The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

MarieB

New Member
In the context of the discussion at the time I posted this, it was an important point to make because a reason people are voting for Romney is because they think Ryan as the VP pick will solve the budget problems. It won't.

Ryan has repeated over and over again that he and Romney have different views on some things, and that it's Romney's ticket and not his. (ie - Abortion, budget ideas, etc) Romney was also very clear that Ryan's budget blueprint did not match his.
 

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
I need to go back and reread his farewell speech. IMO it sounded like he was pretty hacked at the journalist and party bickering. He pretty much sided with Hamilton and understood the relationship with England (thus entanglement). He also understood the need for a strong military since Congress pretty much funded him a rag tag team of soldiers when he was fighting the British. I don't think his position would change much and would be happy to see what became of the United States.

Projecting our power to protect our trading is something that Washington would be for, Paul is not.
I don't agree that Paul wouldn't be for protecting our trading interests. He would be for military power as long as the threat to our national interests. Our ability to trade is absolutely in our national interests. I just don't see anything in the Paul platform that suggests what you allege. Perhaps we simply don't agree on what constitutes a real and articulable threat to national interest.
 

JoeRider

Federalist Live Forever
True, they're running around like a couple of John Galt wannabes. However a Romney/Ryan foreign policy team would be run by neo cons so does it really matter if they're not really neo cons?
Aw, I like the neo-cons, so yes, I would want to see them running our Foreign policy (I like Josh). If you give me a libertarian slant with a neo-con foreign policy then maybe you would have my interest. My excitement for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged has waned in my old age. I think Buckley lost interest in Rand, too.
 

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
Aw, I like the neo-cons, so yes, I would want to see them running our Foreign policy (I like Josh). If you give me a libertarian slant with a neo-con foreign policy then maybe you would have my interest. My excitement for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged has waned in my old age. I think Buckley lost interest in Rand, too.
The problem is that true libertarianism (ie market libertarianism) and neo con are mutually exclusive terms.

I passed through the Rand school as well. Interesting philosophy but not much use beyond academic wankery.
 

JoeRider

Federalist Live Forever
I don't agree that Paul wouldn't be for protecting our trading interests. He would be for military power as long as the threat to our national interests. Our ability to trade is absolutely in our national interests. I just don't see anything in the Paul platform that suggests what you allege. Perhaps we simply don't agree on what constitutes a real and articulable threat to national interest.
Project power is something beyond an isolationist approach which is the Libertarian platform. I love the ideal that we could say screw them and just focus on us, but with millions of illegal and legals coming in to this country, it is a reality that we have to be a world leader and the only way to do that is project power.

Tell me what counties throughout world history did not project power and still became economic powers with high standards of living? If there is one, it got there because it had entanglement with another powerful allies.

I actually think Bush I did not go far enough in Iraq and Bush II did not go far enough to take out Syria and check Iran. Because of it, I think we lost more lives than we would have if we cleaned house. I actually think we did not do our job because it would have had a huge impact on Israel and we did not want to risk it. As for Afghan, we need to get the hell out of there. Osama was a distraction we had under control. Afghan surge was a mistake as well as Bremer policies in Iraq. My Iraq friends tell me he really screwed things up when we had a great chance to change things in our favor. Same with the first Iraq War. We left them hanging. Same with the Afghan war with the Soviets, we left them hanging.

As for stabilizing the middle east, we helped that along pretty good with our Iraq move. The Arab spring stuff is slowing the progress down. Things were moving in the direction for Iran to collapse from within until Obama took office. Now the focus is back to Israel instead of destabilizing Iran. Iran and Syria are getting stronger with Russian and China support. Japan is now threaten again by China and the administration is sitting on its hands. Libya was a minor distract until our interference.

I really do not think the Libertarian understand foreign policy and how it impacts us. 43% budget cut in Military spending is not what we need. China and Russia are threats to us and any military edges we have are slowly slipping away.

Look at history and see the Romans, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire and tell me where Libertarian isolationist worked? Reality is that history will repeat itself and we need to be prepared.
 
Last edited:

JoeRider

Federalist Live Forever
The problem is that true libertarianism (ie market libertarianism) and neo con are mutually exclusive terms.

I passed through the Rand school as well. Interesting philosophy but not much use beyond academic wankery.
Yep, and they collect a lot of do nothing fruit cakes in the process. One of the problems with Rand. Totally agree is was an academic exercise. I have come to love the American Revolution and how the Americans banded together to become one of the strongest nations in the world. Only mistake IMO was how slavery was handled. Our 1800's would have propelled us into an earlier industrial revolution if we had not been so divided. Washington saw the writing on the wall, Jefferson did not, so we end up with the Civil War to distract us.

If our industrial revolution had started say 10 years earlier and we had not lost so many in the civil war, just think of the economic power we would have become before WWI and WWII. That alone might have been enough to have prevented both.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I have come to love the American Revolution and how the Americans banded together to become one of the strongest nations in the world.
Whaaa???? The US was NOT an international power until well after our civil war and American's didn't band together during our revolution. About a third were pro independence, a third pro England and a third held their cards until they saw a winner. :shrug:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If our industrial revolution had started say 10 years earlier and we had not lost so many in the civil war, just think of the economic power we would have become before WWI and WWII. That alone might have been enough to have prevented both.
Wow. You are a Neo con.

WWI was as preventable as any other European war prior to that. They bumbled their way into rivers of blood yet again. What WAS preventable was perhaps our first neo con, Wilson, getting us ensnared in their mess, a towering mistake that lead directly to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Absent us, Europe would have had to deal with one another as the equals they were instead of the Brits and French claiming a victory they didn't earn and Versailles and the horrors that followed.

:buddies:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Wow. You are a Neo con.

WWI was as preventable as any other European war prior to that. They bumbled their way into rivers of blood yet again. What WAS preventable was perhaps our first neo con, Wilson, getting us ensnared in their mess, a towering mistake that lead directly to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Absent us, Europe would have had to deal with one another as the equals they were instead of the Brits and French claiming a victory they didn't earn and Versailles and the horrors that followed.

:buddies:
You mean that horrible thing called democracy?
 

FoundingFather

New Member
Look at history and see the Romans, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the Ottoman Empire and tell me where Libertarian isolationist worked? Reality is that history will repeat itself and we need to be prepared.
Didn't all those empires collapse, at least in part, by an overextended military and currency debasement? Sounds familiar.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
I keep seeing that Libertarians are isolationists. This is FALSE. Libertarians are non-interventionists. There's a difference. Isolationists want to wall themselves in. Non-interventionists just don't want to go searching for trouble.
 

FoundingFather

New Member
I keep seeing that Libertarians are isolationists. This is FALSE. Libertarians are non-interventionists. There's a difference. Isolationists want to wall themselves in. Non-interventionists just don't want to go searching for trouble.
Correct. You can defend your nation without pre-emptive aggression.
 
E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
Wow. You are a Neo con.

WWI was as preventable as any other European war prior to that.

:buddies:


ONLY of people are willing to talk - back in the 1970s I read a copy of 'The Book of Lists'


on of the topics was 'reasons for wars starting ......... one was fought over a dog, Country A 's Border Troops liked, kept around, but Country B's Border Guards could not stand, the dog was a nusance running back and forth.


eventually B's killed A's DOG .... A's Troops retaliated, and one went the conflict











:popcorn:
 

FoundingFather

New Member
If you had very reliable information that someone was going to set your house on fire would you sit back and wait for it to happen?
What do you consider reliable information and what do consider proof?

A thought in someone's mind? Gasoline and matches in hand on my property? The latter of course I would take action, the former there's not much you can do.
 
Last edited:
Top