Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[zikzak]

Originally Posted by FourFins

Greenwald's article is aimed at progressives -- not sure if Suzzer or fly identify with being a progressive, probably not, probably just as a "democrat" (and I don't know your political leanings.) But Greenwald is trying to say that people who oppose Paul that are not in favor of war, etc, who identify themselves as progressives, are completely unwilling to admit that their guy (Yes we can!) is in favor of those things.

First, the article is not aimed at progressives. He's preaching to the choir. Nobody who currently plans to vote Obama is going to read that novella and change their mind. Most people won't get through 3 paragraphs. It's a terrible advocacy piece.

Second, where the hell are all these Obama cheerleaders I keep hearing about? I don't think I've heard a single person praise his presidency in well over a year. Even suzzer is, at best, a reluctant apologist. Pay attention: Progressives are already deeply disappointed with Obama. His flaws are not new.

I also don't know what libertine means

I've been using it for a few days now and nobody has called me out on it, which I find hilarious.

[suzzer99]

Greenwald is just making the exact same argument (that bombing brown people and the war on drugs trumps all of RP's flaws) that every libertarian on here makes, only a lot more eloquently and a ton more verbosely. Am I supposed to change my opinion because you've found an ultra-liberal authority to appeal to on this one issue?

Does someone want to ask GG how he feels about RP supporting the invasion and regime change in Afghanistan, or rolling back civil rights legislation, or ending sexual harassment protections and AIDS research, then get back to me?

Do any of you think there's a snowball's chance in hell GG would support RP? Or does he just like to be provocative and bash Obama every chance he gets?

[prana]

So Greenwald is using the same strawman that you guys on the forum have been trying for a while now?

If you disagree with any of Ron Paul's positions you must love Obama and be cheering when brown people are bombed. Ron Paul is the only person who with libertarian beliefs so we gotta take the racist stuff with the good stuff. lol

GJ Greenwald.

[Fermion5]

RP did not support regime change in Afghanistan.

[pvn]

Originally Posted by zikzak

Libertines and the Ron Paul fallacies

Greenwald et al constantly miss one critical fact: The detractors, especially on this forum, are rarely critical of Paul for the positions he is generally lauded for. Paul is criticized for being unelectable, and his supporters for wasting effort on a lost cause.

Do Libertines really think people who oppose Paul are actually in favor of war, corruption, government debt, prisons full of pot smokers and jack-booted thugs? Most of the Paul hating is directed at failed methods, not flawed motivations.

Have you met suzzer?

[ASPoker8]

Originally Posted by prana

So Greenwald is using the same strawman that you guys on the forum have been trying for a while now?

If you disagree with any of Ron Paul's positions you must love Obama and be cheering when brown people are bombed. Ron Paul is the only person who with libertarian beliefs so we gotta take the racist stuff with the good stuff. lol

GJ Greenwald.

Mark one down for:
-Didn't read and/or understand the article

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Greenwald is just making the exact same argument (that bombing brown people and the war on drugs trumps all of RP's flaws) that every libertarian on here makes, only a lot more eloquently and a ton more verbosely. Am I supposed to change my opinion because you've found an ultra-liberal authority to appeal to on this one issue?

Does someone want to ask GG how he feels about RP supporting the invasion and regime change in Afghanistan, or rolling back civil rights legislation, or ending sexual harassment protections and AIDS research, then get back to me?

Do any of you think there's a snowball's chance in hell GG would support RP? Or does he just like to be provocative and bash Obama every chance he gets?

Cliffs:

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Fermion5

RP did not support regime change in Afghanistan.

Text of the AUMF
[edit] Introduction

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[edit] Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
[edit] Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes [sic] any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Please give me a realistic outcome of that paragraph that involves leaving the Taliban intact. I don't think anyone was under any illusion that we were going in there to wipe out OBL and leave the Taliban in power.

[Mayo]

I'm a progressive/liberal/whatever word we're using. I was not impressed by his article. I don't know too many people who just blindly assert that President Obama is the greatest. I'm certainly not one of them. But he is the most liberal candidate running. He is better than Ron Paul in my opinion. I freely admit that I admire a lot of Paul's stands. It takes a lot of courage for him to stand on a stage at a GOP debate and say that waterboarding is terror, or that we shouldn't detain people without a trial, etc. I greatly admire him for that.

But at the end of the day, I'm not a libertarian. I don't believe that the size of the government should be shrunk dramatically. I don't believe that the free market will just take care of everything. I do believe in a progressive income tax structure. I do believe in a social safety net. On the big fundamental issues, I agree more with president Obama than any other candidate, so I will try to make arguments that get people to vote for him and not vote for his opponent. Greenwald apparently doesn't approve of me taking that line, and that's his prerogative.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Cliffs:

Cliffs:

[Riverman]

Fire on Fire painted Truck .jpg

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Mayo

I'm a progressive/liberal/whatever word we're using. I was not impressed by his article. I don't know too many people who just blindly assert that President Obama is the greatest. I'm certainly not one of them. But he is the most liberal candidate running. He is better than Ron Paul in my opinion. I freely admit that I admire a lot of Paul's stands. It takes a lot of courage for him to stand on a stage at a GOP debate and say that waterboarding is terror, or that we shouldn't detain people without a trial, etc. I greatly admire him for that.

But at the end of the day, I'm not a libertarian. I don't believe that the size of the government should be shrunk dramatically. I don't believe that the free market will just take care of everything. I do believe in a progressive income tax structure. I do believe in a social safety net. On the big fundamental issues, I agree more with president Obama than any other candidate, so I will try to make arguments that get people to vote for him and not vote for his opponent. Greenwald apparently doesn't approve of me taking that line, and that's his prerogative.

It's nice to have company. Pretty much just you and me and sometimes iron81 comes around.

I think the basic problem is moderates generally abhor discussing politics like the plague. You have to be jazzed up about something that seems powerful and new to want to wade into this quagmire - whether it's libertarianism, ideological liberalism or fear of Obama/socialist planet.

The POV of - "Well yeah all this stuff sucks, but I think I understand how it got this way and why it's not a simple problem to solve. I do think we can make it 10% better if we just do X." - isn't going to fire up most people to go in and do battle with others who truly deeply believe in their cause.

We may be weird. Also you might not last much longer

[prana]

Originally Posted by ASPoker8

Mark one down for:
-Didn't read and/or understand the article

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious.

So, I point out things I don't like about RP and it's wrong because I'm supporting Obama and his bombing policies? Citation needed on my support of Obama and/or his bombing policies atm.

[pvn]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Fire on Fire painted Truck .jpg

Jacknod dot gif

[FourFins]

Pretty sure mayo is the only liberal itt who actually read the article (or understood it).