A Political Thread

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by kennethdaysale

I think I get your drift, maybe not...any speculations about correllations between Revelation and current affairs would have me "practising out of my scope"

Not really(your ethinicity was not part of it), but the final part answered the question.

[Dogmatic]

Originally Posted by WTL

I like your analogy, but to fit, we have to expand it a bit. Say you live in a neighborhood.
In 1959, you went over to the guy next door and tore down his shed.
In 1990, you went across the street and got in between a fight regarding 2 neighbors that you had no direct link to.
In 2003, you forceably removed another neighbor from his house, and reinstalled someone else who was more in line with your tastes.
In 2001, in response to an act of agression from another neighbor, you smoked him out of his house and still havent left.
In 2011, you helped another guy as he removed another neighbor from his home.
And that guy who got overrun in his own house in 1947 by some other family from poland is still living on the street in front of you, and you are somehow totally siding with the people who kicked the first owner out.

Given these activities on your part, do you not understand that the guy right next door to you is looking into protection?

You may disagree with my characterization of each instance. I might disagree with some of them. But from the Iranian's perspective, there is good reason to be scared as hell of america and wanting to get that one magic weapon which prevents America from invading.

This is great...love it.

[kennethdaysale]

Having given considerable thought to every post and point I have concluded that none of us are at loggerheads nor should we be. I believe you love this country and want only the best for it and us. I am optimistic that we can work all this out. (too bad working it out isn't up to us) Of course NFE could come along and throw a monkey in the wrench...nah I guess I'm looking forward to anyones take on this.

[nofearengineer]

Damn you, Billy...you're going to get me fired.

Originally Posted by WTL

]There are a few principals which Paul normally tries to get out there during a debate, but due to his age, lack of graceful speaking style and the complexities of the matters he normally sounds weaker.

Billy, as Neanderthal as it may seem, I think age, statesmanship, and overall masculinity are important. When we are dealing with the Middle East and their androcentric culture, perceived strength is important. In the eyes of most hardline Arabs, Paul would be only slightly more intimidating than Hilary Clinton, and probably only because they wouldn’t require him to wear a burqa just to talk to them. Remember, it doesn’t matter how nice, smart, thoughtful you are…if you can’t lead. And our own citizens aren’t that much better. Making fun of things like James Stockdale’s thick glasses and hearing problems (the result of POW torture, come on people…shameful!), Chris Christie’s weight, and Janet Reno’s manliness are still perceived as fair game. Believe me, I can always tell when I win an argument. It’s usually when my weight enters the discussion. Unfortunately, even in this day and age it is better to have Mitt Romney’s hair than Ron Paul’s earnestness.
Empirically speaking, Paul comes off as kind of goofy. I’d love if he were my neighbor, but the man will never be President.

1. Being the world policemen encourages the Axis of evil. They dig it. They want us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They want us in South Korea. It gives the dictators in their ****y little countries the political cover to blame every domestic problem on the Americans, and it also gives them a reason to try to act strong.

I agree with you as to the mechanism, but not your conclusion. Arabs have been adversarial to the U.S. since its inception. We certainly weren’t bombing them then. In fact, it was only our bombs that stopped them raiding our ships and enslaving our men. Perhaps that response just became a habit. My position is that it is the media that has emboldened them. They know that there will be a certain anti-American segment of our own population that will come to their defense, no matter the wrong they have done, and been justly punished for.

a. See Sadaam Hussein intentionally fool the international community into thinking he had large stockpiles of WMD. Why would he fake it as if he had WMD? Because Saddam was not worried about the US, he was worried about the Shiites in his own country. The threat of WMD kept his own people in line…so he lied about having it.

This issue is complicated, as we did indeed make use of Saddam as a tool against Iran for a long time. Whether the WMD’s were there or not is still debatable. The fact is they have never been found, so it would appear the threats were unfounded. However, I will say that there is still a price to be paid for empty threats. In this country at least, it is against the law to threaten someone, though it is rarely enforced, unless the threat is credible. I guess when one decides to make empty threats, one forfeits the right to cry foul when someone takes the threats seriously.

b. See Ahmidinejad and when he came to power – 2004. Why? Because we were in Iraq. He played fear of US influence in the region into a winning tactic for getting into power in Iran.

I’m sure a little hostage situation in the 70’s might have had something to do with it too. Yes, the Iraq war brought it out, but the hatred of the U.S. has been with Iraq since the Shah.

c. Why did we not intervene in the “Green Revolution”? Because somebody smartly realized that once the Americans touch something, it turns to**** in the eyes of those people. Its like picking up a baby bird that falls out of its nest. Doesn’t matter if the US has the best intentions. We get blamed. Why should we want to continue allowing ourselves to get blamed when we risk our soldiers for humanitarian reasons (IE Somalia), and end up screwing this up worse than it was before?

I am not a fan of the “win the hearts and minds” strategy being implemented by the military. Especially in an area where we are already hated. I say this in all seriousness. Let them wallow in their own squalor. If they ever want our help, they will ask for it.

d. Look at Hugo Chavez. Why does he always spend 3 hours a night on state TV downing the US? Because he is trying to be Pepsi to our Coke. He is one of the primary anti-US guys left, and there is a market for that. And the more we openly attack him, the more his stupid supporters in the Venezulean slums rally behind him.

I am in favor of either doing something about him, or shutting up. Much like Saddam Hussein, he has made lots of threats. It wouldn’t break my heart if he were to turn up “late” for breakfast one morning. Ironically, we never actually did anything to Chavez in the beginning. Venezuelans were just poor (and angry) because the price of oil was so low. As we know today, the U.S. does not set the price of oil.
Chavez came to power about the same time were obsequiously handing over the Panama Canal to Panama, despite us bearing all of the cost of its construction and maintenance. Once again, in an effort to kiss Latin America’s arse, Carter only invited more open hostility. Chavez learned well how to deal with America.

OK, look at Rudy Guiliani “The American Hero”. What, precisely, did he do in the aftermath of 9/11 that was so heroic? Beats me. He was presiding Mayor of the hardest hit city. Yet by doing what any other mayor in America would do in that situation, he became a hero.

No disagreement here. Giuliani is nothing special. He gets cancer, cheats on his wife, and demogogues just like everyone else. I will give him credit for having the stones to clean up Times Square.

f. Look at George W. Bush. He too, stayed pretty calm and did relatively little following 9/11 for a few months. While he was doing little, his poll numbers went to 90%. That’s a record for a modern president. He got the same bounce that Ahmadinejad would get if we attack Iran.

Bush was only popular because people were scared. The right loved him because they “knew” he would go to war, and the left accepted him because he hadn’t…”yet.” You can see that only one of those positions is sustainable, so I wouldn’t put much stock in a poll number non sequitur. Just think of the poll numbers of the President who has Ahmadinejad assassinated! (just kidding here…or am I?)

g. Look at Pakistan. Do we attack Pakistan? No. Why? They have nukes. So, we have to treat them with kid gloves.

h. Look at North Korea. Do we attack North Korea? No. Why? Cause they have nukes. So, we treat them with kid gloves.

I’ve heard this many times as an example of how we are inconsistent. This is not true. Even Marcus Aurelius knew to fight only the battles you think you can win and talk your way out of the others if you can. But it is not a valid excuse to stop other nations graduating from one category to the other.

i. Look at Libya. Do we attack Libya? Through intermediaries, yes. Why? They don’t have nukes. And we talked the dumb bastards out of getting them. – Put that all together, and what do you have? US hyperinvolvement creates incentives for countries to get Nukes. Its like a get out of jail free card. We are behind these *******s coming to power, and then behind their desire to arm up. Its actually a rational reaction on their part. If the threat of US involvement wasn’t looming over each of these countries, there would not be as large of an incentive to develop nukes.

You make it sound so easy. They’ll just “get some nukes.” I agree with it being rational that they don’t like it when we exert our influence. I wouldn’t either if I were them. But the reality is, we developed the nuke first, and thus the responsibility of the benevolent dictator (in this matter only) falls upon our shoulders. I would place the evil of us keeping them subjugated lower than the evil of them also obtaining nukes on the “we’re screwed now” meter. Just be glad they didn’t get nukes first.

2. It is a principle long adhered to among Republicans that sometimes, the thing that sounds right, that sounds good in a soundbyte, is actually a bad policy.

At the very least, an unpopular policy. Many Conservatives don’t actually believe what they think they believe. If we were to prove Social Security is unconstitutional, they still wouldn’t support repealing it. Especially after being subjected to nice pictures of grandma being rolled off a cliff in her wheelchair.

a. Foreign Policy is the greatest area where this principle applies. In foreign policy, the rough riders are the ones who are beloved. The aggressive, the heroic, the belligerent. Cheat on your wife? Well, just go bomb a Balkan country and we’ll forgive you. Is your popularity waning? Lets settle that old score in Iraq. Want to look tough on communism? Hey, lets send advisors to that Southeast Asian country that the French got beat down in, to help the natives fight off a popular communist revolution. What happens if a boat in a harbor explodes in port in Havana, and the popular wisdom is that it was sabotage? Well, lets blame the Spanish and take all their empire!

b

. I wont delve into whether the war with Spain was wise, or WWI or WW2. But lets look at the modern American wars.

i. What did we solve in Korea? We set a precedent where the President can act unilaterally, involve us in a war with no end, and there we remain, almost 60 years later.

We have elected many tyrants in the history of our country. Many of the same qualities that make someone a good leader are also found in tyrants. It’s hard to filter them out. Strangely enough, they never run on a platform of tyranny.
I would love to believe that somehow they were privy to details average Joe you and I never found out about, but I’m pretty sure it’s more mundane, like money, influence, or to distract from the embarrassment over getting caught receiving a hummer in the Oval Office. I think in the case of the Maine, there was some hostility already brewing, and once the shooting started, nobody wanted to admit the mistake made. Plus, we were right in the middle of the Victorian Era, when war was somewhat romanticized.
We need to get out of Korea. The South Koreans don’t really like us. They know they’re screwed without us, so they let us waste our money on them. Maybe we should threaten the Chinese with letting Japan invade them again. The Japanese seem to know how to handle the Chinese. (that’s just a little humor)

ii. Vietnam. Without hearts and minds, you cannot win. And you don’t win hearts and minds by sending in the Marines. 58,000 American men dead.

Forget the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. We lost that war on our own shores. The combination of media sabotage, war profiteering, and general descent into dope-smoking hippydom turned the U.S. into a stumbling giant, afraid to commit to any singular course of action.

iii. Kuwait. It could have been the feelgood story of American involvement. We did everything right. We had a huge, international coalition. We were protecting a smaller country against a bully. We had a US interest in the area (oil). We won quickly and decisively. But then we lost. Why? Cause we didn’t kill Hussein, and the problem festered. So the lesson is we should have killed Hussein then.

First mistake: we fought for people who hate us, though it was to safeguard oil reserves and the stability they provide. Second (worst) mistake: We strayed from Marcus Aurelius again. When you fight a war, you make it as short, and final as possible. Wrong or right, Hussein had to die the moment the first shot was fired. Otherwise, you get what resulted: the perception (correct?) that the U.S. is a paper tiger at heart.

c. Also thought I would remind everyone that Saddam was an ally. So was Bin Laden (we created the Mujahadeen, just as Pakistan created the Taliban). So was Stalin. So was Qhadaffi. We have a history, in American foreign policy, of being for it, before we were against it, before we were for it.

We do that a lot. It really has to do with the transitory nature of our government. Every 4 years our compass swings around 180 degrees, and we abandon all of the commitments the previous administration made. Not on paper, of course…but in reality, yes. There are no votes to be gained in maintaining the status quo. A crappy system for those who believe we are their ally.

b. But if this foreign intervention is so foolish, why do we keep doing it?

a. First, we have to distinguish ourself from the Left in all areas. The Left is supposed to be wrong on every single issue. So when a lefty calls for peace, it is the natural reaction to deride it.

The derision itself is certainly for this reason, but I would hope we don’t actually go to war to prove a political point. Perhaps it’s because we’re pigeonholed by our own bravado into following through on it, else admit being wrong. It goes back to good old Marcus Aurelius; never make threats you’re not willing to make good on.

b. Religious reasons. I don’t want to hit too hard on this, but some fundamentalist Christians who still hold sway believe that there is religious justification for our support of Israel. These factions identify with the hardline Israeli interests, not the more moderate Israelis who agree with land for peace and some concessions/diplomacy, and thus think that we must do whatever we can to take the military burden off of Israel as they fight to survive. The other night, I saw Bill OReilly call Dr. Pauls’ comments during the debate stupid. Then he preceded to downplay Paul’s citing a US intelligence expert who claimed to know nothing concrete of Iranian intentions, and then OReilly declared he trusted Mossad (Israeli Intelligence)’s statements about Iran’s capabilities more than our own. My jaw just about hit the floor. Here we have that boor OReilly calling Ron Paul stupid, and in the same sentence, outsourcing American security and interests to Israel’s most militant interests! How dare he! But this man directs others to think a certain way. Anybody reading this must admit that Fox News and the line most of their commentators espouse has a direct and strong influence on all the grannies and grandpas watching.

I often say this to people I am arguing with, and though I don’t find it a complicated concept, they sometimes fail to grasp the subtleties of it. I think you will. I have no concern for the rationale for a person’s position; i.e. religious motivations for certain policies. I would only be concerned if it became the mechanism for instituting those policies. There is a huge difference between a nation of religious people and a theocracy. As for O’Reilly, I rarely watch him anymore. He has become far too enamored of his own voice. I will say though, that I think he did imply that the stupid thing was Paul saying it out loud; i.e., there will be a political price to pay. He may think the content was stupid too, for all I know. I don’t trust anything I hear at face value, so I have a hard time relating to what Grandpa Fred and Grandma Ethel get out of it.

c. The military industrial complex. Anytime someone tries to poopoo talk of this as being a conspiracy theory, remember who coined the phrase. The split in the Republican party between anti-war conservatives and pro-war conservatives occurred in the early 50s. Taft was running and set to win the nomination. He was against most foreign involvement,. He was known as “Mr. Republican”. Fear of Mr. Taft led people to draft Ike to run against Taft. Ike of course won, Taft died a couple years later, and national security/anticommunism have been two planks of the GOP ever since. But before Taft died, he and Ike actually became friends. After Taft had died, in his last speech as President, Ike, the military general, the one hand selected to prevent the GOP from returning to non-interventionism, echoed the old rights’s concerns about the military industrial complex. American spends 3 times as much as any other country on defense. Don’t doubt the complex exists.

No doubt here. Anywhere there is money to be made, you will always have ulterior motives. Eisenhower’s warning was solid advice. What we mustn’t do, however, is allow the hystericals on the other side to spew out “truth” about this unchecked. These are the same kind of rabid, uneducated idiots who put out Loose Change, a supposed expose about how the U.S. government brought down the Twin Towers; a film I can personally debunk in about 15 minutes. I’m sure you’ve had more than one experience with some dumb, smelly college hippie who knew everything about the evil industrial military complex, dude.

3. What could be?

a. Every time there is a budget battle in Washington, the democrats use national security as a pawn to scare republicans into not cutting enough, either taxes or spending. What if the GOP were to suddenly turn non-interventionist? It would give the GOP a huge advantage in budget negotiations, as we can now find that we can cut a huge amount of Pentagon spending, find common ground with bewildered democrats, and push through a plan that has a fighting chance of at least reducing the current debt madness we are embroiled in. Which leads me to Dr. Pauls last point, normally.

You know I would not condescend to you lightly. You possess excellent inductive and deductive reasoning (at least one person told the review board that LOL), yet this matter is one purely of experience. I am reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog (very loosely told):
A scorpion stands at a river unable to cross. He spies a frog, whom he asks to carry him across the river. The frog is afraid, because he thinks the scorpion might sting him. The scorpion says “that’s crazy…if I sting you, we’d both drown.” So the frog agrees. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog, as he starts to die, asks “why did you do that?” The scorpion, beginning to sink, shrugs and says “I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature.”
You have not been stung enough times by the “scorpion” of compromise. Compromise is touted as a sort of Holy Grail these days; an end unto itself. The problem is, one side can simply exaggerate what they want, so that when compromise is reached, they got everything they wanted in the first place. (See my Ron Paul “poker” scenario below.)
The Democrats are, and have always been better negotiators for their causes. It’s not because they are smarter. It’s built into the system. Ostensibly, the perfect Republican position would be based 100% upon the Constitution. One can’t get more constitutional than 100%. Therefore, all a Republican can do is to undo previous losses. A Democrat can take the legal ball and roll with it, as far as he can take it. And due to our dependence on precedent (again, see below), it gets harder and harder for the Republican to undo those losses.
If the Republicans decide to cut military spending, that “common ground” you dream of will evaporate faster than a fart in a hurricane.

b. We are effectively broke. Right now we have the option of an orderly withdrawal of US forces. Soon, that will no longer be an option. It is akin to both the fall back of the British and Roman empires. They intervened abroad until they were dead in the center. The British were lucky to be allies with the Americans in WWII. The Romans weren’t so lucky, and were sacked. We are becoming the sick old superpower, that everyone knows is going to fall. But it is reversible,. The American century was not so because of our bombs, subs, ships or soldiers. All the other countries have had the same. It was our century because our economy became so explosive, so vital, that we became the indispensable world power. That power came from American ingenuity at home, innovation, hard work, resources, law, freedom, all the core components of Dr. Paul’s domestic policy. Dr. Paul’s foreign policy works primarily because his domestic policy is so strong. With it, we will see a quick depression – and then a liquidation of the malinvestment of the last decade. After 2, maybe 3 years of a contracting economy, housing prices will be at equilibrium, debt will be manageable, and the economy will explode again. Why? Because of the American people. Don’t ever trust a politician who says they will deliver jobs. That is the province of the American people, applying their skills, knowledge, innovation and desire to create production, which is the engine of wealth. It is only up to the government to create the environment that jobs are created in, with order, and law and justice and free enterprise.

We are indeed broke. But I would disagree with your cause and effect of the 20th century. Ironically, our greatest periods of economic expansion have come after our most vulgar displays of power (Pantera…ROCK ON!). WW1 begat the roaring 20’s, and WW2 begat the 50’s expansion. It’s as if we all do better when the realities of life and death become tangible, and we are swelled with national (some would say jingoistic) pride, and are more focused on just working hard and enjoying life. Or maybe people just get conditioned to the hustle and bustle of military production pace, and it hangs over a while.
I am all for cutting government spending (I would wager I’m more hardline in that department than even you), but we will have a fight on our hands. The crux of the problem is that we can’t seem to accept why we are a dying old superpower. There are far too many idle hands and minds. People expect a life of luxury, with no sweat input. I laughed out loud the other day when I read the “Occupy Wall Street” list of suggested salaries for occupations. It is ironic that they think they are fighting to save the country, when they are in fact its death knell.

One last thing. The Constitution vests the full power to declare war in the US Congress. Paul is no longer running for Congress. He is running for President. He is the only candidate running for President in the last 14 years who actually believes that it is the role of congress, and not the President, to declare war. As such a strict constitutionalist, should Congress declare war, even if Paul disagrees, I believe that he will do his duty as commander-in-chief. It is important to note that the primary power that people have been downing Paul for, is, according to Paul, not one of the powers he wants.

I’m with you on this. The military has become the personal and political plaything of the President (much as the courts have taken over legislation). However, and I am only speaking pragmatically, given the current state of affairs in Congress, I am not sure it wouldn’t be worse. This bunch of clowns can’t even pass a budget. I wonder if the downside of a President acting unilaterally isn’t at least infinitesimally better than a Congress who might refuse to declare a necessary war over some domestic oil pipeline squabble. That’s probably just my moral fatigue showing though. I’ve been arguing politics for over 30 years, and maybe I’m hitting a lull.
As for Ron Paul, I am not so concerned with his ability to fight a war. Even FDR, the worst president in history (give Obama time, folks) was effective at commanding the troops. I am concerned with his perceived weakness being an invitation to attack. The threat of military force is and always will be a part of diplomacy. Ron Paul is not a very good poker player. It’s one thing entirely to never bluff. But to wear like a badge of courage that you’ll never bluff is suicide.

You asked me about my thoughts on originalism in interpretation and adherence to judicial precedent. I think that trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution is what the first purpose of the Supreme Court should be. If the original meaning of the text is clear, its not the duty of the Court to try and get around it. The problem with this is the necessary and proper clause, which authorizes Congress to do what is necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. It effectively expands power, as it should –without the clause, Congress would be pretty impotent even to carry out its enumerated powers. Then you have judicial interpretations of the meaning of the commerce clause, which in my opinion after NRLB steel and especially Wikard v. Filburn went off the reservation. The Court tried to reign in the expansion of the clause in the mid 90s, but it really had little practical change IMO. The upcoming Obamacare case will be huge, but I’m afraid it will be upheld unless they want to turn their back on Wickard.

Respect for judicial precedent is one of those things that makes good sense, but only to a point. People need to know what the law is, and have a rational basis to believe it will probably remain the same. But when there are so many bad precedents set, like I would argue Roe and Wickard and Kelo, those do need to be overruled. Oftentimes the Court uses respect for precedent as an excuse for whatever they may find. The shocking, perhaps not too shocking thing I think people find when they study constitutional law is the variation in the Courts opinions, the weird angles, the places where even people who are supposed to be textualists stop reading the plain text (Scalia, from time to time can be accused of not following the text despite his reputation). Its an incredibly hard job to apply a 200 year old document, and the question is, when arguments can be made for either interpretation, which one do you choose? The tiebreaker is often personal political ideas, hidden by clever justifications, or sometimes, adherence to precedent.

Precedent, by its very nature relies on interpretation of the Constitution, rather than adherence to. The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted. It was mean to be taken as is, or amended. It still amazes me; the wisdom of the Framers to have so little ego invested as to include a means to undo what they did.
Precedent is a very dangerous concept. Can one person change the country? Questionable. Can five? Absolutely, and they do it all the time in the SCOTUS. What makes precedent so repugnant to me is that it really represents a “guild” mentality on the part of the legal profession. Lawyers (and I’m sure you can back this up for me, Billy) when arguing a point, too often fall back on “well so-and so Court ruled a certain way and set precedent, so that’s the way it is,” rather than asking if that decision was correct to begin with. Precedent means “if we screwed up, we have to keep screwing up, rather than dishonor a past justice by overturning his ruling.” Whatever happens, don’t rock the boat.
My “favorite” example of this is Everson v. Department of Education, 1947. Regardless of how anyone feels about public displays of religion, I should hope that anyone would be offended over what started it. A penny ante case over parents being reimbursed for bus fares for their children to get to school, whether it be public or parochial. Seriously?!?! For that minor dispute, we somehow arrive at the complete banishment of all things religious from the public square? Even Black knew the case was a loser. So the court actually found in favor of the plaintiff, and the Catholics continued to be reimbursed by the state. This was a masterful stroke, as he gave the Catholics what they wanted, keeping them happy, while setting them up for a crushing defeat. He snuck “separation of church and state” into the argument. It was legislation by sleight of hand. It’s as if I prosecuted you for Crime A, then decided what you did wasn’t actually Crime A, but merely Action B, and while you celebrate your acquittal, quietly convince everyone Action B is actually Crime B.
It’s clear that Black’s majority opinion was nothing more than a vehicle for him to push his anti-Catholic agenda. Black exploited precedence as a means to do what Congress could and rightfully would not. (By the way, I don’t fail to notice the sweet irony of Black being a much vaunted U of A alma mater.)
Now Everson is accepted as unassailable. They’ve already based too much other bad law upon it. There is no way back to the Constitution without overthrow of the government.

He is actually in this race not to win, but to lay the groundwork for a new understanding of political conservatism. In that respect, he is similar to Barry Goldwater.

So you do agree with my assessment that Paul is acting as a foil. He does have an effect, even if he doesn’t win. Republicans are no different from Democrats in that unchecked, they will become corrupt. When they won big in 1994, I think most of them really believed in what they were doing. But by 1998, it was business as usual again in Congress. We had traded one group of crooks for another. Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent others like him, help keep the Republicans from going off the other edge.

[WTL]

bloody hell, I have to respond to a point by point response.....oh well, come back tonight....damn

[bamabassman]

hahahaha.......now THIS is interesting fellas. truly what i think AMERICA, oops.....i mean, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is all about. TALKING it out and governing ourselves. DEBATE IS AN AWESUM THING. POINT.COUNTERPOINT.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Damn you, Billy...you're going to get me fired.



Billy, as Neanderthal as it may seem, I think age, statesmanship, and overall masculinity are important. When we are dealing with the Middle East and their androcentric culture, perceived strength is important. In the eyes of most hardline Arabs, Paul would be only slightly more intimidating than Hilary Clinton, and probably only because they wouldn’t require him to wear a burqa just to talk to them. Remember, it doesn’t matter how nice, smart, thoughtful you are…if you can’t lead. And our own citizens aren’t that much better. Making fun of things like James Stockdale’s thick glasses and hearing problems (the result of POW torture, come on people…shameful!), Chris Christie’s weight, and Janet Reno’s manliness are still perceived as fair game. Believe me, I can always tell when I win an argument. It’s usually when my weight enters the discussion. Unfortunately, even in this day and age it is better to have Mitt Romney’s hair than Ron Paul’s earnestness.
Empirically speaking, Paul comes off as kind of goofy. I’d love if he were my neighbor, but the man will never be President.

No argument. I support most of his policies, not the man. I think 75 is too old unless you are a freak of nature. He is not. He is a freak of politics, but not nature.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I agree with you as to the mechanism, but not your conclusion. Arabs have been adversarial to the U.S. since its inception. We certainly weren’t bombing them then. In fact, it was only our bombs that stopped them raiding our ships and enslaving our men. Perhaps that response just became a habit. My position is that it is the media that has emboldened them. They know that there will be a certain anti-American segment of our own population that will come to their defense, no matter the wrong they have done, and been justly punished for.

I agree that Islam has historically been a warlike religion, which might take your point farther than you do...but there is something called a distinction without a difference. So we agree if you cross them, they go nuts. So do the russians, and about half a dozen other people. Does that imply that the more prudent council is to continue to thunk their eyes, or is it better to back off and give them their crappy desert part of the world?

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

This issue is complicated, as we did indeed make use of Saddam as a tool against Iran for a long time. Whether the WMD’s were there or not is still debatable. The fact is they have never been found, so it would appear the threats were unfounded. However, I will say that there is still a price to be paid for empty threats. In this country at least, it is against the law to threaten someone, though it is rarely enforced, unless the threat is credible. I guess when one decides to make empty threats, one forfeits the right to cry foul when someone takes the threats seriously.

Yeah, you are looking at it from the point of view of justification. Put that aside. DO we want war with Iran? Is it worth it to us? I would say we might be justified in taking another country out, and still decide not to do it because it is too dangerous. See the distinction?

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I’m sure a little hostage situation in the 70’s might have had something to do with it too. Yes, the Iraq war brought it out, but the hatred of the U.S. has been with Iraq since the Shah.

Yes, its an old fight.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I am not a fan of the “win the hearts and minds” strategy being implemented by the military. Especially in an area where we are already hated. I say this in all seriousness. Let them wallow in their own squalor. If they ever want our help, they will ask for it.

But the problem with that is when you are fighting a war where victory is defined politically, you are trying to get the people to do something political (accept liberal democracy as opposed to maoist communism or wahabi islam). You cannot acheive that victory without "hearts and minds". Your conception of war as being merely a means of subversion is actually more akin to mine, as I deny that there should be wars fought for complicated political motives.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I am in favor of either doing something about him, or shutting up. Much like Saddam Hussein, he has made lots of threats. It wouldn’t break my heart if he were to turn up “late” for breakfast one morning. Ironically, we never actually did anything to Chavez in the beginning. Venezuelans were just poor (and angry) because the price of oil was so low. As we know today, the U.S. does not set the price of oil.
Chavez came to power about the same time were obsequiously handing over the Panama Canal to Panama, despite us bearing all of the cost of its construction and maintenance. Once again, in an effort to kiss Latin America’s arse, Carter only invited more open hostility. Chavez learned well how to deal with America.

Kill him and you got another one in his place to worry about.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

No disagreement here. Giuliani is nothing special. He gets cancer, cheats on his wife, and demogogues just like everyone else. I will give him credit for having the stones to clean up Times Square.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Bush was only popular because people were scared. The right loved him because they “knew” he would go to war, and the left accepted him because he hadn’t…”yet.” You can see that only one of those positions is sustainable, so I wouldn’t put much stock in a poll number non sequitur. Just think of the poll numbers of the President who has Ahmadinejad assassinated! (just kidding here…or am I?)

I'm pointing this out to show how if we attack Iran, it will make Ahmadinejad more popular. It doesnt seem as you have rebutted the point.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I’ve heard this many times as an example of how we are inconsistent. This is not true. Even Marcus Aurelius knew to fight only the battles you think you can win and talk your way out of the others if you can. But it is not a valid excuse to stop other nations graduating from one category to the other.

Its not a matter of inconsistency that I am talking about. I am showing that consistently, we do not attack nations once they get nukes, and this provides the incentive to get nukes. You don't rebut this.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

You make it sound so easy. They’ll just “get some nukes.” I agree with it being rational that they don’t like it when we exert our influence. I wouldn’t either if I were them. But the reality is, we developed the nuke first, and thus the responsibility of the benevolent dictator (in this matter only) falls upon our shoulders. I would place the evil of us keeping them subjugated lower than the evil of them also obtaining nukes on the “we’re screwed now” meter. Just be glad they didn’t get nukes first.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

At the very least, an unpopular policy. Many Conservatives don’t actually believe what they think they believe. If we were to prove Social Security is unconstitutional, they still wouldn’t support repealing it. Especially after being subjected to nice pictures of grandma being rolled off a cliff in her wheelchair.

[B] We have elected many tyrants in the history of our country. Many of the same qualities that make someone a good leader are also found in tyrants. It’s hard to filter them out. Strangely enough, they never run on a platform of tyranny.
I would love to believe that somehow they were privy to details average Joe you and I never found out about, but I’m pretty sure it’s more mundane, like money, influence, or to distract from the embarrassment over getting caught receiving a hummer in the Oval Office. I think in the case of the Maine, there was some hostility already brewing, and once the shooting started, nobody wanted to admit the mistake made. Plus, we were right in the middle of the Victorian Era, when war was somewhat romanticized.
We need to get out of Korea. The South Koreans don’t really like us. They know they’re screwed without us, so they let us waste our money on them. Maybe we should threaten the Chinese with letting Japan invade them again. The Japanese seem to know how to handle the Chinese. (that’s just a little humor)

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Forget the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. We lost that war on our own shores. The combination of media sabotage, war profiteering, and general descent into dope-smoking hippydom turned the U.S. into a stumbling giant, afraid to commit to any singular course of action.

It didn't matter how many VC we killed, there was never to be vicotry there unless the south vietnamese had an ephiphany - something that wasn't likely to occur.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

First mistake: we fought for people who hate us, though it was to safeguard oil reserves and the stability they provide. Second (worst) mistake: We strayed from Marcus Aurelius again. When you fight a war, you make it as short, and final as possible. Wrong or right, Hussein had to die the moment the first shot was fired. Otherwise, you get what resulted: the perception (correct?) that the U.S. is a paper tiger at heart.

Agree that logically, Hussein had to be killed once we became involved, and this is why I supported the war in Iraq in 2003. But later we found out the political question of what comes next is something all the military strength in the world cannot solve.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

We do that a lot. It really has to do with the transitory nature of our government. Every 4 years our compass swings around 180 degrees, and we abandon all of the commitments the previous administration made. Not on paper, of course…but in reality, yes. There are no votes to be gained in maintaining the status quo. A crappy system for those who believe we are their ally.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

[B] The derision itself is certainly for this reason, but I would hope we don’t actually go to war to prove a political point. Perhaps it’s because we’re pigeonholed by our own bravado into following through on it, else admit being wrong. It goes back to good old Marcus Aurelius; never make threats you’re not willing to make good on.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I often say this to people I am arguing with, and though I don’t find it a complicated concept, they sometimes fail to grasp the subtleties of it. I think you will. I have no concern for the rationale for a person’s position; i.e. religious motivations for certain policies. I would only be concerned if it became the mechanism for instituting those policies. There is a huge difference between a nation of religious people and a theocracy. As for O’Reilly, I rarely watch him anymore. He has become far too enamored of his own voice. I will say though, that I think he did imply that the stupid thing was Paul saying it out loud; i.e., there will be a political price to pay. He may think the content was stupid too, for all I know. I don’t trust anything I hear at face value, so I have a hard time relating to what Grandpa Fred and Grandma Ethel get out of it.

Unless you watched the show, its impossible to fathom how stupid OReilly looked.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

No doubt here. Anywhere there is money to be made, you will always have ulterior motives. Eisenhower’s warning was solid advice. What we mustn’t do, however, is allow the hystericals on the other side to spew out “truth” about this unchecked. These are the same kind of rabid, uneducated idiots who put out Loose Change, a supposed expose about how the U.S. government brought down the Twin Towers; a film I can personally debunk in about 15 minutes. I’m sure you’ve had more than one experience with some dumb, smelly college hippie who knew everything about the evil industrial military complex, dude.

Thats why I prefaced it, I think it is overstated sometimes. But it exists. There is also a medical industrial complex, and a few others.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

You know I would not condescend to you lightly. You possess excellent inductive and deductive reasoning (at least one person told the review board that LOL), yet this matter is one purely of experience. I am reminded of the fable of the scorpion and the frog (very loosely told):
A scorpion stands at a river unable to cross. He spies a frog, whom he asks to carry him across the river. The frog is afraid, because he thinks the scorpion might sting him. The scorpion says “that’s crazy…if I sting you, we’d both drown.” So the frog agrees. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog, as he starts to die, asks “why did you do that?” The scorpion, beginning to sink, shrugs and says “I couldn’t help it. It’s in my nature.”
You have not been stung enough times by the “scorpion” of compromise. Compromise is touted as a sort of Holy Grail these days; an end unto itself. The problem is, one side can simply exaggerate what they want, so that when compromise is reached, they got everything they wanted in the first place. (See my Ron Paul “poker” scenario below.)

Who is to say I don't forsee comprimise at the end of this? I fully expect it, and want to start from a position of bargaining strength rather than weakness.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

The Democrats are, and have always been better negotiators for their causes. It’s not because they are smarter. It’s built into the system. Ostensibly, the perfect Republican position would be based 100% upon the Constitution. One can’t get more constitutional than 100%. Therefore, all a Republican can do is to undo previous losses. A Democrat can take the legal ball and roll with it, as far as he can take it. And due to our dependence on precedent (again, see below), it gets harder and harder for the Republican to undo those losses.
If the Republicans decide to cut military spending, that “common ground” you dream of will evaporate faster than a fart in a hurricane.

Precedent only holds as a judicial concept. The legislature can reverse itself into infinity.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

We are indeed broke. But I would disagree with your cause and effect of the 20th century. Ironically, our greatest periods of economic expansion have come after our most vulgar displays of power (Pantera…ROCK ON!). WW1 begat the roaring 20’s, and WW2 begat the 50’s expansion. It’s as if we all do better when the realities of life and death become tangible, and we are swelled with national (some would say jingoistic) pride, and are more focused on just working hard and enjoying life. Or maybe people just get conditioned to the hustle and bustle of military production pace, and it hangs over a while.

The 1990s too?

As for the 20s and 50s, your interpretation could be correct; OR, I could assert that we saw the delayed gains for 1916-17 and 1941(actually 29)-1945 finally come into reality. If war holds you back for a few years, and then ends, and the economy roars back - did it roar back because you engaged in war? Or stopped fighting? Chicken or the egg.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I am all for cutting government spending (I would wager I’m more hardline in that department than even you), but we will have a fight on our hands. The crux of the problem is that we can’t seem to accept why we are a dying old superpower. There are far too many idle hands and minds. People expect a life of luxury, with no sweat input. I laughed out loud the other day when I read the “Occupy Wall Street” list of suggested salaries for occupations. It is ironic that they think they are fighting to save the country, when they are in fact its death knell.

Okie dokie.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I’m with you on this. The military has become the personal and political plaything of the President (much as the courts have taken over legislation). However, and I am only speaking pragmatically, given the current state of affairs in Congress, I am not sure it wouldn’t be worse. This bunch of clowns can’t even pass a budget. I wonder if the downside of a President acting unilaterally isn’t at least infinitesimally better than a Congress who might refuse to declare a necessary war over some domestic oil pipeline squabble. That’s probably just my moral fatigue showing though. I’ve been arguing politics for over 30 years, and maybe I’m hitting a lull.
As for Ron Paul, I am not so concerned with his ability to fight a war. Even FDR, the worst president in history (give Obama time, folks) was effective at commanding the troops. I am concerned with his perceived weakness being an invitation to attack. The threat of military force is and always will be a part of diplomacy. Ron Paul is not a very good poker player. It’s one thing entirely to never bluff. But to wear like a badge of courage that you’ll never bluff is suicide.

Who is really going to sucker punch us? And if RP is as weak as you say, would that not actually turn RP from a dove into a hawk? Would that be a risk that some other country rationally would engage in? It would be as foolish as Pearl Harbor, except with the hindsight of that experiment. Trace my arguments about the history of the Old Right out, and you will see that the Old Right left the isolationist plantation on Dec 7 1941. Surely, that wont repeat again, but if it does, we will engage in total war and destroy the enemy just the same.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Precedent, by its very nature relies on interpretation of the Constitution, rather than adherence to. The Constitution was never meant to be interpreted. It was mean to be taken as is, or amended. It still amazes me; the wisdom of the Framers to have so little ego invested as to include a means to undo what they did.
Precedent is a very dangerous concept. Can one person change the country? Questionable. Can five? Absolutely, and they do it all the time in the SCOTUS. What makes precedent so repugnant to me is that it really represents a “guild” mentality on the part of the legal profession. Lawyers (and I’m sure you can back this up for me, Billy) when arguing a point, too often fall back on “well so-and so Court ruled a certain way and set precedent, so that’s the way it is,” rather than asking if that decision was correct to begin with. Precedent means “if we screwed up, we have to keep screwing up, rather than dishonor a past justice by overturning his ruling.” Whatever happens, don’t rock the boat.
My “favorite” example of this is Everson v. Department of Education, 1947. Regardless of how anyone feels about public displays of religion, I should hope that anyone would be offended over what started it. A penny ante case over parents being reimbursed for bus fares for their children to get to school, whether it be public or parochial. Seriously?!?! For that minor dispute, we somehow arrive at the complete banishment of all things religious from the public square? Even Black knew the case was a loser.

Stopping right there to note that Black claimed to be a type of originalist.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

So the court actually found in favor of the plaintiff, and the Catholics continued to be reimbursed by the state. This was a masterful stroke, as he gave the Catholics what they wanted, keeping them happy, while setting them up for a crushing defeat. He snuck “separation of church and state” into the argument. It was legislation by sleight of hand. It’s as if I prosecuted you for Crime A, then decided what you did wasn’t actually Crime A, but merely Action B, and while you celebrate your acquittal, quietly convince everyone Action B is actually Crime B.
It’s clear that Black’s majority opinion was nothing more than a vehicle for him to push his anti-Catholic agenda. Black exploited precedence as a means to do what Congress could and rightfully would not. (By the way, I don’t fail to notice the sweet irony of Black being a much vaunted U of A alma mater.)
Now Everson is accepted as unassailable. They’ve already based too much other bad law upon it. There is no way back to the Constitution without overthrow of the government.

There are functional arguments for precedent that do hold water. I agree when a decision is obviously wrong, precedent should hold no water, but functionally, it is helpful.

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

So you do agree with my assessment that Paul is acting as a foil. He does have an effect, even if he doesn’t win. Republicans are no different from Democrats in that unchecked, they will become corrupt. When they won big in 1994, I think most of them really believed in what they were doing. But by 1998, it was business as usual again in Congress. We had traded one group of crooks for another. Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent others like him, help keep the Republicans from going off the other edge.

Thats the point, isn't it? I don't think he will run as a 3rd party candidate, but yea, he is liberated from trying to come up with electable positions. Must be nice. And he is on the verge of winning Iowa doing it. Amazing. I think he has done more than any other GOP politician to strengthen the party, and the idiots in Washington don't even realize it. Go to a college campus and see what the political factions support. There, Paul is like Obama is at a union rally. And that is going to be the future of the GOP, albeit with some defections (Hillary was once a Goldwater girl, Greenspan was an Ayn Rand "accolyte")

-------------

Now, what will you say the crux of your argument is? You haggle a bit here and there, and I try to correct it, but when we add it all up, what are you saying? That we can engage in almost constant war, and still remain safe?

[WTL]

By the way, trying to keep track of such a post is difficult...lets figure out a better way to stick on certain points, cause damn....I spent more time figuring out the quote source code.

[WTL]

Not to mention, everyone is assuming we could stop their nuke program. Its a secret nuke program. If we strike surgically, there is little guarantee we destroy all we need to. And if we engage in all out war, well the country does not have the will for that. Iran will be the toughest nation we fight since Japan. They are moving up a couple classes from the Vietnamese or Iraqis.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

Now, what will you say the crux of your argument is? You haggle a bit here and there, and I try to correct it, but when we add it all up, what are you saying? That we can engage in almost constant war, and still remain safe?

Well, I think you were mistaken in your presumption that I would be in disagreement with you about everything. Surprising, as we have "haggled" many times before. Since we got off on too many tangents to ever explore successfully, given the limited interactivty of a web forum, I will try to bring my "crux" back to a more manageable proposition.

I think the main topic should probably have stayed more about Ron Paul.

I disagree with Paul on foreign policy. He is an idealist, a trait widely shared with young, fresh-faced, enthusiastic college kids. It is very easy to be an idealist when one has no skin in the game yet. I still have my ivory tower moments myself, so I can understand his appeal.

No, we can not engage in almost constant war, and especially not when our domestic house in is such disarray. We should pick our wars more carefully, but engage in them more ferociously when we do.

I would gladly let Iran and the rest of the Middle East alone, but for two things: oil and Jews. Big surprise. Since we're commited, we have to win.

We can't abandon one, and I don't want to abandon the other. Ron Paul has as much as said Israel can take care of itself.

By the way, trying to keep track of such a post is difficult...lets figure out a better way to stick on certain points, cause damn....I spent more time figuring out the quote source code.

Perhaps we can just try to stick to one point at a time, and back off if we start to wander.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

Not to mention, everyone is assuming we could stop their nuke program. Its a secret nuke program. If we strike surgically, there is little guarantee we destroy all we need to. And if we engage in all out war, well the country does not have the will for that. Iran will be the toughest nation we fight since Japan. They are moving up a couple classes from the Vietnamese or Iraqis.

By the way...I do not want to go to war with Iran. It is still very avoidable. They can still be cowed, but it will take a very strong President.

I agree they would be tough to defeat, but consider they have almost no oil refining capability. No gasoline...No jet fuel. That is why an Iran with a nuke is very dangerous. It will be their only bargaining chip.

[WTL]

Oil is not a real reason to go to war with them. They sell it to us and will continue to do so unless we declare war. They value money more than religion. And we have enough oil that, should we be forced to choose, we should choose to drill rather than fight.

The Jews are strong and can take care of themselves. They are no different than South Korea.

I don't think the non-interventionist plank is so idealistic. It is naive and idealistic to think you can subdue the world, and make everyone like you through force,. It is pragmatic to see that as impossible, and instead to decide to concentrate on domestic interests. Recasting it as otherwise shows how far astray we have gone. Remember, avoid entangling alliances.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

Oil is not a real reason to go to war with them. They sell it to us and will continue to do so unless we declare war. They value money more than religion. And we have enough oil that, should we be forced to choose, we should choose to drill rather than fight.

The Jews are strong and can take care of themselves. They are no different than South Korea.

I don't think the non-interventionist plank is so idealistic. It is naive and idealistic to think you can subdue the world, and make everyone like you through force,. It is pragmatic to see that as impossible, and instead to decide to concentrate on domestic interests.

Oil was more of a Middle East in general reason. As in Kuwait and Saddam.

Sidebar on Israel: If a Republican President ever officially abandoned Israel, would American Jews switch sides?

Your last paragraph has some straw man embedded in it. I do not think force produces "like". I believe it only produces "won't bother again." But it has to be done effectively. With the eggshell walking our military is forced to endure anymore, I'm not sure we could clear out an OWS camp.

Oh, I agree about avoiding entangling alliances. The irony is, people are always calling for coalitions. What are those, if not entangling alliances?

[WTL]

Anybody who wants to introduce democracy, ala the neoconservatives, are walking in the highly unsuccessful shoes of one Woodrow Wilson. THAT should give conservatives pause.

[WTL]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I do not think force produces "like". I believe it only produces "won't bother again." But it has to be done effectively. .

Experience disproves this,. See the blowback theory. (concedes there was a bit of a strawman, but its besides the point)

[WTL]

Are you under the impression that the jews vote republican? Cause I'm not.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by WTL

Anybody who wants to introduce democracy, ala the neoconservatives, are walking in the highly unsuccessful shoes of one Woodrow Wilson. THAT should give conservatives pause.

At least I know that you use the term "neocon" correctly. I'm tired of hearing bombthrowers use it merely for its somewhat vague parallelism with "neo-Nazi". Which brings me to another term nobody seems to actually understand when they throw it about: facist...but I digress. I am on record (to MUCH eyeball-rolling) as being against democracy, at least at the federal level. The word democracy is in neither the Declaration nor the Constitution, yet it is taken as gospel. The Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government. I can't remember the Amendment (15th?) where they made election of Senators by popular vote. What a disaster.

Sorry to digress further, but I think you made a point earlier about Hugo Black being an originalist? You know, I can see that, but I'm sure he was mostly interested in a "pre-3/5 of a man" kind of originalism.

Originally Posted by WTL

Experience disproves this,. See the blowback theory. (concedes there was a bit of a strawman, but its besides the point)

I will have to look into the blowback theory, as I have not heard of it.

Are you under the impression that the jews vote republican? Cause I'm not.

I was actually stressing that they vote Democrat, despite Republicans generally being far more protective of Israel (Paul excluded). Maybe it was just a bad attempt at black humor.

[WTL]

Its crucial to understand the idea of blowback to understand Paul's foreign policy. Simply put, it is the idea that intervention creates negative externalities that would not have occurred but for that intervention.

Without understanding this point, its easy to see how you would think that Paul just wants us to go in the hole and pretend that the boogeyman doesn't exist.

__________________________________________________ ________________
We actually don't dwell too much in studying the historical figures of the law. For instance, they will never ask you what Cardozo's legal philosophy was on a test.

But I can recall from some independent reading that Black defined his originalism as being tempered by a HEAVY deference for the legislative branch. So, if Congress passes a law, his understanding of the Constitution was such that it almost required him to defer to their judgment. Kinda makes him a good pal of FDR.

[WTL]

Something interesting for you on neoconservatism, from wiki (so it must be true)

Michael Lind wrote:

"Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party's tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for "democracy." They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians."

"The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel."[31]

Lind's "amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of 'the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement' [in Lind's words]" was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[32] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of "the New York intellectuals".[33][34] Most were socialists, social-democrats, or liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many supported Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who criticized the human-rights violations of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[35]

[nofearengineer]

Okay, I understand the concept. I just hadn't heard the term. And it is 100% correct. But it's incomplete. For lack of a better word, there is also "blowforward." That would be externalities produced by inaction.

Take a look at Everson and see if you agree with my view. By my understanding the Supreme Court can not rule on matters not at hand. My reasoning says that the very fact that they ruled in favor of the plaintiff necessarily invalidates the other part of the opinion. It is a contradiction that offends my sensibilities greatly.

The neocon stuff is great. I (perhaps too much) simplify it by defining them as Democrats who hang out with Republicans because they like to fight wars.

Anyway, I will of course, continue to read about all of this. I'm sure there will be some more posts in the day to come. If I don't stop now, I'm going to wake up in the middle of the night with the urge to post some drivel.

[WTL]

OK, lets call a moratorium till tomorow, otherwise I will start dissecting preventative war, ahem, blowforward.

[Dogmatic]

It's funny watching two "conservatives" stroke each others egos, like there is some real debate going on.

[kennethdaysale]

Originally Posted by WTL

And that guy who got overrun in his own house in 1947 by some other family from poland is still living on the street in front of you, and you are somehow totally siding with the people who kicked the first owner out.

Given these activities on your part, do you not understand that the guy right next door to you is looking into protection?

You may disagree with my characterization of each instance. I might disagree with some of them. But from the Iranian's perspective, there is good reason to be scared as hell of america and wanting to get that one magic weapon which prevents America from invading.

If this supposed to be the Iranian perspective so be it....if this your take on 47-48 you've got some "splaining" to do mister.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Dogmatic

It's funny watching to "conservatives" stroke each others egos, like there is some real debate going on.

Are you blind? Conservatives can disagree and still be respectful. Because our debate is on an intellectual level and not an irrational, emotional level, it seems like ego stroking to you. I suppose your only understanding of debate would be namecalling, and angry logical fallacies. But then again, you are a liberal.

There...is that better? Does that qualify as "real debate?"

[bassboogieman]

I thought you went to bed HOURS ago, or I'd have called you with my two cents...............