Issues, Denials and Defensiveness

[Larry Gude]

I know!!!

While it may be true that we provide economic and military aid to Israel, we also provide it to a ton of other Middle East countries as well. I bet you can't guess who's second after Israel in the world as far as receiving US military aid?


That would be Egypt. We pay 80% of their military budget, which would be $1.3 billion that the US sends them annually. ANNUALLY. We send them millions more every year in economic aid.

At least Israel appreciates it. :shrug:

...I know!! pick me! Pick me! Egypt!?

 

[2ndAmendment]

...

Like I wrote before, I don’t think the founders anticipated the ease of travel, communications that can be used against us, and long-range weapons that can destroy an entire city. Being involved in other countries is in our best interest to keep us safe.

More than one founder was very clear on this.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson (First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1801) Reference: Inauguration Addresses of the Presidents

My ardent desire is, and my aim has been... to comply strictly with all our engagements foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home. - George Washington, letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1775 - Reference: The Writings of George Washington, Fitzpatrick, ed., vol. 34 (335)

 

[2ndAmendment]

...to us all;


John Quincy Adams's

Warning Against the Search for "Monsters to Destroy," 1821

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

And that folks is what Ron Paul was trying to say, but alas, eloquence of speech has been lost long ago. The message was the same. The words got in the way.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I never thought of liberty being exportable. I always thought it inherently existed in within us. That’s why this discussion is difficult for me. Most humans have a natural desire to come the aid of others. To help them obtain the same gifts we enjoy. We don’t want to idly stand by while a helpless country is raped and pillaged or ruled through fear and brutality. On the other hand, we risk our credibility and stature as an example (or beacon) of liberty when we force this rather than lead by example. And it’s equally complex, in today’s world, to not become isolated while minding our own business.

Then become a mercenary or just a volunteer and go fight the just cause for who ever you wish. Just don't drag the rest of us with you.

 

[PsyOps]

More than one founder was very clear on this.

...but to keep the U States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none.

This could be loosely interpreted as we should see to it that no country be subjected to tyranny or unprovoked invasion.

 

[PsyOps]

Then become a mercenary or just a volunteer and go fight the just cause for who ever you wish. Just don't drag the rest of us with you.

I typically respect and agree with your thoughts but you sure have a knack for closing one's mind.

 

[2ndAmendment]

This could be loosely interpreted as we should see to it that no country be subjected to tyranny or unprovoked invasion.

"They" refers to the U. States. Before the Civil War, the states were always referred to in the plural which they should still be. They were These United States not The United States.

So

...but to keep the U States free from political connections with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none.

means that each state be independent of all, and under the influence of none in the understanding at the time of George Washington. Context of history is everything in understanding the founders and the Constitution. Reading the Constitution with an understanding of the colonies and the Revolutionary War, it is not ambiguous at all. I dare say that the founders would have said it is lawful under freedom of speech to yell fire in a theater, but one would have to suffer the consequences of doing so. The founders saw no problem with individuals having the heavy artillery and war ships of the day.

 

[RadioPatrol]

YouTube

coming to the Party late ....


time to be Patriotic


WTF would hair plug Joe know about Patriotism ....

so if I want to keep more of MY money I an unpatriotic

 

[vraiblonde]

On the other hand, we risk our credibility and stature as an example (or beacon) of liberty when we force this rather than lead by example.

Leading by example is overrated. Some dictator in a diamond encrusted palace isn't going to go, "Geez, those folks over in the US seem to really have it together. I think I'll give all this up and try me some democracy."

The people may want to be free, but they have no choice in the matter. Very similar to slavery. And just like slavery, the North didn't merely lead by example - they said, "Look, emeffer, we're not messing around with you anymore. You're NOT leaving the Union and you're NOT keeping slaves!"

It would have been easy for the abolitionists to sit back and say, not my problem. Just like it's easy for us to sit back and say Iraq or North Korea or wherever isn't our problem. But at some point basic human decency has to come into play and someone has to stand up against tyranny.

War sucks. Mean people suck. And as long as there are mean, unreasonable people in the world, there will be war. It's just the way it is.

 

[vraiblonde]

And we can talk all day long about the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul and isolationism, but it's unlikely we'd have won OUR OWN independence if France and Spain hadn't jumped in.

 

[PsyOps]

Leading by example is overrated. Some dictator in a diamond encrusted palace isn't going to go, "Geez, those folks over in the US seem to really have it together. I think I'll give all this up and try me some democracy."

I think where I’m getting to on this is (and believe me, I have been the slowest of learners on this), as much as I want to jump in and destroy every living dictator and despot on this earth, we have to recognize the founding of this nation was entrusted in these few wise men that knew the consequences of applying our version of moral right; no matter how noble it may seem. And they were right, we are reaping those consequences. Do I like this? No! But it boils down to recognizing whether our constitution has real meaning across the board or just in places we pick and chose.

The people may want to be free, but they have no choice in the matter. Very similar to slavery. And just like slavery, the North didn't merely lead by example - they said, "Look, emeffer, we're not messing around with you anymore. You're NOT leaving the Union and you're NOT keeping slaves!"

It would have been easy for the abolitionists to sit back and say, not my problem. Just like it's easy for us to sit back and say Iraq or North Korea or wherever isn't our problem. But at some point basic human decency has to come into play and someone has to stand up against tyranny.

This discussion has woken me up to one thing… our constitution either has meaning or it doesn’t. It appears our founders were against going across the pond and forcing our will on them regardless of how noble or morally right it may be; except in defense of our homeland. Basic human decency requires me to go to every woman getting ready to have an abortion and stop her but where does that become my responsibility?

War sucks. Mean people suck. And as long as there are mean, unreasonable people in the world, there will be war. It's just the way it is.

I guess I can only ask why the US has to get involved in every conflict on this earth? I believe we did the right thing in Iraq. I believe it will be a better country for it just like Germany and Japan. Question is, was it constitutional and what do we do about that?

 

[2ndAmendment]

And we can talk all day long about the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul and isolationism, but it's unlikely we'd have won OUR OWN independence if France and Spain hadn't jumped in.

But they were asked by the colonists and they were already at war with England. They saw the colonies as allies.

It is not isolationism to mind one business. You can still trade. You can still travel. You can still have relations with other countries and not have troops stationed outside our borders or even have treaties with nations that will suck us into wars not of our own making.

It is hard to get in a fight if you mind your own business. If someone breaks down your door, your fight with everything you have and don't hold back; completely annihilate them. Those that see the result will probably not repeat the first offenders mistake.

Ever hear "Walk softly but carry a big stick." Words to live by for countries and people.

 

[vraiblonde]

But Ron Paul pointing out why the Lunatics state they attack us is not the same as Ron Paul stating we deserved it. This is what Rudy claimed Ron Paul was stating, and this is what Vrai swallowed without a second thought.

Go back, durhard, and show me where I said Paul said we "deserved" it.

I effing hate people like you and it pisses me off that an illiterate moron like yourself is allowed to vote in this country.

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's my post, so you don't have to strain what passes for your brain looking it up:

Ron Paul:

Ron Paul did in fact say that the 9-11 attacks were the US's fault. He said:


Why do they attack us? Because we've been in the Middle East and bombing Iraq for 10 years. His basic position is that if we weren't over there bothering them, they would leave us alone. So indeed he placed the blame for 9-11 on the shoulders of the US government for their intrusion into the Middle East.

There are a lot of people who believe this to be true - I've heard Larry say it any number of times. If we hadn't meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, they wouldn't hate us so much.

So what's the problem with just admitting that that is, in fact, what Ron Paul said, then debate the point rather than insist that he didn't say anything of the sort, when he's on tape and clearly blamed the US?

Part II coming up...

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah except that isnt what Ron Paul was saying. That is what RUDY said Ron Paul was stating.

You mistook a comment about why the Terrorists STATED They attacked us, as Ron Paul agreeing with it.

I QUOTED RON PAUL!!!

I effing QUOTED him. You can click that little arrow next to where I quoted myself and get the whole thing, if your tiny little pea brain can manage such an enormous task.

And with that, I am done with you. You have nothing intelligent to say and all you are is lies and bull####, and you're obviously just trying to piss me off.

 

[PsyOps]

I've always understood the same as you.

And I believe the Founding Fathers did also. Especially since its in the Declaration of Independence :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Without getting into the Creator part lmao, that is what is implied by the Self Evident and unalienable Rights. It is something the Founding Fathers recognized as an inherent right.

The Founding Fathers recognized that EVERYONE has these rights, but not all recognize it

I think our founders were trying to say they recognize everyone are entitled to these rights but it's not necessarily our responsiblity to liberate (through force) countries that don't.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think our founders were trying to say they recognize everyone are entitled to these rights but it's not necessarily our responsiblity to liberate (through force) countries that don't.

You've got it. It took a while, but you did.

It gets down to what is the business of these United States and what is not. While we believe that the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are inalienable and belong to all, it is not the duty or right of these United States to obtain through petition or force, those freedoms and rights for any other peoples.

 

[Toxick]

I QUOTED RON PAUL!!!

Yes, you did indeed quote Ron Paul. However, unfortunately you misrepresented - or giving you the benefit of the doubt: misinterpreted - what Paul said.

You start off with:
"Ron Paul did in fact say that the 9-11 attacks were the US's fault. He said:


And then you quote him with this:
"They attack us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."



Words I don't see in Pauls quote: "US's". "Fault".
Words I do see: "Irrationality".


And "Reagan"


Do you believe that Ron Paul is wrong when he said they attacked us because we've been over there?

I don't.

Why?

Because that's what Bin Laden ####ing said.


If you think OBL is simply lying in order to cover up his evil behind grandiose talk of policies and such, then go ahead. Me, I think the rotten bastard is evil incarnate - but I don't think he was lying in his manifesto. I believe that he believes every word he wrote.

 

[vraiblonde]

Do you believe that Ron Paul is wrong when he said they attacked us because we've been over there?

Not necessarily. That is one of the reasons they gave in the Osama Manifesto. That is not the only reason, obviously, because Muslims have been having issues since before there even WAS a United States. Not to mention bin Laden gave a few other reasons as well.

I do not think Ron Paul should have put it so boldly in a primary debate, and in fact he probably shouldn't have said it at all because, again, us being over there fiddling with them isn't the only reason they blow people up.

Indeed Ron Paul said that we instigated 9-11, and that can be interpreted to mean that he blames US policies for the WTC and Pentagon being bombed.

Did I say he said we "deserved" it?

No, I did not.

You all can defend Ron Paul all you want - he does indeed think that the US shouldn't be involved in certain foreign affairs, the Middle East being one of them, he has said so numerous times, and he also indicated that if we hadn't been over there getting in their business, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Which is bull####, but can also be interpreted to mean:

We brought it on ourselves.

And with that, I am done arguing with you Paulians about what the meaning of "is" is. Obviously the original point of this thread has totally gone over ya'lls heads because you're doing exactly what I said you all do - denying Paul said what he said, and being defensive about it.

 

[Toxick]

You all can defend Ron Paul all you want - he does indeed think that the US shouldn't be involved in certain foreign affairs, the Middle East being one of them, he has said so numerous times, and he also indicated that if we hadn't been over there getting in their business, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. Which is bull####, but can also be interpreted to mean:

We brought it on ourselves.

Anyone who interprets it that way, it's because they want to interpret it that way, or McCain and Giuliani have successfully transmogrified their brains.

And with that, I am done arguing with you Paulians about what the meaning of "is" is. Obviously the original point of this thread has totally gone over ya'lls heads because you're doing exactly what I said you all do - denying Paul said what he said, and being defensive about it.

The point of the thread did not go over my head, however I do think that it was initiated on a faulty premise and I challange that premise.



But if all you want to do is say " I'm done arguing with you because you won't accept my faulty premise", then I guess I'm done here with you too.