Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

  1. #1

    Default Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

    I just don't understand people that like Ron Paul's fiscal policies but don't like his Foreign Policy. Why do people not like Ron Paul's foreign policy? Personally, I think Ron has the smartest foreign policy but most of the opposition is misinformed on his views. Why do these people want to fight wars so badly?
    Last edited by rockerrockstar; 03-18-2012 at 09:44 PM.



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

    Default

    Because they are bloodthirsty animals and expect to suffer no personal consequences from the carnage of wars they expect others to fight and die in?
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  4. #3

    Default

    They want to world to be more secure by leaving other countries in a smoking ruin.

  5. #4

    Default

    Because americans recognize that we have voluntarily given up everything we used to be proud of in exchange for being able to destroy anybody else. Killing and destroying other countries is simply all we have left.

  6. #5

    Default

    I watch comments on other pages like on FB and pretty much everyone thinks that RP will want to sit around the fire and sing camp songs with Iran, Pakistan, etc. For example, on our Sun News network (canada), one op-ed show host is Brian Lilley. He was posting about Iran on his FB page. My bf talked about Ron Paul in response and Lilley himself (along with a hoard of his fans) went berserk (well Lilley wasn't berserk, he was respectfully disagreeing with 'RP's foreign policy'). My bf tried to educate them a little by trying to get away from their catch words of 'isolationist' but no one would listen. But he kept at it and just ignored them, getting as much info in there as he could.

    Several weeks went by and then we happened to be watching when Lilley was doing a story and interview about the grave desecrations in Libya. He actually said (something like) 'You know, I'm starting to think Ron Paul knows what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to matter that we were all just over there helping free these people from Ghadaffi, and now look what's going on'. My bf just about hit the ceiling because he was literally the ONLY person in those gigantic threads that was trying to get people to see past the media blocks of 'let's be friends with everyone' and 'isolationist=wimpy baby', and felt that maybe Lilley was starting to think rationally about RP and look into it more himself. It's a nice hope at least lol.

    As for everyone else I've talked to, people up here and in the US, they don't seem to know how to EXPLAIN why they do not like RP's foreign policy. If you ask, they will say 'it's dangerous' but give no reason why. Or they double talk their way around 'it's dangerous -why? - because the US cannot be isolationist - why?- because it's dangerous - why? - because RP is a kook - why? - because his foreign policy is outrageous - what is his FP? - to be isolationist'... and around and around we go. It drives me insane.

    As for me, I catch flack for trying to suggest that I really dont think Iran is stupid enough to nuke anyone, even Israel, without severe provocation. I have thrown out the thoughts that Iran must surely know they would be the crater in the ground the next day, they would be the ones 'wiped from the map' themselves. How could they possibly think that sending a nuclear device to Israel or anywhere else would not have massive response from every other country able to send in troops (or send in their own myriad bombs)? That's all I ask people when they start talking about fearing Iran. They respond 99% of the time that Mahmoued is 'insane' and 'suicidal' and I respond that for a bunch of homicidal-suicidal crazies, they have managed to live into middle age and beyond. The leaders never want to be the ones in firing range these days - but they sure as heck would be prime targets if they set off a nuke. How could they defend themselves from a massive strike from all the european and north american armies? Ya some say that china and russia would respond on their behalf - but WOULD they? That sounds like way too many if's and possibilities and in the end, Iran would be a hole in the ground so it wouldn't help them at all if China and Russia came in after the fact. Maybe I am naive and will eat my hat in a few years, but right now I can't see that happening. I am continuously bashed for even bringing those thoughts up.
    Last edited by kezt777; 03-18-2012 at 10:54 PM.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kezt777 View Post
    I watch comments on other pages like on FB and pretty much everyone thinks that RP will want to sit around the fire and sing camp songs with Iran, Pakistan, etc. For example, on our Sun News network (canada), one op-ed show host is Brian Lilley. He was posting about Iran on his FB page. My bf talked about Ron Paul in response and Lilley himself (along with a hoard of his fans) went berserk (well Lilley wasn't berserk, he was respectfully disagreeing with 'RP's foreign policy'). My bf tried to educate them a little by trying to get away from their catch words of 'isolationist' but no one would listen. But he kept at it and just ignored them, getting as much info in there as he could.

    Several weeks went by and then we happened to be watching when Lilley was doing a story and interview about the grave desecrations in Libya. He actually said (something like) 'You know, I'm starting to think Ron Paul knows what he is talking about. It doesn't seem to matter that we were all just over there helping free these people from Ghadaffi, and now look what's going on'. My bf just about hit the ceiling because he was literally the ONLY person in those gigantic threads that was trying to get people to see past the media blocks of 'let's be friends with everyone' and 'isolationist=wimpy baby', and felt that maybe Lilley was starting to think rationally about RP and look into it more himself. It's a nice hope at least lol.

    As for everyone else I've talked to, people up here and in the US, they don't seem to know how to EXPLAIN why they do not like RP's foreign policy. If you ask, they will say 'it's dangerous' but give no reason why. Or they double talk their way around 'it's dangerous -why? - because the US cannot be isolationist - why?- because it's dangerous - why? - because RP is a kook - why? - because his foreign policy is outrageous - what is his FP? - to be isolationist'... and around and around we go. It drives me insane.

    As for me, I catch flack for trying to suggest that I really dont think Iran is stupid enough to nuke anyone, even Israel, without severe provocation. I have thrown out the thoughts that Iran must surely know they would be the crater in the ground the next day, they would be the ones 'wiped from the map' themselves. How could they possibly think that sending a nuclear device to Israel or anywhere else would not have massive response from every other country able to send in troops (or send in their own myriad bombs)? That's all I ask people when they start talking about fearing Iran. They respond 99% of the time that Mahmoued is 'insane' and 'suicidal' and I respond that for a bunch of homicidal-suicidal crazies, they have managed to live into middle age and beyond. The leaders never want to be the ones in firing range these days - but they sure as heck would be prime targets if they set off a nuke. How could they defend themselves from a massive strike from all the european and north american armies? Ya some say that china and russia would respond on their behalf - but WOULD they? That sounds like way too many if's and possibilities and in the end, Iran would be a hole in the ground so it wouldn't help them at all if China and Russia came in after the fact. Maybe I am naive and will eat my hat in a few years, but right now I can't see that happening. I am continuously bashed for even bringing those thoughts up.
    Here's what I like to say to those who throw out the "Iranians are crazy religious, they'll suicide for their god" bit:

    "Yeah, when mad men speak, we should listen. They'll suicide for their religion by dropping a nuke on one of the holiest sites in their religion. I can see the logic in that."
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  8. #7
    Lone Coyote ClydeCoulter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Here, for a little while longer
    Posts
    10,114
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I get the same responses from people. Round and Round. They're just repeating the same things the media keep telling them about Ron Paul's foreign policy. Like you say, "it's dangerous", "He's isolationist", etc.... recordings from their ears to their head and out the mouth, no processing of commen sense in between.

  9. #8

    Default

    I will store that response in my memory thx

    I must point out though, having lived abroad in Europe (England and Germany), I feel sorry for the US. It's always a 'lose-lose' situation. If the US gets involved with something, people there would always say that the US needs to mind it's own business and back the hell off. But if they did not get involved in something right away, I would hear 'The US is staying out of this, when they have the best equipment and training. why are they staying silent?'. You can't win. I saw that over and over. In England and France, I heard a lot of talk about how 'the Americans did not get involved in WW2 until they were forced' and there still seemed to be a lot of bitterness about that. I would say 'well, it's not like they came in at the end!' and I would hear 'they might as well have' in reply. It is something that has always baffled me. A total 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' moment.

  10. #9

    Default

    Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

    Propaganda is very strong and effective.
    • Negativity is ignorance, and ignorance is your own personal tyranny. It tells you how to act, how to talk, how to think, and what to feel. You will never see a world without tyrants until you release your own. ~Honored to be Among You

    How does Ron stay so calm?

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  11. #10

    Default

    In absolute truth:

    People don't actually understand the situations discussed at hand. Because Ron Paul is extreme" ideologically, people get the impressions he's "radical", and so the average American wants someone with a "balanced" set of views, just for the sake of "balance", because most people acquaint that with stability. Hence, most people are under the impression congress doesn't "work" because they argue and "don't get anything done."

    So it really has nothing to do with what the people know. They just have this principle that everything must have "balance".

    I guess that's a better way to put it?

    People want our troops home, but at the same time, they don't, because they equate it with unbalance, because it's simply such a new idea to the American people.
    Last edited by Lishy; 03-18-2012 at 11:56 PM.

  12. #11

    Default

    You're never going to get a satisfactory answer to this.

    There are 309 million Americans not everyone is going to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

    For the record among the people I hang out with most would agree with his foreign policy stance. It's the domestic stuff they have more of an issue with.
    Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."

  13. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    1,955

    Default

    Two main reasons.. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

  14. #13
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rockerrockstar View Post
    Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?
    Why? Because the kids think empires are cool. It's like being a rockstar! You know: live hard, die young, leave a good-looking corpse, and all that.

  15. #14

    Default

    People assume things without knowing shit what they're talking about, so they assume Paul is a radical.

  16. #15

    Default

    The truth is people do like his foreign policy, it's the GOP voters who don't...
    It's just an opinion... man...

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Because they are bloodthirsty animals and expect to suffer no personal consequences from the carnage of wars they expect others to fight and die in?
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  18. #17

    Default Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

    Corporatocracy

    War pays corporations big bucks. "War Is A Racket" Global Hawk drone = $108,000,000.00.

    War is paid for with inflation tactics that hide the true costs of war (counterfeiting). The propaganda arm continually promotes violence 24/7 on TV, radio, and through schooling as if it is normal, but they rarely show the true costs of actual war the death, destruction, and the bills.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rockerrockstar View Post
    I just don't understand people that like Ron Paul's fiscal policies but don't like his Foreign Policy. Why do people not like Ron Paul's foreign policy? Personally, I think Ron has the smartest foreign policy but most of the opposition is misinformed on his views. Why do these people want to fight wars so badly?
    Don't forget, they were very much opposed to his fiscal policy for many years. It has taken years for people like you to reteach what the news media, and our educational system has taught. We face the same obstetrical with Ron's Foreign policy which is Constitutional (not dangerous or isolationist as the news media leads people to beliee).

    The truth is that many in my generation are largely responsible for the condition we are in...not the young people. If they don't figure these things out soon, it will be too late, if it isn't already.

  20. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Mid-Atlantic-USA
    Posts
    1,781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lishy View Post
    In absolute truth:

    People don't actually understand the situations discussed at hand. Because Ron Paul is extreme" ideologically, people get the impressions he's "radical", and so the average American wants someone with a "balanced" set of views, just for the sake of "balance", because most people acquaint that with stability. Hence, most people are under the impression congress doesn't "work" because they argue and "don't get anything done."

    So it really has nothing to do with what the people know. They just have this principle that everything must have "balance".

    I guess that's a better way to put it?

    People want our troops home, but at the same time, they don't, because they equate it with unbalance, because it's simply such a new idea to the American people.
    I think Lishy is on to something. Ron Paul took what was perceived to be an extreme position at the time with the GOP. That set him up to be labeled as extreme, isolationist, crazy by his opponents and the media echoed that. Ron did not help his cause by his delivery of these ideas. My sense is that people Already predisposed to his views or against the war rallied behind him. In order to bring people in, Ron had to present a more balanced perspective...

  21. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    3,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BUSHLIED View Post
    I think Lishy is on to something. Ron Paul took what was perceived to be an extreme position at the time with the GOP. That set him up to be labeled as extreme, isolationist, crazy by his opponents and the media echoed that. Ron did not help his cause by his delivery of these ideas. My sense is that people Already predisposed to his views or against the war rallied behind him. In order to bring people in, Ron had to present a more balanced perspective...
    I think you are correct here. In my discussions with people on FP, I find that they aren't too far from where we are at ideologically. People do not want us being the policemen of the world, sticking our nose in every one else's business, propping up dictators, playing the global game of chess, having troops stationed all over the world, handing out foreign aid like it is candy, etc. I think though where we lose them is in Paul's presentation of that ideology and the means by which he wishes to achieve his goals. Bring all troops home immediately, cut all foreign aid immediately - those policy positions do come across as being radical and extreme, and are very easily painted by Paul's detractors as being so. I think a more balanced, pragmatic sounding approach would have put Paul in a better position. A gradual withdraw of troops and a gradual phase out of foreign aid still accomplishes the goal, but does so in a more reasoned sounding way. Essentially, it is all in how the message is presented and sold to the people - and that is where Paul has his greatest faults.

  22. #21

    Default

    During Vietnam, troops were treated badly when returning to the states. People now seem to feel guilty about that and so any idea that what they are doing around the world may be anything less than god's work is met with a wall of emotion. The propogandists have made it unpatriotic and practically treasonous to disagree with anything the military does anywhere in the world. I think that this is part of Dr. Paul's problem with the older generation. The troops returning from Vietnam were villified and blamed for an unjust war (when they had nothing to do with starting or sustaining it) and to admit that what we are doing overseas is still unjust would stir up all that guilt. Short attempt to explain a complex idea, ......? It is like this: support the troops or you support the terrorists. Nonsense, but still the case.
    Last edited by driller80545; 03-19-2012 at 07:23 AM.

  23. #22

    Default

    There is a large segment of the republican voters that he could have made a sale to but failed. His supporters failed as well as shown by the majority of the respondents in this thread. They aren't republicans and never were so they don't even know how republicans think and just put their judgement of why Republicans didn't vote for RP. That is all fine but if you are trying to sell something you sure as heck don't sell anything if you refuse to listen to the reasons a buyer is not buying your product.
    RP is advocating the complete destruction of 70 years of US defense posture. A defence posture that a vast majority of americans think has kept us safe. He is advocating doing this with absolutely no plan put forward on how it would work.He is advocating putting it in place without ANY phase in period.
    RP comes across as having a very limited knowledge of strategic and tactical capability of the US military. The president doesn't really have to have a vast knowledge of this area but he better have a team of advisors that do. HE doesn't.
    He has economic advisors when the economy is something he has vast knowledge on and really doesn't even need them because he knows more than they do.
    I and others fought and fought to get him to put together a defense team to advise him. It never happened.
    RP used a line in one of the debates when asked about having to fight a war. "Go in fight it and GET OUT!" It was a very popular and good answer but it came back to how the military would be able to fight a war from a US based defense posture. In other answers he implied he would fight to reopen the suez and panama canals. OK how would his US based defense be able to do this. He one time used a statement that we have planes that can get to any part of the world in an hour. Well I read that same vague article and for him to use that made him seem very unknowledgable of military capability and what he knew only came from reading news articles.
    People have argued with me saying other candidates don't have to go into details on how they would carry out a missions but they don't have to as they can rely on the current system of bases around the world to strategically deploy the firepower. RP is advocating eliminating all of the world wide bases so he has to sell how his plan would work. He didn't.
    Last edited by klamath; 03-19-2012 at 08:02 AM.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  24. #23
    Lone Coyote ClydeCoulter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Here, for a little while longer
    Posts
    10,114
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    klamath,
    I think you present a picture that many who consider things a bit deeper may have. But Ron Paul has stated that while yes we have been overseas for many years, it was not always like that. He also uses the "plane in an hour" example to show that the "world is smaller today", you don't need to be in their yard to retaliate quickly if need be.

    I think it is different things to different people. Propaganda is very strong and comes in many flavors so that there is one for everyone.
    Last edited by ClydeCoulter; 03-19-2012 at 08:34 AM.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klamath View Post
    There is a large segment of the republican voters that he could have made a sale to but failed. His supporters failed as well as shown by the majority of the respondents in this thread. They aren't republicans and never were so they don't even know how republicans think and just put their judgement of why Republicans didn't vote for RP. That is all fine but if you are trying to sell something you sure as heck don't sell anything if you refuse to listen to the reasons a buyer is not buying your product.
    RP is advocating the complete destruction of 70 years of US defense posture. A defence posture that a vast majority of americans think has kept us safe. He is advocating doing this with absolutely no plan put forward on how it would work.He is advocating putting it in place without ANY phase in period.
    RP comes across as having a very limited knowledge of strategic and tactical capability of the US military. The president doesn't really have to have a vast knowledge of this area but he better have a team of advisors that do. HE doesn't.
    He has economic advisors when the economy is something he has vast knowledge on and really doesn't even need them because he knows more than they do.
    I and others fought and fought to get him to put together a defense team to advise him. It never happened.
    RP used a line in one of the debates when asked about having to fight a war. "Go in fight it and GET OUT!" It was a very popular and good answer but it came back to how the military would be able to fight a war from a US based defense posture. In other answers he implied he would fight to reopen the suez and panama canals. OK how would his US based defense be able to do this. He one time used a statement that we have planes that can get to any part of the world in an hour. Well I read that same vague article and for him to use that made him seem very unknowledgable of military capability and what he knew only came from reading news articles.
    People have argued with me saying other candidates don't have to go into details on how they would carry out a missions but they don't have to as they can rely on the current system of bases around the world to strategically deploy the firepower. RP is advocating eliminating all of the world wide bases so he has to sell how his plan would work. He didn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul @1:43
    I can show where I'm closer to Eisenhower ... he didn't get involved in the Hormuz Straits [sic], and I remember very well in '56, he would not fight or go to war over the Suez Canal. And I like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rockerrockstar View Post
    I just don't understand people that like Ron Paul's fiscal policies but don't like his Foreign Policy. Why do people not like Ron Paul's foreign policy? Personally, I think Ron has the smartest foreign policy but most of the opposition is misinformed on his views. Why do these people want to fight wars so badly?
    Because they don't know the math problem we have with our finances.

    +2 Trillion in annual revenue from Taxpayers
    -1.5 Trillion in annual deficits
    -15 Trillion in debt
    -187 Trillion that will be owed in future liabilities.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  27. #26

    Default

    They think he is a pacifist.

    Luckily, history will be on our side.
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Yet in other answers he has implied if congress declared war over the suez canal he would fight. But that is besides the point. He hasn't sold a US based defense to the public and that is why he is dead last in the election.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbone717 View Post
    I think you are correct here. In my discussions with people on FP, I find that they aren't too far from where we are at ideologically. People do not want us being the policemen of the world, sticking our nose in every one else's business, propping up dictators, playing the global game of chess, having troops stationed all over the world, handing out foreign aid like it is candy, etc. I think though where we lose them is in Paul's presentation of that ideology and the means by which he wishes to achieve his goals. Bring all troops home immediately, cut all foreign aid immediately - those policy positions do come across as being radical and extreme, and are very easily painted by Paul's detractors as being so. I think a more balanced, pragmatic sounding approach would have put Paul in a better position. A gradual withdraw of troops and a gradual phase out of foreign aid still accomplishes the goal, but does so in a more reasoned sounding way. Essentially, it is all in how the message is presented and sold to the people - and that is where Paul has his greatest faults.
    Yup.

    People assume wild things about what they don't know. The problem is really simple as that, and we need only look at ourselves before we became libertarians to understand how they think.

    Hence, you really have to be "centre-winged", because people do not do their research, and just automatically associate a centre-winged candidate with one who can see both sides of the issue, who isn't trying to push an ideological agenda.

    Of course, many Americans don't know what the Middle Eastern occupation is about either. However, ingrained into our culture is the ideas similar to nuclear deterrence and proxy control. Basically, people generally believe if we pull out of occupied regions, the Chinese will build there instead, and although it is not a direct attack on our country, they believe it is still a threat as if we're being cornered into submission, not able to touch them to if they ever attacked us. The Cuban Missile crisis is a fear which people do not wish to see repeated.

    Meanwhile, the other half of Americans are sadly a bunch of arrogant "Christians" who have a low self-esteem, or other issues, and there for they feel the need to make themselves feel "pure", and "above" other people by going to Church every weekend or volunteering (When they only do it to feed their egos so they can call themselves "good" people), so that they have the right to demonize other people by dictating what they think are "family values". In other words, these people wish to put other people down below them and wish to have an excuse to do so.

    I honestly believe these three ideas are why Americans do not vote for Ron Paul. The first two quarters of Americans are simply ignorant, or misinformed about the issues. while the other half really are that bad of people who share the "family values" of people like Santorum in order to feed their ego.

    It's worth noting people also do not realize the math of our debt. The reality is if we stack dollar bills on top of each other, we could build FOUR ladders to the moon and back! That's how much 16 trillion dollars are, and you should calculate the depth of dollar bills multiplied by 16 trillionto see what I mean!

    It also has to do with the fact we say 16 trillion than 16,000 billion because 16 trillion seems like a small number. Canada is about 1.6 trillion dollars in debt, but Canadians don't care because it seems like a small number. Likewise, Americans believe 16 trillion is small. You should say 16,000,000 million dollars instead! (That's sixteen-million million dollars in debt!!!)
    Last edited by Lishy; 03-19-2012 at 09:07 AM.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    klamath,
    I think you present a picture that many who consider things a bit deeper may have. But Ron Paul has stated that while yes we have been overseas for many years, it was not always like that. He also uses the "plane in an hour" example to show that the "world is smaller today", you don't need to be in their yard to retaliate quickly if need be.

    I think it is different things to different people. Propaganda is very strong and comes in many flavors so that there is one for everyone.
    And that is also why he has to work hard to show that a US only based defense will stop an attack that could occur within an hour.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  31. #30
    Member Voluntary Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    everywhere & nowhere, but always here: Union of Soviet America
    Posts
    1,519
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Free Beer View Post
    They think he is a pacifist.

    Luckily, history will be on our side.
    It's a shame that passivism has become practically synonymous with pacifism. After all, if they mean the same thing, what need have we for two words? I believe the problem is that they are nearly homophones (yes, they are pronounced subtly differently), and so often confused for one another by the ignorant, that their definitions have become nearly indistinguishable (because of common usage).

    A pacifist is someone who will seek a peaceful resolution to a conflict, as a first priority.

    A passivist is someone who will not engage politically or militarily, even to his own destruction.

    The Amish are passivists.

    Switzerland is a pacifist nation.



    If Ron were a passivist, he wouldn't be running for President, and he wouldn't be the only veteran in the contest!

    And, of course the most shameful irony is that the morons who've been duped into thinking of Ron as a passivist wouldn't even have participated in the American Revolution, because, by their own definition, "the Founding Fathers were terrorists!"
    Last edited by Voluntary Man; 03-19-2012 at 09:46 AM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« 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
  •