Ron Paul wins CPAC straw poll w/ 31%

[Umbro2914]

Sorry, Sarah, it's Ron Paul in a sweep!
Conservatives want the Texas congressman as their next President.
Paul was preferred by 31% of voters in the Conservative Political Action Conference's presidential preference straw poll yesterday, one of the strongest wins in CPAC history.
Sarah Palin, who skipped the group's conference, came in a distant third with 7% of the vote.
Paul ran for President in 2008 but didn't come close to claiming the GOP's nomination.
Mitt Romney, after topping CPAC's poll for the past three years, came in second, with 22% of the 2400 votes cast.
Paul's resistance to government spending resonated this year.
"Congressman Paul is committed to bringing the conservative movement back to its traditional platform of limited government, balanced budgets and a foreign policy of nonintervention," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/21/2010-02-21_ron_paul_for_prez_say_rightwingers.html#ixzz0gBmuU0EE (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/21/2010-02-21_ron_paul_for_prez_say_rightwingers.html#ixzz0gBmuU0EE)


Yet as soon as the results were announced, leave it to the media to spin the story, saying the CPAC straw poll is not that accurate, not a true represenatation of the movement, Romeny won it even though he didnt win the Republican nomination etc etc -- Face it neocons, Ron Paul's message is spreading every day. His message of limited government, cut spending, less spending overseas is gaining greater support than ever, and its not going to go away.
Ron Paul for the win!

[FlintHillBilly]

Good for Ron Paul. Promised myself after the next election i will never waste my time going to a poll again to vote for a president (because of the electoral college). Although, if i were going to vote this time around i will probably vote for Ron Paul. Hes atleast a doctor. Seems to have credible experience.

[LineDoggie]

Didnt he win every Straw Poll/Online Poll during the campaign last year?

How many Primaries did that translate to?

You have to admit, Paul supporters spam these things and if he had the miraculous number from those polls in the general elections and primaries that would mean something.


Oh look, I can vote 15 times for Paul, maybe enough people will believe he has the real numbers to win....
This is just another honor system poll with no backing in truth

[Jurinko]

While its economic ideas have sense, the last anti-CIA rant and belief, that the world and US problems will be solved if US withdraws home, somehow diluted my previous sympathies.

[FlintHillBilly]

While its economic ideas have sense, the last anti-CIA rant and belief, that the world and US problems will be solved if US withdraws home, somehow diluted my previous sympathies.

I do agree. His economic ideas do make sense, and wish there was a way to try them out. Some of his ideas are way too liberal/extreme/crazy/wierd for me. I can actually listen to the guy when he speaks and half the time enjoy listening to him.

[HK in AK]

I have less and less faith that we will make the progress this country needs to make in order to survive. While Ron Paul may have one or two good ideas, the cumulative content of his view is rather concerning and, I think, would lead to more debilitating, myopic, disconnected solutions.

[Umbro2914]

Oh look, I can vote 15 times for Paul, maybe enough people will believe he has the real numbers to win....
This is just another honor system poll with no backing in truth

This may apply to internet polls but not CPAC straw poll, one vote per person, only registered CPAC participants may vote.

[LineDoggie]

Ok, 10,000 Attendees at CPAC
2,400 VOTED, or just under 25% of those eligible

of those 2,400- 31% or 750 voted for Paul

Do you really want to crow about those numbers as the Harbinger of a Paul Victory?

[Hollis]

Ok, 10,000 Attendees at CPAC
2,400 VOTED, or just under 25% of those eligible

of those 2,400- 31% or 750 voted for Paul

Do you really want to crow about those numbers as the Harbinger of a Paul Victory?


It was obviously a Mandate of the People........ Run Ron Run..... :) (probably what the D's are hoping for)

[JCR]

111058
Like that?

[Jacknola]

Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Bill Clinton President = Obama 2nd term.

The Paulistas are just a cult similar to the Daily Koss-acks on the left. The American people are now in the process of thoroughly rejecting the move-on.org hard-left wing of the democratic party, who mistakenly thought they had a mandate to force their agenda on the people.

If the republicans/rightests/libertarians make the same mistake of ideological purity that the Kos-acks have made, they will just as quickly lose their mandate from the electoriate...and be reduced to whining anti-democratic statements mirroring those that appear on the Daily Kos.

The key is a big tent. There is plenty of room for Collins and for Sen McCain in the same party with Ayn Rand. If McCain were President, you would not have the confusion in national defense, the legal prosecution of intelligence agents, the bumbling with terrorists, and the appointment of judges of questionable alligence to the Constitution. Ideological purity is simply a recipe for permenant minority. Hear and heed Paulistas.

[gaijinsamurai]

Agreed, Jacknola. It is my belief that the GOP wing that uses terms like RINO to marginalize the moderates are only helping the Democrats.

As much as the Tea Party attendees would like to believe otherwise, someone like Sarah Palin will not receive a majority of the electorate.

The one thing McCain did right was to try to appeal to moderates of both parties. Along with the negative GOP sentiment towards Bush, it was Palin and the wingnuts who largely did him in, IMO. It's unfortunate to see him "modifying" is views, in order to counter a more conservative challenger. Perhaps I was wrong about him, and he is indeed more of a politician than a maverick, like all the rest.....

[SoSo]

Ron Paul's advocacy of fiscal discipline makes sense, but his foreign policy ideas are insane. Too bad he's a package deal: we can't take one without the other.

[HK in AK]

Ok, 10,000 Attendees at CPAC
2,400 VOTED, or just under 25% of those eligible

of those 2,400- 31% or 750 voted for Paul

Do you really want to crow about those numbers as the Harbinger of a Paul Victory?


Great point, Linedoggie. But those who wish to use it to spin a political objective will use it to their fullest.

[Umbro2914]

Ok, 10,000 Attendees at CPAC
2,400 VOTED, or just under 25% of those eligible

of those 2,400- 31% or 750 voted for Paul

Do you really want to crow about those numbers as the Harbinger of a Paul Victory?

Keeping in mind that this year was the largest turnout in the straw poll,, ever. And Ron Paul comfortable won 1st place, with Romney 11% behind. Yes, I am happy and pround of this.
And I truly believe that Paul's message is spreading. If he ran today, It is my oponion that he would recieve many more votes than in 2008, however there is still more work to be done. Soon enough, people will realize how true he is, the dollar is going into the ****ter, and our troops (Now in Haiti as well) are at the breaking point, these overseas wars cant last much longer. Sure, its much easier to simply lable him as a cook or crazy and ignore him, but if you take the few minutes to listen to the speeches or read his bills, you realize how Ron Paul simply makes sense, and how frightingly true his depictions of the current state of affiars are.

[Umbro2914]

Ron Paul = Ross Perot = Bill Clinton President = Obama 2nd term.
I PRAY that Republicans do not win the white house in 2012, because if that happens, the republicans will just go back to their usual ways of c. Bush 2002. If the Republicans win, then all this we are working for, of reforming the party from within will be lost. The party needs 8 years to get in touch with its roots, to stretch its tent, to realize that it is better to be the party of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater, and Bush c. 2000 then the Republicans of 2008

[FlintHillBilly]

.... Republicans will win it back. Easily with the way things are going these days.

[Beirut525]

So since most of you are saying that he has good economic ideas but not so much on everything else, wouldn't he a make a good vice presidential candidate and be picked for his economic ideas kinda like Biden was picked for his foreign policy experience?

[LineDoggie]

Yeah, Biden has turned out to be such an ASSet to Obama.................

[dracon49]

Ron Paul is a left winger if we compare him to most of the Republicans, right?(he is against US wars in the ME if i don't have a mistake)

[Hollis]

Ron Paul is a left winger if we compare him to most of the Republicans, right?(he is against US wars in the ME if i don't have a mistake)


For totally different reasons. He is not a Left winger.

[JJC]

Although, if i were going to vote this time around i will probably vote for Ron Paul. Hes atleast a doctor. Seems to have credible experience. We had a political debate at my campus during the election hype and I almost got murdered by referring to Ron Paul as "Congressman Paul" instead of "DOCTOR Paul" as his worshipers love to call him. I'm like what does a medical doctor who spent half his life fixing gaping ******s has anything to do with many challenges in our world? I use to like some of his ideas but he is unrealistic and bit too out there to be a leader of our nation.

[dracon49]

For totally different reasons. He is not a Left winger.
If i don't have a mistake ,he said that the US doesn't need to get involved in other places in the world and it needs to put it's resources on internal issues only...

[Noons86]

If i don't have a mistake ,he said that the US doesn't need to get involved in other places in the world and it needs to put it's resources on internal issues only...

You don't need to be left wing to oppose a war overseas.

[dracon49]

Before few days there was a poll that said that most Americans don't want Obama for a second term(CNN conducted it and you can't blame CNN for hypocrisy...), but the question is-who will run against him?? I hope not Palin....it's highly unlikely that she will lead the Repbulicans...

[Uglymug]

If i don't have a mistake ,he said that the US doesn't need to get involved in other places in the world and it needs to put it's resources on internal issues only...

I believe a non-interventionist/isolationist approach is a traditional conservative ideology. I believe pacifism is the liberal version.

[dracon49]

You don't need to be left wing to oppose a war overseas.
Most of the Repbulicans don't think like him on forgein issues if i don't have a mistake..

[loganinkosovo]

Paul,

Like Huckabee.

Like Dean,

Like Biden,

Like Reed,

Like Pelosi,

and Like many others,

is a Creepy Nutjob!

He may be smarter than the others....that remains to be seen....but he is still out of his ever lovin' Gourd!

I try real hard not to put insane people in positions of power.

Thank God others live by that creed also.

NO PAUL in 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032, etc.

[JJC]

Before few days there was a poll that said that most Americans don't want Obama for a second term(CNN conducted it and you can't blame CNN for hypocrisy...), but the question is-who will run against him?? I hope not Palin....it's highly unlikely that she will lead the Repbulicans... Don't get too excited yet with these polls. They will change 10 million times before the elections so there is not point in discussing who will run or who will win.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views come from Monroe Doctrine of non intervention. Today's conservatism and Republican party do not represent the original Republican ideals and Paul makes that point all the time.

[dracon49]

I believe a non-interventionist/isolationist approach is a traditional conservative ideology. I believe pacifism is the liberal version.
Actually i thought that Republicans like wars because they are(most of them)are hawks and they want the US to fight radical muslim countries...Mike Huckabee and most of them support an attack on Iran for example if i don't have a mistake ,but Paul doesn't....

[dracon49]

Don't get too excited yet with these polls. They will change 10 million times before the elections so there is not point in discussing who will run or who will win.

Ron Paul's foreign policy views come from Monroe Doctrine of non intervention. Today's conservatism and Republican party do not represent the original Republican ideals and Paul makes that point all the time.
Ah..i thought that it's the opposite and that Presidents like Bush(father and son)represent them in the best way....

[Hilbert]

Ah..i thought that it's the opposite and that Presidents like Bush(father and son)represent them in the best way....

Bush along with many of today's Republicans and so-called "conservatives" (cheap democrats is more like it) are a shining example of neoconservatism.

[dracon49]

Bush along with many of today's Republicans and so-called "conservatives" (cheap democrats is more like it) are a shining example of neoconservatism.
So you basically saying that they don't represent the ideology of the Republicans, right? But honestly ,i prefer them ,because Israel has better ties with them...(even though Clinton was very friendly with Israel and also Hillary is friendly towards Israel) ,but ofcourse-Americans need to elect who is better for them ,not for Israel..

[Umbro2914]

Actually i thought that Republicans like wars because they are(most of them)are hawks and they want the US to fight radical muslim countries...Mike Huckabee and most of them support an attack on Iran for example if i don't have a mistake ,but Paul doesn't....

Yes, the majority of todays Republicans are Neoconservatives and support overseas wars, fighting terrorism, preventive war, etc etc, however these are Not the same ideals of the Republican party of the past, which is what Dr. Paul represents, to an extent. That is where your confusion lies, dracon.

[Hilbert]

So you basically saying that they don't represent the idology of the Republicans, right? But honestly i prefer them ,because Israel has better ties with them...(even though Clinton was very friendly with Israel and also Hillary is freindly towards Israel) but ofcourse..Americans need to elected who is better for them not for Israel..

Not necessarily, just that today's Republicans are very different from the original founding ideas of the Republican Party. Some say its "warped" others say "evolved" but its undeniably different.

[SoSo]

Ron Paul's fiscal conservatism would appeal to many people who are turned off by his anti-interventionism, so he could be considered as a possible veep by Republicans. But his talk of abolishing Social Security scares the crap out of the elderly, who imagine themselves losing their monthly check and being cast out of their homes into the snow. It's true that Paul advocates a gradual elimination of SocSec, not an immediate cutoff. But I can assure you, the Democrats would still demagogue this issue to death. People are persuaded by simple slogans and short sound bites. Few would have the attention span, or the patience, to listen to Paul's explanation of what he really meant.

[dracon49]

Yes, the majority of todays Republicans are Neoconservatives and support overseas wars, fighting terrorism, preventive war, etc etc, however these are Not the same ideals of the Republican party of the past, which is what Dr. Paul represents, to an extent. That is where your confusion lies, dracon.
Also it's because they religious ,no? and i don't think that he has a chance against Huckabee..

[dracon49]

Not necessarily, just that today's Republicans are very different from the original founding ideas of the Republican Party. Some say its "warped" others say "evolved" but its undeniably different.
So why he is not a Democrat or Independent? He is trying to change it from inside? I don't think that it's possible when you are a minority....

[Hollis]

Yes, the majority of todays Republicans are Neoconservatives and support overseas wars, fighting terrorism, preventive war, etc etc, however these are Not the same ideals of the Republican party of the past, which is what Dr. Paul represents, to an extent. That is where your confusion lies, dracon.


Can you point out when the Republican party was like that. Paul's ideas represent sort of a hybrid modern approach to laissez faire capitalism. Teddy Roosevelt was a R, and also violated a major tenet of libertarianism, he developed the National Parks system, rather than let entrepreneurs do it. A. Lincoln, had the draft....... another no no for Libertarians. The bold is something the conservatives where always involved in.

[LineDoggie]

Yes, the majority of todays Republicans are Neoconservatives and support overseas wars, fighting terrorism, preventive war, etc etc, however these are Not the same ideals of the Republican party of the past, which is what Dr. Paul represents, to an extent. That is where your confusion lies, dracon.
Yeah, because fighting Terrorism is a Bad thing to do?

Much better we allow them to fly into our buildings or open a can of instant sunshine in one of our cities?

the contstitution allows that right?

[Umbro2914]

Ron Paul's fiscal conservatism would appeal to many people who are turned off by his anti-interventionism, so he could be considered as a possible veep by Republicans. But his talk of abolishing Social Security scares the crap out of the elderly, who imagine themselves losing their monthly check and being cast out of their homes into the snow. It's true that Paul advocates a gradual elimination of SocSec, not an immediate cutoff. But I can assure you, the Democrats would still demagogue this issue to death. People are persuaded by simple slogans and short sound bites. Few would have the attention span, or the patience, to listen to Paul's explanation of what he really meant.

well the whole point in Paul's platform, is that throgh drastic cuts in foreign policy spending (achieved by withdrawing armies and ending conflicts) can bring the US budget undercontrol, and thus allow for paying off the debt / cut taxes. As much as the Republicnas wish they could, you cannot cut taxes unless you cut spending, its that plain and simple.
You are correct when describing the typical American voter, I geuss Linedoggie is one of them, fosucing on catch phrases "War on Terror" rather then actually studying the subject and achieving a rational conclusion.

[dracon49]

well the whole point in Paul's platform, is that throgh drastic cuts in foreign policy spending (achieved by withdrawing armies and ending conflicts) can bring the US budget undercontrol, and thus allow for paying off the debt / cut taxes. As much as the Republicnas wish they could, you cannot cut taxes unless you cut spending, its that plain and simple.
You are correct when describing the typical American voter, I geuss Linedoggie is one of them, fosucing on catch phrases "War on Terror" rather then actually studying the subject and achieving a rational conclusion.
But then you will hardly have influence in the world...without using force no one will take you seriously....but maybe if you will do it you will not really care on what is going in the world unless someone will attack the US...

[Snoshi]

I still cant belive that some people think that you can just "pull out" out of conflicts and survive.. The US needs to interfere to keep its status as the lone superpower..

[Universal_Soldier]

Ron!!!!!!.......the revolutionist. I'd like to experience his presidency just for kicks. DoD will impeach him after his first day in office.

[Dan2004]

If he runs, I'll vote for him.

[Brasi]

well the whole point in Paul's platform, is that throgh drastic cuts in foreign policy spending (achieved by withdrawing armies and ending conflicts) can bring the US budget undercontrol, and thus allow for paying off the debt / cut taxes. As much as the Republicnas wish they could, you cannot cut taxes unless you cut spending, its that plain and simple.
You are correct when describing the typical American voter, I geuss Linedoggie is one of them, fosucing on catch phrases "War on Terror" rather then actually studying the subject and achieving a rational conclusion.

This! Lets face it, to a point the military industrial complex decides American foreign policy, and to not vote for someone just because he won't hop into (or start) a war without good reason doesn't mean he won't be an excellent president. One of the major ways we can reign in the federal deficit is by cutting military spending. There are other developing nations that need to start picking up the bulk of monatary aid being handed out (Brazil, China, India). let them step up to the plate while the US takes their own money to pay off debts, and invest in it's own infastructure.

[LineDoggie]

Ron!!!!!!.......the revolutionist. I'd like to experience his presidency just for kicks. DoD will impeach him after his first day in office. In this country DoD doesnt have that Power
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_3

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_congressional_directory_interim_sep06&docid=109thin_txt-77

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

[seraosha]

Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, but his biggest drawback continues to be his supporters.

You folks lose all credibility when you try and engage in topics beyond the talking points...well that and the fact that the vast majority are armchair generals that haven't bothered to take up arms in defense of this nation, nor have they graduated from college yet and seem convinced of their rightetousness.

Kids, many of us felt the same way about Ross Perot, and that didn't exactly go as planned.
But on the brightside, it's nice to see people getting fired up for voting.

[chauncy republicans]

Seroasha I can tell you first hand, I worked for Ron Paul during the '08 primaries, that by my account over 50% of our supporters and volunteers in the N. Illinois/S.Wisconsin area were either active duty or retired service men.

We have our oddballs just like everybody else, the self righteous pricks in the media, however, like to specifically key onto the wackos that support Paul. At our campaign HQ we all had good permanent full-time jobs or were students, and everybody wore collared shirts and slacks. The representation the media gives us is completely out of line and unfair, before the '08 primaries I never fully subscribed to the 'media bias conspiracy', but after experiencing the amount of outright disinformation and misrepresentation on behalf of the 'journalistic' community there is no doubt in my mind. My support for Paul has been strengthened by it as well, I don't agree with everything the man says, but anybody who can generate the kind of hatred and fear in the hearts of our managerial elite like he does, is obviously the one who's going to bring about real change in favor of the American people.

[seraosha]

God knows this country needs a viable third party, but there has got to be a better choice than Ron Paul.

And I stand corrected on Ron Paul supporters, I'll take you at your word CR. But why do we only hear from the screetchers and wingnuts? I'm talking about these very forums, not the crap the mainstream media tries to feed us. What gives?

[chauncy republicans]

I'm not sure, I know what your talking about though. I think it might be because many of our supporters get embarrassed by these idiots and keep a low profile so as not to be confused or labeled as being within their ranks. So the nut-jobs spew garbage without correction, and not enough voices of reason to counter their idiocy. He's also always been a demi-god within the - aliens control the whitehouse circles - which tends to leave a bigger impression on someone's memory than the typical incremental communist's diatribe. Bottom line is though, I really don't know. Many of us warned our superiors that the maniacs who think the Jews perpetrated the 9/11 attacks would seriously hurt the campaigns image, and they in fact did.

[LineDoggie]

Crowing about 750 votes out of 10,000 attendees like its going to translate into winning actual primaries is pissing into the wind

[Will Clark]

I wouldn't say it's an indication that he will win the primaries, but I also wouldn't say that a sample size of 2500 people is meaningless, or that getting 31% of that support is insignificant. A sample of 2,500 is enough to know with 95% confidence the opinion of around 320 million +-2%, when used properly. The Problem with people touting this as significant is that it doesn't accurately measure the American population, it measures a quarter of 10k attendees at this conference that felt like voting. And what does that mean.

I like ron paul, I don't agree with everything he says, but when I compare him to the opposition I find them much more destructive. The problem is that people are terrified of the potential danger his changes would bring, while accepting our current destructive behavior because we're already comfortable with it. As for being a 'crazy nutjob', do me a favor and listen to him answer for any question which you think makes him a nut. I've noticed a huge discrepancy between what he says when challenged on an issue, and what the media claims he believes. If you still disagree with his stance, that's fair; just don't be a putz like those people bitching that he was isolationist because they didn't take the time to research what the hell they were talking about.

[LineDoggie]

I have listened to him and read him, and your right

I fear for this country if he were in power. He reminds me of a Huey Long and just as ignorant about the threats we face today in the world. Closing down our Bases in South Korea and Germany is about the ****ing stupidest thing I can think of. It's also Isolationist. Isolationism was fine when it took weeks to get to our shores and monoplanes were new. Different matter all together in the 21st Century.


In the meantime, his supporters get all panty twisted and butthurt if one dares suggest Emperor Paul has no clothes.

[Kit]

I like Ron Paul, but only as an idea.

When it comes to 2012, I will vote for someone else. ANYBODY else. I wrote in Ron Paul out of spite during the last election. John McCain ran the most pathetic campaign; I could not make myself vote for him. But, I will vote for the Republican ticket this time. I hope many of the Ron Paul supporters will do the same, because they know we don't need a spoiler. The Democrats need to get the message clear as daylight: "We f*cked up."

[matthew.manhorn]

Ron Paul is a left winger if we compare him to most of the Republicans, right?(he is against US wars in the ME if i don't have a mistake)

fiscal, social, or political?

[dracon49]

fiscal, social, or political?
political.........

[maw]

i'd vote for him. i don't care about ideology anymore because there's no ideology left in politics. the amounts of money in politics these days mean that neither of the leading parties are independent, they're just whores pandering to their corporate masters. bribing a judge is illegal but bribing a politician in the form of campaign contributions is acceptable and a daily event.

at least he's coherent and consistent which is something i can work with.

we've discussed neo cons here at length in the past. neo cons aren't war-mongers per se. if you read the thoughts of their patron saint/founder you'll see that they just happen to use war as a strategy to get the populace to gather around their agenda.

[Mastermind]

Well, in retrospect, comparing Ron Paul to the current jackasses in power, he looks pretty good. But, as I recall, during the run-up to the election last, I was amazed at how people who were supporting Ron Paul were being ridiculed. "Well, if you want to waste your vote, go ahead and vote "Ron Paul"....he really had no chance what-so-ever. Now, he's king of the hill....but, then we have to remember, the next US presidential election year is eons away in political terms.

[matthew.manhorn]

political.........

Then Ron Paul is a left winger politically, to be honest the Democrats have a deeper war-mongering history than the Republicans, Ron Paul's a true republican unlike GWB

[dracon49]

The Americans that vote for the Republicans think more like Bush i think...

[Hilbert]

The Americans that vote for the Republicans think more like Bush i think...

I disagree, to a certain extent. I think a huge percentage of the equation is just party politics/loyalty. "Oh he's a Republican (or Democrat) and I'm a Republican (or Democrat)" and vote for him just because of that, even if they might agree with someone from another party more. Party loyalty. And to be honest, I agree with good ol' Washington on Partisanship -- I really believe its degrading perhaps even destroying this country. Especially the blind followers who instantly fall the line and deem whatever their party does to be good and whatever the opposite party does, no matter what, to be bad; they refuse to acknowledge their party is at fault or makes a mistake and opposite party as the source of all ills.

[Umbro2914]

Rather then relying on sound bits or statements taken out of context, this is Paul's debate from this past weekend. Paul is debating "Tea Party" Challengeres in the Republcian primary for his House Seat. Its not long, and I highly reccomend, and if you cant/dont want to watch the whole thing, then just skip to the closing statement (5 min mark, part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/vf7CNXQbkG4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/MnXB8lCCIjE&feature=player_embedded

[Mastermind]

The Americans that vote for the Republicans think more like Bush i think... Absolutely NOT. I am a very strong Republican, and I will never, ever vote for any Democrat...but, Bush was a total catastrophe, not only for our party but for our nation. He is, in my opinion, the sole depositor of the public ill will toward the conservative movement in America. He had golden opportunities to make good...many, many of them. But, his unwillingness to speak out, to stand strong, to defend his actions, to drive the issues...he was, basically, a Democrat in waiting...let us not forget, he was a Democrat long before he was a Republican. His worst and first moment was his allignment with Teddy Kennedy on the "No child Left Behind" bill which was not only idiotic, the gesture resulted in Kennedy immediately biting the hand that was extended...Bush refused political retribution over it....and insisted on a continual amicable relationship with the Democrats throughout his administration...he was probably the worst/best thing the Dems every had wearing Republican robes. They basically took his football and ran with it all the way to the WH with another disaster of a President. This situation the nation is in right now can be directly and accurately set at Bush's feet...When the Dems keep saying "Bush Did it....It's Bushs' fault"...most of usobjective Republicans have to grudgingly agree!

[dracon49]

Absolutely NOT. I am a very strong Republican, and I will never, ever vote for any Democrat...but, Bush was a total catastrophe, not only for our party but for our nation. He is, in my opinion, the sole depositor of the public ill will toward the conservative movement in America. He had golden opportunities to make good...many, many of them. But, his unwillingness to speak out, to stand strong, to defend his actions, to drive the issues...he was, basically, a Democrat in waiting...let us not forget, he was a Democrat long before he was a Republican. His worst and first moment was his allignment with Teddy Kennedy on the "No child Left Behind" bill which was not only idiotic, the gesture resulted in Kennedy immediately biting the hand that was extended...Bush refused political retribution over it....and insisted on a continual amicable relationship with the Democrats throughout his administration...he was probably the worst/best thing the Dems every had wearing Republican robes. They basically took his football and ran with it all the way to the WH with another disaster of a President. This situation the nation is in right now can be directly and accurately set at Bush's feet...When the Dems keep saying "Bush Did it....It's Bushs' fault"...most of usobjective Republicans have to grudgingly agree!
In Israel he was very admired unlike in most of the countries in the world.

[JKD]

...Bush refused political retribution over it....and insisted on a continual amicable relationship with the Democrats throughout his administration

I don't see how that can be viewed as a bad thing. I didn't elect Bush or any of these other clowns to go to DC and fight with each other for the sake of fighting or getting "retribution". I elected them to get sh*t done. They're there on the taxpayers dollar to work not engage in playground pettiness.

When it becomes a bitter zero sum battle like it has now the whole processl just grinds to a halt. Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, they were all able to have a give and take with the opposition.

I'm no fan of Bush 43 but the way things are now it's making me long for the comparatively pleasant bi-partisan days of his administration.

[Mastermind]

yes...bipartisanship is good if the issues are for country...but the crap Bush pulled was completely out of line. I did not appreciate his slovenly responses to the Democrat attacks that were solely designed to insult and denigrate the nation and the military effort...they were destructive criticisms...like what Murtha pulled against the Marines. Most had had no basis in constructive criticism of the WOT...and I personally thought there was plenty of room for constructive criticism. But, Bush did nothing to realign the direction of the criticism...he did not come immediately to the aid of the military, which was being attacked by the Dems just to embarrass Bush admin. Bush had loads of opportunity to act and react..and still did absolutely nothing. His watery reaction to the Valery Plame event led straight to the idiotic persecution of his cabinet and supporters. Bush had all sorts of opportunity to intervene...and yet, let the attacks go on. That, in my opinion, was unforgivable. It showed Bush as petty and cowardly.

[pistol]

Closing down our Bases in South Korea and Germany is about the ****ing stupidest thing I can think of. It's also Isolationist. Isolationism was fine when it took weeks to get to our shores and monoplanes were new. Different matter all together in the 21st Century.


I have no idea why you think its America's job to spend billions of dollars every year on foreign military bases. Our country is broke, our military is over-extended, and the reason most of our current enemies want to fight us is because of our massive overseas presence, especially in the middle east. History is littered with fallen empires, and America is repeating all of their mistakes.

And another thing, I can't imagine why you think expecting South Korea to defend itself from North Korea is the "F-ing stupidest think you can think of". It's not America's job to defend South Korea anymore than it was China's responsibility to stick around North Korea to defend it from the South. Not that it matters, when the money runs out the troops will have to come home anyway.

[Umbro2914]

Not that it matters, when the money runs out the troops will have to come home anyway.
shh no one likes to think of it that way.... but its bloody hell the truth. Time will prove you all wrong.

[Gat0r]

Those days are circling down the drain Snoshi, The US empire is declining, our debt is unsustainable, sooner or later the US dollar's status as the reserve currency will fail. NO empire lasts and America wont be an exception. It appears to me that almost all countries get along without having to be in perpetual war around the globe. I guess Americans have grown up only knowing continuous war and empire so they don't know anybetter, its like some of you suffer from paranoid delusion that the whole world is out to get us if we aren't bombing and invading, hubris, nonsense.

[dracon49]

Every empire falls in sometime...

[Gat0r]

Mastermind please explain what would fall under issues of country, that's purely subjective in nature. It's impossible for politicians to know whats best for 300 million individuals. Bipartisanship= both sides getting a share of the loot for their special interests.

[LineDoggie]

Perpetual war, nice BS

fortunately it's a childlike inaccurate statement.

[Steel21]

I actually really like his (Ron Paul) foreign policy ideas. They mirror mine exactly.

I like most of his economic policy (gold standard).

However, I also believe in public health care.

Lastly, I also like his stance on marijuana and other substances as well as the 2nd amendment.


While we are at it, we should also legalize prostitution and gambling nation wide.

Also, nationalize all highways and road ways with a current posted limit of 55mph. I would like to see interstate highway speed limit raised to 85mph. Rich people with nice cars and specialized test can then pay an annual fee to drive their super cars as fast as they want in the left lane.

Last thing.... legalize dueling with edge weapons. This should cut down on some frivolous law suits.

[Umbro2914]

let the spinning begin

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/GWJwI55vFDQ

[LineDoggie]

You dont have to spin such anemic numbers dude.

750 votes out of 10,000 Attendees is hardly a Landslide, hell it aint even 10% of the attendees.

Start winning real primaries then you can crow about it. Did you win a single primary last time?

[SoSo]

Ron Paul's anti-interventionism sounds good to a room full of naive college kids, which is why he did so well in the CPAC straw poll. But it's not going to get him the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. Like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Paul claims that Muslim hatred of the US is a response to our support for Israel and for undemocratic regimes in Muslim countries. Nothing infuriates my countrymen more than being told that we brought this war on ourselves, or that our enemies have some just cause for hating us. It's the last thing Americans want to hear, in the middle of a war. Imagine the fury if, during World War II, some isolationist politician has said we caused the Japanese to strike at Pearl Harbor, by our oil embargo, and our military support for our client Jiang Kai-shek, in his war against the Japanese and their client, Henry Pu-yi. The American people would have been outraged.

[Lusitania]

Can you point out when the Republican party was like that. Paul's ideas represent sort of a hybrid modern approach to laissez faire capitalism. Teddy Roosevelt was a R, and also violated a major tenet of libertarianism, he developed the National Parks system, rather than let entrepreneurs do it. A. Lincoln, had the draft....... another no no for Libertarians. The bold is something the conservatives where always involved in.

You are correct, for the most part the Republican Party has not been that way, with the exception of the Taft Republicans and the Harding and Coolidge administrations. It was, in actuality, the Democratic Party under Grover Cleavland and the Bourbon Democrats that supported a very Libertarian, Classical Liberal platform.

By the way, Lincoln (and TR for that matter) did a lot more things that Libertarians do not approve of, one of the most glaring being his, as viewed by Libertarians, engagement in an illegal war and unrestrained increase in the size of the federal government.


Yeah, because fighting Terrorism is a Bad thing to do?

Much better we allow them to fly into our buildings or open a can of instant sunshine in one of our cities?

the contstitution allows that right?

That is not the point, the point is that the Libertarian school of thought asserts that the neoconservatives and social progressives fail to ask the why and then respond as necessary. Libertarians argue that they (neoconservatives and progressives) do no approach the salient issue of the reason the terrorists attack the United States, thus they only respond to attacks and not actually solve the problem. Of course, the libertarian milieu would point to the fact that the United States foreign policy is the problem, as it create these terrorists.


Perpetual war, nice BS

fortunately it's a childlike inaccurate statement.

Ah, so you admit to not actually having a rebuttal?

[Fat Lazy American]

By the way, Lincoln (and TR for that matter) did a lot more things that Libertarians do not approve of, one of the most glaring being his, as viewed by Libertarians, engagement in an illegal war and unrestrained increase in the size of the federal government.

Also impeded on states rights by freeing the slaves. I, for one, can think of no greater threat to individual liberty than taking away the freedom to own slaves.

(And don't tell a mofo in Kansas that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in his grave. John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in his grave. John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in his grave. His soul is marching on.)




That is not the point, the point is that the Libertarian school of thought asserts that the neoconservatives and social progressives fail to ask the why and then respond as necessary. Libertarians argue that they (neoconservatives and progressives) do no approach the salient issue of the reason the terrorists attack the United States, thus they only respond to attacks and not actually solve the problem. Of course, the libertarian milieu would point to the fact that the United States foreign policy is the problem, as it create these terrorists.

Short skirts create rape.

Also, milieu refers to an environment or setting, not a mindset or viewpoint.

[Lusitania]

Also impeded on states rights by freeing the slaves. I, for one, can think of no greater threat to individual liberty than taking away the freedom to own slaves.

It was not within the role of the Federal government to do so, unless an amendment was passed to expand the government's role as such (quite simply, it was unconstitutional, vis-à-vis , illegal). Slavery was an extreme injustice, and I say that as a black man five generations removed from it, however, it was not within the role of the federal government to destroy the institution (not to mention, there is much research that would point to the fact that slavery in the South was probably on its way out, anyway). Even then, Lincoln only freed the slaves in order to ensure that Britain and the 2nd French Empire would not recognize the CSA (as to legitimize them) and to cripple the southern economy through the influx of runaway slaves.

Lincoln made it clear that slavery was not the issue, in a letter to Horace Greeley, an editor and abolitionist, he says:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it" -Lincoln

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." -Grant

Then, of course, the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South and allowed slavery to continue in Missouri, Delaware and Maryland does not help his case either.

Make no mistake, I am not defending the action of the Southern states and the institution of slavery, I am quite simply talking about the right of the federal government to touch slavery; slavery was a state issue and an issue only for the states to decide (withstanding that an amendment was not passed). Even then, once more, the federal government ended slavery for political, not moral reasons.



Short skirts create rape.

That's a misrepresentation of the Libertarian viewpoint; Libertarians believe in self-defense, but they also believe that an interventionist, neo-imperialist foreign policy is not only unnecessary, but it is intrusive, wastes resources and above all, it breeds resentment abroad.



Also, milieu refers to an environment or setting, not a mindset or viewpoint.

Congratulations...

[LineDoggie]

Ah, so you admit to not actually having a rebuttal?

per·pet·u·al

****unciation: \pər-ˈpe-chə-wəl, -chəl; -ˈpech-wəl\
Function: adjective
1 a : continuing forever; Everlasting



In My Lifetime (1963 on) we had the Vietnam war which ended in 1973 for us, 1975 for the Viets.

1975-1980: When Desert One debacle happened there was No Perpetual War. Desert One was a 1 Day Hostile Action (own goal really). 7 years with no Perpetual War

1983: Grenada & Beirut 3 years with no Perpetual War

1989: Panama 6 years with no Perpetual War

1991: GW1
1992: Somalia, Op Provide Relief & Restore Hope Op ended 1993

2001: We are attacked(remember?) 7 years of No Perpetual War

Adding it up between 1973 & 2001 we have 21 years of Peace during 28 years of Perpetual War

what I find so dishonest about the childish statement from the Paulbots is the reality and fatuous comparisons to the Roman Empire.


Perpetual War sounds oh so sophisticated to some 19 something, but the reality is there has been no perpetual war and its dishonest intellectually to claim it.


Hows that for a rebuttal?

[Umbro2914]

well obviously its not going to be continueous war... this is not 1984.
But by perpetual it means the usage of war as a means of solving problems. And thus, our useage of war have continued, and at this rate, is going to continue forever, ie perpetual. Please be sure to include Iraq in your analysis, and the thing not taken into consideration by youself, is that we are at a state of war with North Korea, thus your whole "rebuttal" is void, becasue we are in a perpetual war with North Korea. Also our troops station in dozens of bases as well as naval vessals in every corner of the oceans sure does make it seem that we are at war, even if at times we were not.
Lastly, correct me if I'm wrong, but your ratio of 21/28, although proved incorrect, sure as hell does not scream "Peace" to me. Seems to me that we have become quite "drunk on war"

[Lusitania]

per·pet·u·al

****unciation: \pər-ˈpe-chə-wəl, -chəl; -ˈpech-wəl\
Function: adjective
1 a : continuing forever; Everlasting



In My Lifetime (1963 on) we had the Vietnam war which ended in 1973 for us, 1975 for the Viets.

1975-1980: When Desert One debacle happened there was No Perpetual War. Desert One was a 1 Day Hostile Action (own goal really). 7 years with no Perpetual War

1983: Grenada & Beirut 3 years with no Perpetual War

1989: Panama 6 years with no Perpetual War

1991: GW1
1992: Somalia, Op Provide Relief & Restore Hope Op ended 1993

2001: We are attacked(remember?) 7 years of No Perpetual War

Adding it up between 1973 & 2001 we have 21 years of Peace during 28 years of Perpetual War

what I find so dishonest about the childish statement from the Paulbots is the reality and fatuous comparisons to the Roman Empire.


Perpetual War sounds oh so sophisticated to some 19 something, but the reality is there has been no perpetual war and its dishonest intellectually to claim it.


Hows that for a rebuttal?

How is that for a rebuttal? It's quite weak as it makes a glaring assumption (hasty generalization), relies purely on semantics and commits an appeal to authority fallacy. No, I think you better step it up, my friend.

But, since you wish to get into semantics, let us first examine his statement, he said:

"It appears to me that almost all countries get along without having to be in perpetual war around the globe."

The first folly in your argument is that you are making the assumption that by being in perpetual war, it necessarily means that we have soldiers on the ground in the war area; being in war does not denote that there is military fighting at all times. War can mean a number of things (I wait for you to give me another silly dictionary definition) and in argumentation, one must first define their terms; in this case, war does not necessarily only mean troops on the ground, it can mean proxy, direct monetary and weapon support or violence and coercion on an international scene against other countries; that would certainly make us, involved. Let us, examine, for instance, some CIA Operations since 1961 (seeing as the 1960s is your contextual date of reference):

1961: Bay of Pigs, assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Zaire

1963: Juan Bosch overthrown in CIA backed coup, President Arosemana in Ecuador is overthrown by CIA backed coup

1964: Joao Goulart overthrown by CIA backed coup in Brazil

1965: Sukarno is overthrown in a CIA backed coup in Indonesia, US sends marines to the Dominican Republic to stop the overthrow of the US backed man, over the popularly elected Juan Bosch (who the US had overthrown previously), the CIA backs a coup to install Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator in Zaire

1967: Operation Phoenix

1969: CIA operations in Uruguay and the backing of death squads

1970- CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek in Cambodia

1971- CIA backs coup overthrowing President Juan Torres in Bolivia

1973: Salvador allende is overthrown and assinated by the CIA

1975: CIA backed war and Angola (CIA operations lasts until 1984)

1979: US/CIA arms the Afghan insurgents against the Soviet Union, US backed contras to the Sandinista government in Nicuragua

1980: US backs D’Aubuisson and the El Salvadoran government in the Civil War; CIA trained death squads killed many civilians

1981: Iran-Conta

1986: US "retires" Duvalier for another right-wing military man in rigged elections in Haiti

1989: Panama

1990: CIA backed military overthrows Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti

To be sure, I did not mention every little thing that occurred on every year (as there is much we still do not know), however, it would appear as though the United States has been involved in "perpetual" war. There was always an "enemy" that needed to be "taken out" or destroyed, a never ending array of proxies and puppet installments. The United States, either covertly or overtly, was always at war with someone and always engaging in combative powerplays. I would argue, that the statement of "perpetual"war is quite accurate, as long as one qualifies it and not stick to silly arguments that only rely on semantics; ultimately, as I have previously stated, your argument, or so called rebuttal, fails because it only takes into account the overt military operations and not the overarching war(s) and combative covert operations against other nation-states and their citizenry, of the past half and century.

[pistol]

Like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Paul claims that Muslim hatred of the US is a response to our support for Israel and for undemocratic regimes in Muslim countries. Nothing infuriates my countrymen more than being told that we brought this war on ourselves, or that our enemies have some just cause for hating us. .

That's why it's 9 years later and Muslims are still lining up to suicide bomb Americans. We fight against a tactic, and not the motivation for the tactic. You might get "infuriated" hearing that we are being attacked in response to our foreign policy, but that doesn't make it any less true, and it definitely doesn't help us to get closer to a real solution.

[Fat Lazy American]

Make no mistake, I am not defending the action of the Southern states and the institution of slavery, I am quite simply talking about the right of the federal government to touch slavery; slavery was a state issue and an issue only for the states to decide (withstanding that an amendment was not passed). Even then, once more, the federal government ended slavery for political, not moral reasons.




So slavery, to you, is preferrable to a strong federal government. A true defender of liberty are ye.

[Universal_Soldier]

In this country DoD doesnt have that Power
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_3

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_congressional_directory_interim_sep06&docid=109thin_txt-77

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

I didn't mean it that way :)....I was just trying to imply that Ron will seriously shaft defense spending.....but you really think DoD and military industrial complex don't have serious influence?

[Lusitania]

So slavery, to you, is preferrable to a strong federal government. A true defender of liberty are ye.

I never said that, you are twisting my words to meet your own ends, that is your folly not mine. I said slavery was unjust, but what was also unjust was the unbridled and illegal growth of the central government, creating precedent for future usurpation. If an amendment was passed before the war, banning slavery, then the federal government was within its right to order the states to end slavery(withstanding that the Southern States did not secede), however, that was not the case, nor was it the aim of the federal government, regardless. To be sure, slavery was an evil institution and one of which never should have existed in the United States, but the Southern States should have been the ones ending it, not the federal government illegally, only to increase its own power.

I want the rule of law to stand for citizens as much as it does for the government and if the country believes such rule of law is obsolete, then the citizenry should go through the proper channels to change it, but I am not for unbridled federal growth under the pretense of justice or freedom, or most egregiously, the pretense of protection; again, it was, after all, a pretense, as the federal government's aim was not to end slavery for freedom or liberty! It was to preserve the union and maintain, if not increase, the hegemony of the federal government over the states! I assert that the best freedom and representation is ensured locally, not nationally, and over time as slavery began to be overturned in the Southern states, we would have seen a more peaceable resolution, without the death of thousands of men and the whirlwind of white southern resentment at former slaves.

I believe in liberty, but I do not fall into the fallacious trap of somehow assuming that the best way to obtain that liberty is through usurpation, vis-à-vis by illegally increasing the size of the national government, an institution across history that has had an extensive record of destroying liberty.

I do not buy into the fallacy of do a little evil so that good may come, because becoming a usurper to do good allows for the future precedent to do even more bad.

Again, you twist my points to do meet your own ends and become fallacious because of it; by the way friend, it is spelled preferable.

[LuKaZz]

If I were American I would definately be supporting Paul, I agree with his fiscal conservatism, his libertarian position on most social issues, the role of government, and so on.

I also believe the US should try a more "non-interventionist" approach to international affairs, I mean Isolationism is obviously an outdated concept, today's world is interconnected, you can't isolate yourself from the rest of the world, I do believe though that the US should probably at least try not to get dragged in regional conflicts too much, disengaging from the Middle East is probably a wise idea.

[LineDoggie]

How is that for a rebuttal? It's quite weak as it makes a glaring assumption (hasty generalization), relies purely on semantics and commits an appeal to authority fallacy. No, I think you better step it up, my friend.

But, since you wish to get into semantics, let us first examine his statement, he said:

"It appears to me that almost all countries get along without having to be in perpetual war around the globe."

The first folly in your argument is that you are making the assumption that by being in perpetual war, it necessarily means that we have soldiers on the ground in the war area; being in war does not denote that there is military fighting at all times. War can mean a number of things (I wait for you to give me another silly dictionary definition) and in argumentation, one must first define their terms; in this case, war does not necessarily only mean troops on the ground, it can mean proxy, direct monetary and weapon support or violence and coercion on an international scene against other countries; that would certainly make us, involved. Let us, examine, for instance, some CIA Operations since 1961 (seeing as the 1960s is your contextual date of reference):

Note:

WAR

Main Entry: 1war
****unciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict




Perpetual


Main Entry: per·pet·u·al
****unciation: \pər-ˈpe-chə-wəl, -chəl; -ˈpech-wəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English perpetuel, from Anglo-French, from Latin perpetuus uninterrupted, from per- through + petere to go to.
Date: 14th century
1 a : continuing forever : everlasting <perpetual motion> b (1) : valid for all time <a perpetual right> (2) : holding (as an office) for life or for an unlimited time







1961: Bay of Pigs, assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Zaire No US Troops in a War.


1963: Juan Bosch overthrown in CIA backed coup, President Arosemana in Ecuador is overthrown by CIA backed coup No US Troops in a War.


1964: Joao Goulart overthrown by CIA backed coup in Brazil No US Troops in a War.


1965: Sukarno is overthrown in a CIA backed coup in Indonesia, US sends marines to the Dominican Republic to stop the overthrow of the US backed man, over the popularly elected Juan Bosch (who the US had overthrown previously), the CIA backs a coup to install Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator in ZaireGet facts straight, a Revolt to re install Juan Bosch broke out before the Marines sent in.


1967: Operation Phoenix Your SERIOUSLY adding a Wartime Operation in the already Mentioned Ongoing Vietnam War as a Seperate War? Do you count Normandy as a seperate war from World War II?


1969: CIA operations in Uruguay and the backing of death squads No US Troops in a War.


1970- CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek in Cambodia Again During the already mentioned Vietnam War. Sihanouk was ousted after unleashing repression on Leftist elements in Cambodia, Again just because someone says CIA doesnt prove the case. In Norodoms case, it could easily have been leftists in the Cambodian Gov angry about repression and North Vietnamese plans to Occupy the country.


1971- CIA backs coup overthrowing President Juan Torres in Bolivia No US Troops in a War.


1973: Salvador allende is overthrown and assinated by the CIA No US Troops in a War.


1975: CIA backed war and Angola (CIA operations lasts until 1984) No US Troops in a War.


1979: US/CIA arms the Afghan insurgents against the Soviet Union, US backed contras to the Sandinista government in Nicuragua No US Troops in a War.


1980: US backs D’Aubuisson and the El Salvadoran government in the Civil War; CIA trained death squads killed many civilians Less than 100 US Advisors in Non Combat roles (though at least 1 is Killed in an attack on a cuartel and 7 Embassy Marines executed in a La Zona Rosa Cafe)


1981: Iran-Conta No US Troops in a War.


1986: US "retires" Duvalier for another right-wing military man in rigged elections in Haiti No US Troops in a War.


1989: Panama Already Mentioned, try reading my post


1990: CIA backed military overthrows Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti No US Troops in a War. Sorry but just because Amy Goodman claims it doesnt make the CIA responsible. I know its oh so fashionable to blame them for every instance of violence worldwide from war to muggings, but that doesnt make it true.


To be sure, I did not mention every little thing that occurred on every year (as there is much we still do not know), however, it would appear as though the United States has been involved in "perpetual" war. There was always an "enemy" that needed to be "taken out" or destroyed, a never ending array of proxies and puppet installments. The United States, either covertly or overtly, was always at war with someone and always engaging in combative powerplays. I would argue, that the statement of "perpetual"war is quite accurate, as long as one qualifies it and not stick to silly arguments that only rely on semantics; ultimately, as I have previously stated, your argument, or so called rebuttal, fails because it only takes into account the overt military operations and not the overarching war(s) and combative covert operations against other nation-states and their citizenry, of the past half and century.


Again, Note definitions of Perpetual and War, those are the Operative words to remember here. Your terrified of the CIA Boogeyman, that much is obvious.

[Fat Lazy American]

How is that for a rebuttal? It's quite weak as it makes a glaring assumption (hasty generalization), relies purely on semantics and commits an appeal to authority fallacy. No, I think you better step it up, my friend.

But, since you wish to get into semantics, let us first examine his statement, he said:

"It appears to me that almost all countries get along without having to be in perpetual war around the globe."

The first folly in your argument is that you are making the assumption that by being in perpetual war, it necessarily means that we have soldiers on the ground in the war area; being in war does not denote that there is military fighting at all times. War can mean a number of things (I wait for you to give me another silly dictionary definition) and in argumentation, one must first define their terms; in this case, war does not necessarily only mean troops on the ground, it can mean proxy, direct monetary and weapon support or violence and coercion on an international scene against other countries; that would certainly make us, involved. Let us, examine, for instance, some CIA Operations since 1961 (seeing as the 1960s is your contextual date of reference):

1961: Bay of Pigs, assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of Zaire

1963: Juan Bosch overthrown in CIA backed coup, President Arosemana in Ecuador is overthrown by CIA backed coup

1964: Joao Goulart overthrown by CIA backed coup in Brazil

1965: Sukarno is overthrown in a CIA backed coup in Indonesia, US sends marines to the Dominican Republic to stop the overthrow of the US backed man, over the popularly elected Juan Bosch (who the US had overthrown previously), the CIA backs a coup to install Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator in Zaire

1967: Operation Phoenix

1969: CIA operations in Uruguay and the backing of death squads

1970- CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek in Cambodia

1971- CIA backs coup overthrowing President Juan Torres in Bolivia

1973: Salvador allende is overthrown and assinated by the CIA

1975: CIA backed war and Angola (CIA operations lasts until 1984)

1979: US/CIA arms the Afghan insurgents against the Soviet Union, US backed contras to the Sandinista government in Nicuragua

1980: US backs D’Aubuisson and the El Salvadoran government in the Civil War; CIA trained death squads killed many civilians

1981: Iran-Conta

1986: US "retires" Duvalier for another right-wing military man in rigged elections in Haiti

1989: Panama

1990: CIA backed military overthrows Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti.

Hey, I read "Killing Hope" when I was a teenager, too!

[Dan2004]

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." -Grant

"We should have freed the slaves, and then fired on Fort Sumter." - Gen James Longstreet, CSA

[Lusitania]

Linedoggie,

I fail to see how no troops being on the ground and even the definition you supplied me with are connected. If anything, your supplied definition supports my argument more than the argument you are presenting me with; if you insist that the only way to argue is through the use of semantics and most laughably, a dictionary post from Merriam-Webster.com, then let us examine your definition again:

A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

It does not have to be declared or open for a state to be at war or engaging in war acts; I would argue that a state sponsored coup in another country is an armed hostile conflict asserted upon another state (how could it not be?). Your asserted dictionary definition and your argument that it was not a war because "No US Troops [are] in a War" is a pure non sequitur, because there do not have to be troops engaged for two countries to be engaging in war. That said, let us look at other definitions of war, not hand picked by yourself; from that exact same post on Merriam-Webster.com:

2 a: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

Hmmmm…

From Dictionary.com (since you like using dictionary definitions to prove your point)

1.a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2.a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

Interesting, CIA operations and hostile exertions of force upon other nations of the like, coincide with these, strange.

On another note, I do not raise the CIA as some "boogeyman," because their actives and track record is more than sufficient in indicting themselves, without me having to make up facts (raising a "boogeyman" are the big government tactics endorsed by the Neoconservatives and the Progressives in order to gain and consolidate power). For you to deny that they have been involved, internationally, in several events against other nation-states, just or unjust, without being at official war with them, would be for you to stick your head in the ground and pretend like nothing has happened worth note. That said, the idea that United States has, somehow, been a beacon of peace and democracy over the past forty or so years, is an absurd pretense. Even then, the CIA was not as much my point as the fact that the United States has been in a state of perpetual war.

Now, for your conceptual failures:




Get facts straight, a Revolt to re install Juan Bosch broke out before the Marines sent in.

Yes, I am aware of that, strangely enough, that was my point; I am stating the US marines were sent to stop the revolt to reinstall Juan Bosch, who was actually democratically elected originally, however he was overthrown in 1963 by CIA backed forces.




Your SERIOUSLY adding a Wartime Operation in the already Mentioned Ongoing Vietnam War as a Seperate War? Do you count Normandy as a seperate war from World War II?

Not my point, I am listing combative power plays and activities that would denote engagement in war as a whole, so obviously there would be overlap. Even then, by your logic, it is erroneous to call the Vietnam War an actual war because it was another element of the overarching Cold War.



Less than 100 US Advisors in Non Combat roles (though at least 1 is Killed in an attack on a cuartel and 7 Embassy Marines executed in a La Zona Rosa Cafe)

Irrelevant, would you argue that an engineering crew or non combative support troops, for instance, are not involved in the war effort? The United States clearly picked a side in the issue and directly became involved by sending advisors in to help that government. Even then, the advising of the El Salvadorian military in crushing the opposition and support of their death squads is more than enough to indict the US for being well involved in the war, itself.

On a final note, your condescension, though unnecessary, is expected, but I do take solace in the fact that your last two so-called rebuttals have been most fallacious and your skill in argumentation is deficient, to say the least.



"We should have freed the slaves, and then fired on Fort Sumter." - Gen James Longstreet, CSA

Ironic, no?

[LineDoggie]

Apparently, your unable to comprehend the English Language

Perpetual and War were given definitions to you and you ignore them or unable to comprehend the written word on your screen.

[Lusitania]

Apparently, your unable to comprehend the English Language

Perpetual and War were given definitions to you and you ignore them or unable to comprehend the written word on your screen.

Ah, so that is your response? I need not heed you any longer then, as I have more than proven my case and proven you to be fallacious and deficient on all accounts. All written definitions coincide with my argument, as such, I think it is safe to say that what you accuse me of is your folly in thinking and comprehending, not mine.

[LineDoggie]

Ah, so that is your response? I need not heed you any longer then, as I have more than proven my case and proven you to be fallacious and deficient on all accounts. All written definitions coincide with my argument, as such, I think it is safe to say that what you accuse me of is your folly in thinking and comprehending, not mine.Fine by me, you've been a waste of time to interact with. Your supposition that we are constantly at War is false, and I showed exactly where it was false. But you have your biases.