWI to stop the outbreak of another world war. The League of Nations was not his vision of collective security.
    The Treaty of Versailles imposed extremely overzealous penalties on Germany after WWI. They were convicted as the aggressors in the war. Their territory's were divided into a number of small Germanic states so that no one of them could ever come to power again. France took much of the Rhineland that was originally Germany's. And Germany had to enormous war penalties and fines to Britain and France which lead to German hyperinflation.

    Wilson fought against these provisions in the Treaty of Versailles aggressively, but could not dissuade the countries who had taken the brunt of the war (Britain and France) to be more lenient. Wilson knew that creating a state of insecurity and economic turmoil in Germany was not a solution for peace because when states feel insecure, they become aggressive. In a true collective security situation this would not have occurred. So to blame the rise of Hitler on Collective security is false, because the League of Nations was not a true collective security body for reasons already mentioned. Hitler may have used the League to fuel his fires, but its existence was not the cause of Germany's pain.

    To blame the rise of Hitler, and consequentially WWII, on interventionism is also incorrect. The Treaty of Versailles was only a result of ending WWI. It was not a preemptive attempt to stop another world war. It was mainly a punishment on the Germanic States by other European states which America did not support.
    The economic and social turmoil that Germany was left in after these punishment lead to the rise of the Nazi Party the second Reich and the second World War. However, if France and Britain had listened to the U.S. in being easier on the Germans, this unrest might have not occurred. These punishments cannot be construed as interventionism, which is key to your assessment on how the war started.

    I do decry the fact that the U.S. did not join the League of Nations but also that the Treaty of Versailles was not more in the vision of Wilson and the Leagues Ideals.






« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •