Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Be Seeing You (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7276)

ohreally 01-02-2012 04:34 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235900)
Another thing that happens is that liberals and progressives give Obama (or the Dem. in office; it was almost as bad with Bill Clinton) a virtual pass on whatever foreign policy he pursues.

Sorry for flogging a dead horse, wonderment, but giving a pass to Obama is precisely what YOU are doing by pledging to vote (even campaign) for him NO MATTER WHAT FOREIGN POLICY HE PURSUES.

As long as your vote is promised, unearned, to a candidate, your criticism of that candidate is entirely wasted. It's basic game theory: once you commit openly and unconditionally, your strategy loses all influence on any of the game's Nash equilibria. Note this does not mean your vote forfeits its relevance: it means that your criticism does.

Wonderment 01-02-2012 04:44 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235908)
Sorry for flogging a dead horse, wonderment, but giving a pass to Obama is precisely what YOU are doing by pledging to vote (even campaign) for him NO MATTER WHAT FOREIGN POLICY HE PURSUES.

Fair point. However, Obama could lose my vote on foreign policy grounds if he does anything that I think is actually WORSE than what the generic Republican would do. So it's not really "no matter what."

Arguably, he has done some things worse than Bush or Romney would, but he'd had to really cross the line to offset the other reasons for voting for him (Supreme and Federal court justices, more generally liberal domestic agenda).

My estimation now is that the generic Republican could be significantly worse on Israel and Iran (key FP issues) than Obama. I felt the same way last time around and would have even supported Clinton (pro-Iraq War) over McCain.

I do appreciate and respect your position, however, in refusing to endorse Obama.

ohreally 01-02-2012 04:50 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235905)
Well, I think a less cynical framing, at least for many progressives and liberals is that they DON'T agree with you or Kucinich or Paul on militarism.

CNN poll in Oct '11: Three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan.

miceelf 01-02-2012 04:59 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235910)
CNN poll in Oct '11: Three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war in Afghanistan.

Well, you've got me. If you can find a poll that highlights that support for the Afghanistan war has declined among democrats, then that proves that most democrats oppose all wars on principle.

It couldn't possibly be that support for the war at any point in time is driven primarily by how well it seems to be going.

Further details on the poll:

Among dems:
Support afghanistan: 28%
Oppose, the war was a mistake: 37%
Oppose, the war was mismanaged: 32%

More than half of dems (60%) support afghanistan or believe that it was mismanaged, rather than a mistake. Even among self-declared liberals (not just dems), these numbers add up to 58%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im.../22/rel19c.pdf

graz 01-02-2012 05:03 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235909)
Fair point. However, Obama could lose my vote on foreign policy grounds if he does anything that I think is actually WORSE than what the generic Republican would do. So it's not really "no matter what."

Arguably, he has done some things worse than Bush or Romney would, but he'd had to really cross the line to offset the other reasons for voting for him (Supreme and Federal court justices, more generally liberal domestic agenda).

My estimation now is that the generic Republican could be significantly worse on Israel and Iran (key FP issues) than Obama. I felt the same way last time around and would have even supported Clinton (pro-Iraq War) over McCain.

As you are a resident of California, Obama doesn't need your support. Why not vote your "Green" convictions?
Quote:

I do appreciate and respect your position, however, in refusing to endorse Obama.
Of course you do. The applicable term for your stated respect is rat***ker (it can be pathological). ohreally otoh is in the clear without hypocrisy or compromise. Props to ohreally!

stephanie 01-02-2012 05:36 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235900)
marginalize Kucinich

Well, I'm not as sure as you that all these figures are considered marginal for the same reason. I think Gary Johnson (who I wouldn't vote for, simply due to political differences) could win a general election. I think his problems are either because Paul already took the place he would otherwise occupy (suggesting that the Paul-idolatry hurts the cause) or because the support for Paul from many sources is precisely because of the aspects of him that make him (to me and you) more tainted than Johnson.

But in any case, for different reasons, I don't think Kucinich or Paul could win a general election. In neither case is it simply because of their foreign policy views, although I do think a Dem is likely less able to survive being against all foreign involvement. A Republican (like Paul) could probably play it up as being about cost in a way that would be more acceptable to the mainstream. To Paul's credit, his rhetoric is a lot more radical than that, of course.

Quote:

I think a lot of this by Dems. is done to find electable foreign policy candidates like Obama and both Clintons, with the predictable result being that Dem. presidents are nearly identical on militarism to the electable candidates in the other party.
Unsurpisingly, I agree with miceelf here. I don't think Obama or the Clintons is identical to Bush and Cheney et al. I think they are less different than you would like, but that your pacifism makes you unwilling to admit to distinctions that are apparent to many people, even on the left. Personally, as you know, I opposed Iraq, but that was not because I am against all wars. I would have trouble voting for a candidate who claimed to be against all wars, so this idea that Dems are bothered by Paul because he holds up a mirror or such nonsense is just wrong. I'm bothered by Paul because of all the things I've mentioned here. I think his role on foreign policy in the current campaign is great. Sure, I might reassess depending on what happens and if he runs third party (which I don't predict), but that's too soon to say. It's not a worry -- I'm just annoyed by the idea that the newsletters and story behind them should be off limits and must be motivated by some unfair animus.

Quote:

Another thing that happens is that liberals and progressives give Obama (or the Dem. in office; it was almost as bad with Bill Clinton) a virtual pass on whatever foreign policy he pursues.
I don't agree with this. I do think that both parties tend to give the benefit of the doubt to members of their party on these issues more often, especially when it seems less essential to national security. But remember that Clinton was elected after making it clear he was going to be more interventionist in foreign policy -- he was trying to move the Dems more to the center on these issues than they'd been perceived in recent years and criticized Bush from the right on both China and the former Yugoslavia, among others. If anything Clinton started out by not going as far as he'd promised, and I think it was more notable that the Republicans opposed his interventions than that most Dems supported them.

Similarly, even if Dems on the whole were ready to get out of Afghanistan by '06, that doesn't mean they were against the war in the first place or thought we should just leave without something like Obama has basically been trying. And, of course, anyone who imagined Obama's plan was to do that wasn't listening to what he said, as his views about Afghanistan were made clear in the campaign.

Quote:

of course a huge part is that most Americans probably agree with the President on American exceptionalism and militarism.
On what I assume you are calling "militarism," yes, I believe so.

Wonderment 01-02-2012 06:32 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235913)
think Gary Johnson (who I wouldn't vote for, simply due to political differences) could win a general election. I think his problems are either because Paul already took the place he would otherwise occupy (suggesting that the Paul-idolatry hurts the cause) or because the support for Paul from many sources is precisely because of the aspects of him that make him (to me and you) more tainted than Johnson.

Really? I'm surprised you think he'd have a chance. Paul gets a lot of support from Evangelicals because he has a "perfect" anti-abortion record in Congress. Johnson is pro-choice and AFAIK only nominally Christian (Lutheran). Of course, those factors might be pluses with independent voters, but I don't see how a pro-choice Repub can get nominated. That leaves Johnson running as a libertarian or a thirder, i.e., up against the two mainstream candidates and all their money and power.

Quote:

But in any case, for different reasons, I don't think Kucinich or Paul could win a general election.
Agree.


Quote:

I think his [Paul's] role on foreign policy in the current campaign is great.
That's the essence of what I've been saying all these 100 or so posts. Unfortunately, with a couple of exceptions, most of us have gone off on other tangents. The peripheral stuff, including the newsletters, would be important if Paul actually had a chance to become president. Since he does not, he is only significant for what he says now and how he defends it. Think of him as a journalist or blogger. He's just got a big megaphone and the ability, thanks to the debates and a campaign budget, of engaging the real candidates directly.

Unit 01-02-2012 06:46 PM

Re: Be Seeing You (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffpeterson (Post 235757)
One idea for regulating the comments that might also enhance the sustainability issue would be to do what the Ricochet site does and charge a nominal sum for the privilege of commenting (it's about $4 monthly or a discounted $30 a year at Ricochet). That seems to work pretty well at weeding out trolls and riffraff.

Great proposal! Put your money where your mouth is!

I'd be on board with this.

graz 01-02-2012 06:52 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235916)
That's the essence of what I've been saying all these 100 or so posts. Unfortunately, with a couple of exceptions, most of us have gone off on other tangents.

With most of us, meaning you, doing your best to provoke and shame any detractors from the wonder love for Mr/Dr./thinker Paul. You fear being marginalized like your hero, so you attack allies from within their ranks as an interloper -- not a cohort.

Quote:

The peripheral stuff, including the newsletters, would be important if Paul actually had a chance to become president. Since he does not, he is only significant for what he says now and how he defends it.
As recent as this past Sunday he flailed on the newsletters again.

Quote:

Think of him as a journalist or blogger. He's just got a big megaphone and the ability, thanks to the debates and a campaign budget, of engaging the real candidates directly.
Sounds aspirational, just like your adulation for Obama '08. Don't get fooled again!

miceelf 01-02-2012 06:57 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235916)
The peripheral stuff, including the newsletters, would be important if Paul actually had a chance to become president.

I suspect that what is going on is others are weighting different policy issues differently. For people who are more interested in domestic economic policy, the goldbuggery is simply horrifying and should be immediately disqualifying; ditto those who think race is the most important lens and don't buy the various statements around the newsletters; ditto those who think the biggest upcoming threat is the restriction of abortion rights; etc. People who don't much care about FP aren't going to make the same tradeoffs in logic about the benefits of Paul's profile.

To be fair, there are those whose primary policy priority appears to be "sticking it to Wonderment regardless of coherence or logic", but I like to think that's a small minority.

ohreally 01-02-2012 07:02 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty (Post 235898)
The lip-service to Ron Paul's racism drives me nuts.

Are you sure he's clearly a racist? And here's why being sure matters. There's a red line beyond which no support, tacit or overt, is legit. David Duke is a nonstarter -- whether he agrees with me on AfPak or not. Now perhaps Ron Paul is a bit of a racist (who's not?) and maybe even more than your average "who's not?" Or maybe not, but let's assume he is. His son's stance on civil rights, which perhaps he shares is, in my view, odious but not necessarily racist. However, there's little doubt it will appeal to card-carrying racists, hence the newsletters, etc. For that alone, not to mention that Paul and I have almost opposite views on social justice, I would never vote for the guy.

That said, on what is perhaps the single most important issue of the day, I agree with him and with no other candidate of either party. Since I know he won't be elected president, I see little wrong in promoting his candidacy in order to promote the views that are kept silent by the media. US foreign policy means the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, so it's hardly a technical issue like, say, Fed policies.

The moral argument against this position seems to be, "But that's what people did with Hitler in Weimar Germany. People then said, No chance he'll be elected so let's promote his wonderful views on building autobahns and helping mothers procreate..." If that's the moral charge, then it's so silly I don't need to refute it.

Strawman perhaps. If the charge is more of a Sartrean "dirty hands" thing, then I have to plead guilty. I voted for Obama in '08 and, by doing so, I've enabled the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no justifiable reason. My hands are plenty dirty. A shoutout to Ron Paul won't make them any dirtier.

Ocean 01-02-2012 07:28 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235919)
I suspect that what is going on is others are weighting different policy issues differently. For people who are more interested in domestic economic policy, the goldbuggery is simply horrifying and should be immediately disqualifying; ditto those who think race is the most important lens and don't buy the various statements around the newsletters; ditto those who think the biggest upcoming threat is the restriction of abortion rights; etc. People who don't much care about FP aren't going to make the same tradeoffs in logic about the benefits of Paul's profile.

Right. The set of priorities ends up being different, not only because of personal preference regarding domestic vs foreign policy, but because isolationism/non-interventionism, although a desirable goal for many, is the an issue which is further detached from reality.

In other words, it is the issue which is less likely to succeed in any way or fashion. It's goal for the distant future. In practice it isn't an achievable goal except for some slow gradual marginal change in perspective. But as far as I know, we may have half of our population dead with lack of health insurance, natural disasters worsened by AGW, an increasing economic catastrophe before we can see real progress in isolationism/non-interventionism. That's why it's so hard for many of us to look the other way when we see the totality of what Ron has to say. The negative aspects of his policy proposals are more immediate and tangible than any distant future dream of global peace (which I would support fully if I thought that the circumstances to achieve such goal were given).

rfrobison 01-02-2012 07:57 PM

Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235923)
Right. The set of priorities ends up being different, not only because of personal preference regarding domestic vs foreign policy, but because isolationism/non-interventionism, although a desirable goal for many, is the an issue which is further detached from reality.

In other words, it is the issue which is less likely to succeed in any way or fashion. It's goal for the distant future. In practice it isn't an achievable goal except for some slow gradual marginal change in perspective. But as far as I know, we may have half of our population dead with lack of health insurance, natural disasters worsened by AGW, an increasing economic catastrophe before we can see real progress in isolationism/non-interventionism. That's why it's so hard for many of us to look the other way when we see the totality of what Ron has to say. The negative aspects of his policy proposals are more immediate and tangible than any distant future dream of global peace (which I would support fully if I thought that the circumstances to achieve such goal were given).

I find it interesting that the very thing that Ron Paul's supporters love him for, and the very thing that his critics on the left give him credit for -- his "let's pack it in" isolationism -- is precisely what makes him anathema to me.

I should think we outgrew this stuff in the 1930s. One doesn't have to be a knee-jerk supporter of armed intervention everywhere to recognize that U.S. isolationism won't make the world more peaceful. Look around. How many conflicts have raged without any involvement from Washington at all? FDR understood that, Woodrow Wilson understood that, Kennedy understood that. It took World War II for the Republicans to learn that.

Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Ask yourself whether Asia — a part of the world in whose peace I have a personal stake — would be better off with U.S. bases in Japan and Korea closed, to name just one example of Ron Paul's "nonintervention" in practice, and China the dominant military power in the region. Pardon me for not thinking that that would be cause for celebration.

Be careful what you wish for.

miceelf 01-02-2012 08:07 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrobison (Post 235924)
I find it interesting that the very thing that Ron Paul's supporters love him for, and the very thing that his critics on the left give him credit for -- his "let's pack it in" isolationism -- are precisely what make him anathema to me.

Not all of us.

I even disagree with Pat Buchanan about WWII.

Ocean 01-02-2012 08:33 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrobison (Post 235924)
I find it interesting that the very thing that Ron Paul's supporters love him for, and the very thing that his critics on the left give him credit for -- his "let's pack it in" isolationism -- are precisely what make him anathema to me.

I should think we outgrew this stuff in the 1930s. One doesn't have to be a knee-jerk supporter of armed intervention everywhere to recognize that U.S. isolationism won't make the world more peaceful. Look around. How many conflicts have raged without any involvement from Washington at all? FDR understood that, Woodrow Wilson understood that, Kennedy understood that. It took World War II for the Republicans to learn that.

Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Ask yourself whether Asia — a part of the world in whose peace I have a personal stake — would be better off with U.S. bases in Japan and Korea closed, to name just one example of Ron Paul's "nonintervention" in practice, and China the dominant military power in the region. Pardon me for not thinking that that would be cause for celebration.

Be careful what you wish for.

As my comment indicates, the kind of non-interventionism that I (personally, not some party or ideology) would support is far from being feasible in the world as it is. It would require a lot more stability in various parts of the world. Due to the problem of "vacuum" and the US having a giant economy, it is unlikely that it could just pick up an leave without looking at the consequences of leaving room for other powers to take over and threaten the US internal stability. As I said, non-interventionism would have to be developed in parallel with a global governance that can effectively mediate disputes and other potential conflicts and threats.

The real issue that merits a discussion shouldn't be formulated in absolute terms: interventionism vs non-interventionism, but rather degree of interventionism and global military presence. How involved should the US be in other countries' internal business? Should we change our own internal culture to respect boundaries and other nations' sovereignty? Should we maintain humanitarian aid but give up military intervention when it comes to internal conflicts in other places? What kinds of alliances and obligation should we have with other countries?

Ron Paul's words ring enticing to those of us who are sick of the US overinvolvement with other countries' internal affairs, and the conflicts and antipathies that we create against ourselves due to such policies. But, in reality, it would be very difficult or impossible to get anywhere near where he seems to want us to believe he can go with it. That's why the whole thing seems to me ludicrous and a chimera. While he stands on most other issues in the opposite side of the spectrum in relation to liberals.

We should be looking for a better voice instead of giving space to this one.

TwinSwords 01-02-2012 08:46 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235923)
Right. The set of priorities ends up being different, not only because of personal preference regarding domestic vs foreign policy, but because isolationism/non-interventionism, although a desirable goal for many, is the an issue which is further detached from reality.

In other words, it is the issue which is less likely to succeed in any way or fashion. It's goal for the distant future. In practice it isn't an achievable goal except for some slow gradual marginal change in perspective. But as far as I know, we may have half of our population dead with lack of health insurance, natural disasters worsened by AGW, an increasing economic catastrophe before we can see real progress in isolationism/non-interventionism. That's why it's so hard for many of us to look the other way when we see the totality of what Ron has to say. The negative aspects of his policy proposals are more immediate and tangible than any distant future dream of global peace (which I would support fully if I thought that the circumstances to achieve such goal were given).

Exactly. Wonderment and ohreally seem to think they can selectively promote Paul's views on those parts of his agenda they agree with but not take responsibility for giving more exposure to the odious views they don't agree with. (See the two quotes at the bottom of this post for examples.)

Wish though they may, they can't decree that Paul's influence shall be limited to militarism and the police state. As long as Paul remains a visible figure, all of his views gain exposure and traction. Indeed, if you look at Paul's followers, he's much more popular for his 19th century views on civil rights, size of government, and the social safety net than he is because of his views on the military or police state.

I'll grant that this is a dilemma for those of us who basically agree with Wonderment and ohreally on foreign policy and police state issues. But the calculation the rest of us have made, I believe, is that we are not going to promote all of Paul's other views just for a chance to highlight the couple of things where he happens to agree with us. Indeed, doing so risks doing much greater harm to the values we share.

And this is precisely where the problem is: Paul's anti-military views aren't going to affect the policy of the next administration no matter what. But there is a distinct possibility that many of Paul's other ideas could come to fruition in the next administration. By bolstering Paul now, liberals are increasing the chance that Social Security and Medicare will be eliminated, or that the scope of government will be significantly reduced.

If Wonderment and ohreally are taking this gamble on America's future knowingly, then I can only say doing so is their right. But I suspect they imagine themselves giving a boost solely to the handful of Paul's views they agree with, without giving a boost to his other views -- and that's just not realistic. As long as Paul is on the trail advancing his far right agenda, principled liberals have a responsibility to condemn that agenda and explain why it would be bad for America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
That said, on what is perhaps the single most important issue of the day, I agree with him and with no other candidate of either party. Since I know he won't be elected president, I see little wrong in promoting his candidacy in order to promote the views that are kept silent by the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235916)
The peripheral stuff, including the newsletters, would be important if Paul actually had a chance to become president. Since he does not, he is only significant for what he says now and how he defends it.


timba 01-02-2012 08:48 PM

Right on the money re: Jobs
 
The mouse button thing is the tip of a horrible iceberg

TwinSwords 01-02-2012 08:50 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrobison (Post 235924)
I find it interesting that the very thing that Ron Paul's supporters love him for, and the very thing that his critics on the left give him credit for -- his "let's pack it in" isolationism -- is precisely what makes him anathema to me.

But that's not "the very thing that Ron Paul's supporters love him for." That's what a small subset of his supporters love him for. If you actually look closely at Ron Paul's followers, it's a much more diverse group than the focus on the anti-war stuff would imply. His followers are basically hard-right anti-government types. Some of them agree with his anti-war and anti-police state views, especially the Democrats and independents. But he has many followers who adore him because of his wish to eliminate the safety net and more or less shut down the federal government.

ohreally 01-02-2012 09:03 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235923)
... isolationism/non-interventionism, although a desirable goal for many, is the an issue which is further detached from reality. ... It's goal for the distant future. In practice it isn't an achievable goal except for some slow gradual marginal change in perspective. But as far as I know, we may have half of our population dead with lack of health insurance, natural disasters worsened by AGW, an increasing economic catastrophe before we can see real progress in isolationism/non-interventionism.

I'm afraid you have it backwards. A president can order troops home. Might piss off a few congressmen and lobbyists but that's his call. For the White House to close half of our 1,000 bases around the world is entirely feasible. Ditto with withdrawing from AfPak. On the other hand, laws needed for climate change and health care are in the hands of Congress -- a much tougher nut to crack.

TwinSwords 01-02-2012 09:10 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
Are you sure he's clearly a racist? And here's why being sure matters. There's a red line beyond which no support, tacit or overt, is legit. David Duke is a nonstarter -- whether he agrees with me on AfPak or not.

Well, Ron Paul promoted David Duke in at least two issues of his newsletter. Does that help you?


Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
Now perhaps Ron Paul is a bit of a racist (who's not?) and maybe even more than your average "who's not?" Or maybe not, but let's assume he is.

Can you publish a racist newsletter for twenty years and say all the things that he said in his newsletter and not be a racist? (Even if he didn't personally write the newsletters, they were eponymous newsletters written in his voice. They were unambiguously presented expressions of his views.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
His son's stance on civil rights, which perhaps he shares is, in my view, odious but not necessarily racist.

Oh, he definitely shares it. He confirmed that he wants to restore the legal framework of Jim Crow as recently as Sunday (Jan. 1, 2012).

Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 'destroyed' privacy


Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
Since I know he won't be elected president, I see little wrong in promoting his candidacy in order to promote the views that are kept silent by the media.

In doing so, you are promoting all of his other views.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
US foreign policy means the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, so it's hardly a technical issue like, say, Fed policies.

Entitlements means the lives and deaths of millions of people. Are you willing to trade entitlements for a few minutes of exposure for Ron Paul's foreign policy views?

The Republicans put forward a Medicare reform bill -- the Ryan Plan, which 98% of House Republicans voted for -- that is designed to bend the health care cost curve by sharply limiting who gets health care and how much they can get. It would abolish today's single payer health care system for the elderly with a voucher for $15,000 of insurance, which would buy almost no health care at all for people with pre-existing conditions or high health care costs. In short, the Ryan Plan is a death sentence for millions of people.

While Ron Paul's foreign policy proposals have almost no chance of being realized under the next administration, the Ryan Plan is almost assured of becoming law if a Republican is elected president.

As a person of conscience, you should weigh the risks and ask which gamble makes more sense: betting that your support for Ron Paul's foreign policy views will finally defeat militarism and the police state, or betting that your support will help elect a Republican, leading to the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. (To say nothing of all the other catastrophic consequences.)



Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
I voted for Obama in '08 and, by doing so, I've enabled the deaths of thousands of innocent people for no justifiable reason. My hands are plenty dirty. A shoutout to Ron Paul won't make them any dirtier.

Sure it will -- if it helps to defeat Obama and elect a Republican who will sign the Ryan Bill into law.

sugarkang 01-02-2012 09:12 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rfrobison (Post 235924)
I should think we outgrew this stuff in the 1930s. One doesn't have to be a knee-jerk supporter of armed intervention everywhere to recognize that U.S. isolationism won't make the world more peaceful. Look around.

That might be the argument to make to a Progressive, but it doesn't work for me. I'm much more hawkish than Ron Paul. But military might is completely dependent on economic might. You're not going to deny that we borrow money from China to pay for roads and bridges in the Middle East while the debt is piled onto our children?

I mean if you can explain to me why the billion dollar embassy in Iraq is part of a Hamiltonian foreign policy, then maybe I'd go along with you. But from the limited information that I have, it appears all we're doing is pissing dollars down the drain.

ohreally 01-02-2012 09:18 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235929)
Exactly. Wonderment and ohreally seem to think they can selectively promote Paul's views on those parts of his agenda they agree with but not take responsibility for giving more exposure to the odious views they don't agree with.

I am not saying that people should vote for Paul, since I won't do it myself. I am saying they should listen to him attentively when he speaks about FP. Does that still make me responsible for his "odious" views? Maybe to some extent, but we all pay that price all the time. I voted for Obama and I find many of his positions perfectly odious.

And Wright's comment about reciprocity resonates with me. I loathe the attitude "Oh, FP doesn't much matter to us: goldbuggery, now that's a big deal." How sweet is that? I want to ask these people: If it were your daughter being wiped out from the sky with our fancy drones, would you feel the same way? I don't think interest in FP is optional: people killing in our name warrant our critical attention.

Ocean 01-02-2012 09:19 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235933)
I'm afraid you have it backwards. A president can order troops home. Might piss off a few congressmen and lobbyists but that's his call. For the White House to close half of our 1,000 bases around the world is entirely feasible. Ditto with withdrawing from AfPak. On the other hand, laws needed for climate change and health care are in the hands of Congress -- a much tougher nut to crack.

I'm talking about what any President would be willing to do if it means going completely against not only his party, but probably also a significant number of Dems as well.

It isn't as simple as ordering troops home but with being prepared for the possible consequences. The White House does not operate in isolation from the rest of the Party. And there's no support for his policies.

TwinSwords 01-02-2012 09:23 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235913)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment
I think a lot of this by Dems. is done to find electable foreign policy candidates like Obama and both Clintons, with the predictable result being that Dem. presidents are nearly identical on militarism to the electable candidates in the other party.

I don't think Obama or the Clintons is identical to Bush and Cheney et al. I think they are less different than you would like, but that your pacifism makes you unwilling to admit to distinctions that are apparent to many people, even on the left.

Precisely. Neither of the parties is where we would want them to be; Wonderment is right that the Democrats and Republicans are too similar. But he's wrong that they are "nearly identical."

Examples:
— Gore would never have invaded Iraq.
— McCain would never have removed our troops from Iraq.

miceelf 01-02-2012 09:30 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235938)
I'm talking about what any President would be willing to do if it means going completely against not only his party, but probably also a significant number of Dems as well.

It isn't as simple as ordering troops home but with being prepared for the possible consequences. The White House does not operate in isolation from the rest of the Party. And there's no support for his policies.

There's also the small matter of how a person gets elected president who would be willing to do this.

sugarkang 01-02-2012 09:40 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235931)
But he has many followers who adore him because of his wish to eliminate the safety net and more or less shut down the federal government.


http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6240/shawtn.jpg

"These walls are funny. First you hate ‘em, then you get used to ‘em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That’s institutionalized."

miceelf 01-02-2012 09:57 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235941)
"These walls are funny. First you hate ‘em, then you get used to ‘em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That’s institutionalized."

Yes. a retirement without the looming shadow of abject poverty is exactly like prison.

sugarkang 01-02-2012 09:59 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235942)
Yes. a retirement without the looming shadow of abject poverty is exactly like prison.

No, but a guaranteed three meals a day without freedom is exactly like prison.

Sulla the Dictator 01-02-2012 10:01 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235942)
Yes. a retirement without the looming shadow of abject poverty is exactly like prison.

Sounds like more ritual to summon the magick of the Printing Press to me. Wonder why no one else ever thought of it.

miceelf 01-02-2012 10:01 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235943)
No, but a guaranteed three meals a day without freedom is exactly like prison.

What exact freedom is social security depriving you of? in what way is receiving social security like being in prison?

Sulla the Dictator 01-02-2012 10:06 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235945)
What exact freedom is social security depriving you of?

Eh? It is a mandatory savings program with an arbitrary rate of return. You're deprived of many freedoms, obviously. The freedom for alternate investment. The freedom to put it in a savings account. The freedom to spend it. The freedom to give it away. The freedom to use it in a funeral pyre for your favorite departed pet. It is your money.

deecue 01-02-2012 10:11 PM

Re: Be Seeing You (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)
 
Looking forward to the new layout and other new machinations. Hopefully, as I hope will be the case for the forthcoming national austerity and deficit reduction, blogginghead's own austerity measures will effect the status quo noticeably only at the margins and be generally for the betterment of the content--hey I can hope, right?

miceelf 01-02-2012 10:16 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235944)
Sounds like more ritual to summon the magick of the Printing Press to me. Wonder why no one else ever thought of it.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Did you post in the wrong thread by accident?

miceelf 01-02-2012 10:19 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235947)
Eh? It is a mandatory savings program with an arbitrary rate of return. You're deprived of many freedoms, obviously. The freedom for alternate investment. The freedom to put it in a savings account. The freedom to spend it. The freedom to give it away. The freedom to use it in a funeral pyre for your favorite departed pet. It is your money.

You can say exactly the same thing about income tax, except for the 'return' part. So, yeah, if income tax is exactly like prison, then it's a propos.

sugarkang 01-02-2012 11:18 PM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235945)
What exact freedom is social security depriving you of? in what way is receiving social security like being in prison?

Let's unpack these thoughts so that we're talking about the same thing. Shawshank's prison metaphor, in the way I've used it, applies to institutionalization of human beings. I'm not talking about the normal way one gets into prison, i.e., committing a crime. I'm talking about this specific quote for the specific point, which is that human beings build metaphorical prisons for themselves all the time. It can be your addiction to alcohol, or an emotionally abusive relationship, or for the point I was making: never ending increases in government that takes away personal responsibility in place of a supposed social safety net, e.g., social security, medicare, etc., that ends up with a cure worse than the disease.

What we have now is a blind religious faith in government to do what was once the responsibility of man (and wymmyn) and their families.

uncle ebeneezer 01-02-2012 11:43 PM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235939)
Precisely. Neither of the parties is where we would want them to be; Wonderment is right that the Democrats and Republicans are too similar. But he's wrong that they are "nearly identical."

Examples:
— Gore would never have invaded Iraq.
— McCain would never have removed our troops from Iraq.

And another: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

sugarkang 01-03-2012 12:33 AM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 235954)
And another: Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Weigel
Quote:

Where’s the anti-gay record? In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.” He’s worked alongside gay libertarians before. Would-be social conservative kingmakers say they can’t back Paul because his federalism would let gay rights flower in the states.
Dan Savage:

Quote:

There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”
But please. Let TwinSwords tell us more.

Sulla the Dictator 01-03-2012 12:41 AM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235950)
You can say exactly the same thing about income tax, except for the 'return' part. So, yeah, if income tax is exactly like prison, then it's a propos.

No you can't. Like I said, SS is basically a mandatory savings program. Income tax is a broad social obligation to run a government. If the government determines what kind of auto insurance I get, that is also a loss of freedom. If I don't want a car, or I want to choose my provider, or if I want to use some relative, that is currently my choice.

There is no alternative military I can hire to guard my portion of the United States. There is no alternative postal service or road construction. The idea that a 401 K is some sort of wacky idea akin to some privatized military scheme is ridiculous.

Sulla the Dictator 01-03-2012 12:43 AM

Re: Let's do the (1930s) time warp again: The Ronny Horror Picture Show
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235949)
I have literally no idea what you are talking about. Did you post in the wrong thread by accident?

You don't seem to consider the Social Security funds to be linked with people's payroll taxes.

Florian 01-03-2012 04:31 AM

Re: Kudos to Bob for setting the record straight on his hero, Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ohreally (Post 235920)
That said, on what is perhaps the single most important issue of the day, I agree with him and with no other candidate of either party. Since I know he won't be elected president, I see little wrong in promoting his candidacy in order to promote the views that are kept silent by the media. US foreign policy means the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, so it's hardly a technical issue like, say, Fed policies.

It always struck me when I was living in the US how little foreign policy issues were discussed by presidential candidates, although the responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy is probably the most important attribute of the office of president. I have to agree with you and Wonderment. I see nothing wrong with using Ron Paul as springboard for "raising consciousness" about the overextension of the American military establishment, military Keynesianism and, let's face it, the proven incompetence of American foreign policy in the Middle East---- if only for economic reasons.

RP's other positions (abolition of the FED, demolition of the welfare state, "states rights") are so nutty, so far from the mainstream of what even most Republicans would accept that they are unlikely to gain much traction, imo.

PACE Twinswords. This is a View from Afar.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.