|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
My view is that the thread title is wrong. RP's ideas are still fringe. What's changed is that the 'conservative' party has drifted (read:lunged, stampeded) even farther to the right.
There's some theory whose name I can't recall at the moment that says in politics there is a 'window' of acceptable ideas. By asserting a wild and flakey idea you can expand the window of what is acceptable because it makes the formerly fringe seem moderate in comparison. That's what's been happening.
The Second Coming (WB Yeats) 1921
"...Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand...
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
A year ago the world felt like it was ending the day after tomorrow. It's natural some would grasp at straws.
Bad news (for some): The center will hold and RP will return to his hard-earned obscurity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
My view is that the thread title is wrong. RP's ideas are still fringe.
Bad news (for some): The center will hold and RP will return to his hard-earned obscurity. |
Wishful thinking.
This is your tactic, right? Calling what some people believe 'wishful thinking?' The problem is that its a criticism without any substance. Obviously, it could be wishful thinking, but that doesn't make it wrong.
We need to wrest RP's ideas from RP himself and get a better salesman. I'm sorry to say this, but one of the problems with RP is he's simply too old. There needs to be someone who can be RP the younger. But so far I dont think Rand has what it takes. We'll see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, and advocating isolationism may be conservative yet again. The original neo-conservatives were against nation-building until Clinton came along. It flips at least once a generation.
|
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that conservatives have, at the very least since the end of WW2, been very pragmatic in regards to America's role in the world.
| Quote: |
I'd like you to expand on this. HOW has Ron Paul been so wrong and HOW often? |
A pretty appropriate example would be how anytime Ron Paul says anything, or is even mentioned, an anti-Israel discussion emerges.
Then, people repeat his points on Israeli aid, forgetting the biggest and most important reason why we prop up their government:
We want them to do the dirty work for us. They have to gather superior intelligence by means of necessity. They act as convenient decoy for Arab ire, they strike against weapons caches and facilities that would otherwise greatly destabilize the region in regards to Western interests, and they absorb the Lion's share of the blame for it.
I share a lot of Ron Paul's beliefs...and I quite possibly hate government more than he does. Not many can attest to that. That said, I believe government libraries are a great thing. He is against them. Government providing access to what is at worst indoctrinating media is still better than the potential of "private" libraries to limit access to one who wishes to learn. It is better to be taught something -even an idealogy- than it is to remain empty of knowledge.
He feels that a separation of church and state is unnecessary. A true conservative would not trust a government allied with a religion. He has repeatedly cited racists and worse in his newsletters, sometimes throwing himself under the bus. Ron Paul then blames it on a ghost writer after it comes back to bite him, although he had maintained that it was all him.
Here's a TNR aggregate site documenting a bit of that scandal:
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
I think it's beyond appalling that the democrats have, as their senate-president pro-tempore, Robert Byrd, a well-known former Kleagle in the KKK, who wrote secret letters to KKK leaders declaring his support YEARS after publicly renouncing the Klan. This is the man third-in-line for the presidency. It's as unthinkable as having a Pope who was a former Nazi. Oh.
That said, your political affiliation does not excuse you. Ron Paul is suspicious of government, and that's good. But his mistrust does not end there. He is suspicious of gays. He is suspicious of blacks. He is suspicious of pretty much everyone who is different from him. Such an outlook is bad for not only him, but the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what. Are you really pretending to be a "conservative"?
Barney Frank had a brothel being run out of his house. George Bush went AWOL. The entire Congress is bought and paid for. People can do rather distasteful things in the past and go on to normal careers. The focus on Ron Paul's (Lew Rockwell's) comments is really weak and shows a mind that is unable to see the strings pulling the story.
He has been right for a long time. Really right. Bang on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes, and advocating isolationism may be conservative yet again. The original neo-conservatives were against nation-building until Clinton came along. It flips at least once a generation.
|
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that conservatives have, at the very least since the end of WW2, been very pragmatic in regards to America's role in the world. |
Pragmatic? What does that mean?
I'm not trying to pick on you. That word has been thrown around a lot lately, especially just over a year ago by our current campaigner-in-chief. It just doesn't especially mean much to me. Do you mean realist, per se? Because that went out the door with W. Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do some of you disagree with Ron Paul's financial ideas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="thecount"]
| Quote: |
Y
Then, people repeat his points on Israeli aid, forgetting the biggest and most important reason why we prop up their government:
We want them to do the dirty work for us. They have to gather superior intelligence by means of necessity. They act as convenient decoy for Arab ire, they strike against weapons caches and facilities that would otherwise greatly destabilize the region in regards to Western interests, and they absorb the Lion's share of the blame for it.
y. |
This.
And to add another thing. Until such time as America weans itself off the oil that comes from the Middle East...it only makes good sense to have a reliable ally over there with plenty of 'eyes' and 'ears' on the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emark
Joined: 10 May 2007
Location: duh, Korea?
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
you don't follow this forum much do you? |
What? People here on Dave's openly agree with and discuss 9/11 truth issues in an off topic thread somewhere? There is insightful and intelligent comments on FIAT currency and 3rd world enslavement from the Federal Reserve, World Bank and IMF? People are informing others about the maritime - admiralty jurisdiction laws (sorry, acts and statutes) are created upon and how to search out remedy to apply to these rules so we can end the consent game?
What? This is occurring on this forum? Nah! Couldn't happen.
You're right. I don't hang out in this area of Dave's. However, if what I mentioned is being thoughtfully discussed ... Noam Chomsky would be proud! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhuntingtonus
Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Location: Jeonju
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was a big Ron Paul supporter two years ago. I think he is orders of magnitude better than other candidates, and the value of his ideas has been borne out since.
The only substantive comment I saw about him by a major columnist was one who said Paul "apparently wants all financial transactions to be conducted in pieces of eight." That doesn't seem like such a bad idea NOW, does it?
Thank you Mises, even if I do miss your pig avatar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding RON PAUL. REPUBLICANS have such a huge DISCONNECT with him. I mean, on one hand, they SAY they want fiscal responsibility, but when a Ron Paul comes along, they want nothing to do with him.
I've always thought that element of the Republican Party is one of the biggest lies they got going, and SOMEDAY it'll really bite them in the butt when a real 'Republican/Libertarian' like Ron Paul GETS the support, and their party ISN'T able to ridicule him to nothingness and he gets voted in.
Much like their OTHER opposite interest group, the crazy religious wackos with current ringleader SARAH PALIN. Your general mainstream Republican really wants nothing to do with her whatsoever, but they keep catering to that element of the population for their votes, and they might get stuck with her.
---
Personally I have a Ron Paul leaning myself, but I don't see mainstream Republicans ever truly allowing that element of their voting contingency to get any kind of power whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
So what. Are you really pretending to be a "conservative"?
Barney Frank had a brothel being run out of his house. George Bush went AWOL. The entire Congress is bought and paid for. People can do rather distasteful things in the past and go on to normal careers. The focus on Ron Paul's (Lew Rockwell's) comments is really weak and shows a mind that is unable to see the strings pulling the story.
He has been right for a long time. Really right. Bang on. |
It is not Barney Frank's personal life that disgusts me; it is his political one. I fail to see, however, what Frank, Bush or Paul's shortcomings have to do with my conservatism. If you are implying that I am somehow a moral hypocrite, let me disappoint you: I'm not pushing moralistic lifestyles like your perception of the right, or endorsing bleeding-heart legislation like my perception of the left. In fact, it is emotional and self-righteous demagogues on both sides who are the enemies of the true conservative. I talked at length about Paul's philosophical faults and explained why these divides are so great as to forever separate him from the ranks of the politically enlightened.
Perhaps it is Ron Paul who is PRETENDING to be conservative. I would more easily characterize him as radically isolationist and anti-government to a fault. In this day and age, the FED is not just "too big to fail;" it's actually acting as an important obfuscation of economic turmoil. Without the FED, we can kiss foreign investment goodbye, and we face the possibility of a REAL recession. Not this hollow doomsday crap that the politicians and news anchors have bandying about...I mean an honest-to-goodness money-under-the-mattress recession. We absolutely cannot abolish the FED until our country owes no money to foreign powers. With over $63 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm), we will not clime out of debt for a very long time...unless either we face a 75-year-period of double-digit economic growth (we grew ~3.2% yearly in the 90's) or dramatic policy adjustments. This is on top of the $122k in credit card / mortgage debt etc. that the average American has, as well as increased job loss rates and a still falling job market. Not going to happen. Any conservative should know this. Ron Paul doesn't.
What Ron Paul also does not know is that America cannot afford isolationist policies. Democrats are seen as beatniks, seeking to engage our enemies. Republicans are seen as war-hawks, seeking to egage (in a more military sense) our enemies.
Ron Paul seeks to...ignore them. Foreign policy becomes increasingly more important as the world becomes interdependent. To fail so massively on a core issue is to be a bad choice for America.
When John F. Kennedy was murdered, a speech - perhaps his greatest speech - went undelivered. In this speech, he was to say:
| Quote: |
| We in this country, in this generation, are, by destiny rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, goodwill toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago, "except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." |
And he was right; we ARE the watchmen of world freedom. It does not matter if we want to be or not; all that matters is what we choose to do about it.
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Pragmatic? What does that mean?
I'm not trying to pick on you. That word has been thrown around a lot lately, especially just over a year ago by our current campaigner-in-chief. It just doesn't especially mean much to me. Do you mean realist, per se? Because that went out the door with W. Bush. |
George Bush is not the Republican party. There is a reason why conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1, yet Obama won with such a majority. True conservatives did not feel that Bush represented their interests well. Much of the McCain campaign's strategy to court republicans centered around distancing himself from Bush.
As for pragmatism, A true conservative accepts the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. His every action is with that foremost in mind. This isn't pessimism or optimism; it's realism, and it is in short supply in both parties these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I really like Ron Paul, but electing him now and instituting fiscal responsibility would be like a chain smoker finally kicking the habit while laying on the deathbed and hooked up to tubes and an IV. It's too late. Our Ponzi scheme economy is way past the point of no return. We're able to have a Fantasyland economy for a little while longer, but we'll have to face a financial reality at some point. Then and only then will everyone realize we should've listened to wise men like Perot and especially Paul instead of trying to do things we could not afford. Deep down in our heart of hearts, we know we cannot repay the money we're borrowing and spending, but we continue to waste more and more money on ridiculous fantasies. We're junkies. Instead of Paul wasting his time telling American debt junkies to stop pissing away our economy, he'd probably have a more receptive audience telling heroin junkies in a gutter in Baltimore to kick their dope habit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
| Quote: |
Pragmatic? What does that mean?
I'm not trying to pick on you. That word has been thrown around a lot lately, especially just over a year ago by our current campaigner-in-chief. It just doesn't especially mean much to me. Do you mean realist, per se? Because that went out the door with W. Bush. |
George Bush is not the Republican party. There is a reason why conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1, yet Obama won with such a majority. True conservatives did not feel that Bush represented their interests well. Much of the McCain campaign's strategy to court republicans centered around distancing himself from Bush.
As for pragmatism, A true conservative accepts the world as it is, not as he wishes it to be. His every action is with that foremost in mind. This isn't pessimism or optimism; it's realism, and it is in short supply in both parties these days. |
I get your point, it makes sense. But McCain's foreign policy was an incoherent amalgamation of realism and idealism, so apparently he was lacking some conservative credentials, as well. I'm not convinced that realism is the conservative tradition, even though one of our strongest foreign policy Presidents, George Bush Sr., was a realist exemplar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, solid realists of our time: R. Nixon, G. Ford, and H. Kissinger; H.W. Bush; and, so far, B. Obama. J. McCain likely in this camp. Your journliast is probably confusing his campaign talk and pledges with his actual foreign affairs worldviews, Kuros. Another solid realist: C. Powell.
Solid idealists: J. Carter, R. Reagan, and W. Bush. A. Gore, had he won the presidency, would have taken idealism off the charts, beyond anything we have ever seen in American history, I suspect.
Hard to place W. Clinton and H. Clinton. Probably more Clintonists than anything else, actually.
In any case, realism/idealism not predictable by one's partisan inclinations and loyalties at all. And there is no short supply of realists in either party today. It is just that those we elect president and commander-in-chief do not always appreciate having realists in their foreign policy councils. Just ask Colin Powell, who served both the Reagan and W. Bush administrations and seemed frustrated with both.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:26 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Yes, solid realists of our time: R. Nixon, G. Ford, and H. Kissinger; H.W. Bush; and, so far, B. Obama. J. McCain likely in this camp. Your journliast is probably confusing his campaign talk and pledges with his actual foreign affairs worldviews, Kuros. Another solid realist: C. Powell.
Solid idealists: J. Carter, R. Reagan, and W. Bush. A. Gore, had he won the presidency, would have taken idealism off the charts, beyond anything we have ever seen in American history, I suspect.
Hard to place W. Clinton and H. Clinton. Probably more Clintonists than anything else, actually. |
What is Clintonism?
| Gopher wrote: |
| In any case, realism/idealism not predictable by one's partisan inclinations and loyalties at all. |
Right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
