Monday, April 13, 2009

Ron Paul

16 comments:

Chris said...

I stopped watching when he argued there wouldn't be a blood-bath because the same people who said it would be a cakewalk go us into this mess. Patently false. The three different factions in Iraqi would fight for power, hence creating a bloodbath.

Josh said...

What Ron Paul is saying is that you can't trust those who are telling you its going to be a blood bath because they are patent liars.

He doesn't know if it will be a blood bath, and as a representative of the American people, he doesn't feel money taken from his constituents, and american lives, should be used to support the political stability of a foreign country, irregardless of how the people of Iraq react to a withdrawal of American forces.

Chris said...

"What Ron Paul is saying is that you can't trust those who are telling you its going to be a blood bath because they are patent liars.

He doesn't know if it will be a blood bath, and as a representative of the American people, he doesn't feel money taken from his constituents, and american lives, should be used to support the political stability of a foreign country, irregardless of how the people of Iraq react to a withdrawal of American forces."

THEN MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT, BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE A COMPLETE FOOL ON THE TOPIC OF IRAQI POLITICS.

Chris said...

Not to mention that his argument from authority is just horrible.

What do you think of the bloodbath that will occur if we pull out?
Oh, I think that because idiots got us into this mess there won't be a bloodbath. GREAT REASONING RON PAUL.

Josh said...

"THEN MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE FUCKING SAID THAT, BECAUSE HE LOOKS LIKE A COMPLETE FOOL ON THE TOPIC OF IRAQI POLITICS."

That's what he said. You just ran it through your anti-Ron Paul filter.

"Oh, I think that because idiots got us into this mess there won't be a bloodbath. GREAT REASONING RON PAUL."

Once again, he's not saying there wouldn't be a blood bath. He's saying that you can't trust that there will be simply because liars are telling you there will be.

His position on the subject holds irregardless of whether there is a blood bath or not. The blood bath would be the fault of those doing the murdering, not the fault of the americans for pulling the troops out. Same as 9/11 was the fault of the terrorists, not the fault of americans for having troops on the Arabian peninsula.

Chris said...

I'm sorry, Josh, but you apparently do not understand how democracy works on the international stage. If the Americans pull out, and a civil war ensues, then it is the American's fault, because they disrupted the political order there by going in. People in other countries don't care that it was Bush or political party whatever. Moreover, it is also our moral DUTY to makes sure that one of our collective decisions does not lead to more pain and suffering than is needed. We might have gotten into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we have a moral obligation to finish the task now that we are there and because Iraq is split three ways.

Josh said...

"it is the American's fault, because they disrupted the political order there by going in"

It is the fault of some americans. Those responsible should be put on trial.

"People in other countries don't care that it was Bush or political party whatever."

Perception of others doesn't alter reality. The reality is that it is the fault of some, and those some should be tried for their wrong doing.

"t is also our moral DUTY to makes sure that one of our collective decisions does not lead to more pain and suffering than is needed"

No. It is my moral duty to ensure I don't make decisions that lead to more pain and suffering.

Ron Paul cannot control the decisions of the Iraqis, neither can you or I. Those individuals have a duty to themselves and they will choose how they react. Their decisions are noone's responsibility but their own.

"but we have a moral obligation to finish the task now that we are there and because Iraq is split three ways."

No. We don't. The Iraqi's now have a responsibility to build their country in a way that they want it to be built. We have a responsibility to punish those that did them harm. Building their country is their task, not ours. Perhaps they want to split the country in three. Why is that bad? Its not.

Chris said...

"It is the fault of some americans. Those responsible should be put on trial."

No, it's the fault of all Americans, because that's how a democracy works. You can't just claim non-responsibility because one half of the population thought something wrong was alright to do.

"Perception of others doesn't alter reality."

Ah, yes, actually, it does. There is no knowledge of reality without a person to perceive that reality.

"The reality is that it is the fault of some, and those some should be tried for their wrong doing. "

And the reality of democratic rule is that it becomes the responsibility of all.

"No. It is my moral duty to ensure I don't make decisions that lead to more pain and suffering."

And supporting a pull-out from Iraq would lead to more pain suffering, hence making your position immoral.

"Ron Paul cannot control the decisions of the Iraqis, neither can you or I. Those individuals have a duty to themselves and they will choose how they react. Their decisions are noone's responsibility but their own.""

Indeed, but that ceased to be true once our armies entered Iraq.

"No. We don't."

Why. Don't we? Is this your argument? Pitiful.

"The Iraqi's now have a responsibility to build their country in a way that they want it to be built."

No, because there is no such thing as "Iraqis". Instead, there are three murderous factions that should be part of separate nations, because of the British. If the Americans pull out too soon, they will have no central authority and the country will fall into anarchy, hence making your position 100% immoral. And no, you can't just limit your morals to the United States. They are either universal or they are not morals at all.

"We have a responsibility to punish those that did them harm."

Within our country, yes.

"Building their country is their task, not ours. Perhaps they want to split the country in three. Why is that bad? Its not."

You see, you just spouted immoral non-sense. We destroyed their government. We destroyed their infrastructure. THEREFORE we have a responsibility to those we have harmed. That's how responsibility works outside the libertard world, Josh.

They WANT to split the country in three? You think they are just going to choose to tear each other apart? LOL...

Josh said...

"No, it's the fault of all Americans, because that's how a democracy works. You can't just claim non-responsibility because one half of the population thought something wrong was alright to do."

Fortunately we are not the Borg. Democracy doesn't delegate to the many the responsibility to clean up the mess of a few.

"Ah, yes, actually, it does. There is no knowledge of reality without a person to perceive that reality."

Ah, no, actually, it doesn't. Perception is our knowledge of reality, but reality is reality and it doesn't change simply because of a wrong perception. Perceptions can be wrong and damaging.

"If the Americans pull out too soon, they will have no central authority and the country will fall into anarchy, hence making your position 100% immoral."

There is nothing immoral about handing the responsibility of running a country back to the people of that country. If they decide to fall into anarchy, that's the choice of the people who live there.

"THEREFORE we have a responsibility to those we have harmed."

Yes, we have a responsibility to give them back their land.

"They WANT to split the country in three? You think they are just going to choose to tear each other apart? "

Whatever they choose, it is their choice.

Christopher said...

"Fortunately we are not the Borg. Democracy doesn't delegate to the many the responsibility to clean up the mess of a few."

It has nothing to do with "the Borg". Nor are the 20% swing voters somehow not responsible for the actions of Bush because they voted for Obama this time. Nor would they somehow be not responsible if they were to suddenly vote for Ron Paul. PAST actions denote RESPONSEibility. And yes, the minority has the responsibility to be responsible in their rejection of the previous administration's decisions.

"Ah, no, actually, it doesn't. Perception is our knowledge of reality, but reality is reality and it doesn't change simply because of a wrong perception. Perceptions can be wrong and damaging."

Sorry, Josh, reality might be reality, but we never know about except FIRST through perception. Perception is the only way we can know about reality. If can show that we somehow know about things without our eyes, ears, touch, or smell, go nuts, but I don't think you can.

"There is nothing immoral about handing the responsibility of running a country back to the people of that country. If they decide to fall into anarchy, that's the choice of the people who live there."

Politics is not a choice. Their irrational, racist tribal conflicts were only kept in check by Saddam, and if we pull out the wrong way, it will lead to those divisions expressing themselves in their full insanity. Why? Because we destroyed the infrastructure and economy and centralizing political organs that make civilized governments possible.

"Yes, we have a responsibility to give them back their land."

Can anyone say the words "innocent boy"?

"Whatever they choose, it is their choice."

Cause-and-effect constantly subvert choice. There are millions of examples of this happening. When are you going to integrate that into your knowledge?

Josh said...

I understand cause and effect. To assume you can predict all future events with 100% accuracy based on certain actions is insane because its impossible. Given its impossible, to blame others for being absent morals for events yet to occur is absurd.

As well it is absurd for you to assert that each individual citizen is responsible for each individual decision made by their elected officials.

Christopher said...

"I understand cause and effect. To assume you can predict all future events with 100% accuracy based on certain actions is insane because its impossible. Given its impossible, to blame others for being absent morals for events yet to occur is absurd. "

There is a very high chance of Iraq being torn apart, Josh. If you don't understand this, you don't understand Iraq.

Sorry, Josh, reality might be reality, but we never know about except FIRST through perception. Perception is the only way we can know about reality. If can show that we somehow know about things without our eyes, ears, touch, or smell, go nuts, but I don't think you can.




Politics is not a choice. Their irrational, racist tribal conflicts were only kept in check by Saddam, and if we pull out the wrong way, it will lead to those divisions expressing themselves in their full insanity. Why? Because we destroyed the infrastructure and economy and centralizing political organs that make civilized governments possible.

"As well it is absurd for you to assert that each individual citizen is responsible for each individual decision made by their elected officials."

THAT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF CITIZEN, JOSH> THAT'S WHAT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT ITS LEGITIMACY NOT FORCE, BUT THE VOTE OF ITS CITIZENS..

Josh said...

"There is a very high chance of Iraq being torn apart, Josh. If you don't understand this, you don't understand Iraq."

This is a choice left to the Iraqis and we must accept that they will make the appropriate decisions for themselves. Whether that involves a civil war, revolution, what have you. It is not our job, or our responsibility to dictate to the Iraqis the direction they should take their country. That is original mistake that was made.

"Sorry, Josh, reality might be reality, but we never know about except FIRST through perception. Perception is the only way we can know about reality. If can show that we somehow know about things without our eyes, ears, touch, or smell, go nuts, but I don't think you can."

My problem with this is that it legitimizes incorrect perceptions as reality, as we all perceive reality differently.

""As well it is absurd for you to assert that each individual citizen is responsible for each individual decision made by their elected officials."

THAT'S THE FUCKING DEFINITION OF CITIZEN, JOSH> THAT'S WHAT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT ITS LEGITIMACY NOT FORCE, BUT THE VOTE OF ITS CITIZENS.."

You mean if my elected representative votes against legalizing gay marriage, I'm responsible for that decision?

Christopher said...

"This is a choice left to the Iraqis and we must accept that they will make the appropriate decisions for themselves. Whether that involves a civil war, revolution, what have you. It is not our job, or our responsibility to dictate to the Iraqis the direction they should take their country. That is original mistake that was made."

Sorry, saying X does not make it so. You have to make a rational argument in support of X. For example, WE were the ones who tore apart Iraq. It is therefore OUR responsibility if Iraq falls into anarchy.

"My problem with this is that it legitimizes incorrect perceptions as reality, as we all perceive reality differently."

GOOD FOR YOU, BUT GUESS WHAT! THAT'S THE REALITY OF PERCEIVING! You can not know about reality without your eyes, ears, touch, or smell. Are you denying this FACT?

"You mean if my elected representative votes against legalizing gay marriage, I'm responsible for that decision?"

You are responsible to change law if you vote him out of office, yes. That is why the left is angry with a lot of Obama's current decisions. He is continuing some of Bush's policies, even though he was voted into office with a mandate to end them.

Josh said...

"Sorry, saying X does not make it so. You have to make a rational argument in support of X. For example, WE were the ones who tore apart Iraq. It is therefore OUR responsibility if Iraq falls into anarchy."

You completely ignore the free will of the Iraqi people with such a statement. You make an assumption that the future of the Iraqi people solely depends on US action when there are many MANY more forces. Further, you make an assumption the US military has the power to indefinitely keep the country from tearing apart and the ability to rebuild the country to that which it once was. You assume that the US government has the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart, and even if that assumption is correct you assume they have the power to "fix" their entire country. You completely disregard all other forces and variables that are occurring within the Iraqi society and you completely disregard the fact that the US does not have the funds to keep their soldiers there. Furthermore, you are demanding that American soldiers put their life at risk simply because of the poor decisions of an elite few. Simply speaking, you're George W. Bush.

"GOOD FOR YOU, BUT GUESS WHAT! THAT'S THE REALITY OF PERCEIVING! You can not know about reality without your eyes, ears, touch, or smell. Are you denying this FACT?"

No, but this argument is going nowhere.

"You are responsible to change law if you vote him out of office, yes."

But I'm only one vote. I can't simply vote him out of office. So I'm responsible for gays not being able to legally marry each other?

Christopher said...

You completely ignore the free will of the Iraqi people with such a statement. You make an assumption that the future of the Iraqi people solely depends on US action when there are many MANY more forces. Further, you make an assumption the US military has the power to indefinitely keep the country from tearing apart and the ability to rebuild the country to that which it once was. You assume that the US government has the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart, and even if that assumption is correct you assume they have the power to "fix" their entire country. You completely disregard all other forces and variables that are occurring within the Iraqi society and you completely disregard the fact that the US does not have the funds to keep their soldiers there. Furthermore, you are demanding that American soldiers put their life at risk simply because of the poor decisions of an elite few. Simply speaking, you're George W. Bush."

Nope, I'm arguing that once you do something, you are responsible for its outcome. That's what I am arguing.

"No, but this argument is going nowhere."

Sure it is. It is a fundamental, clear denial of objective truth.

"But I'm only one vote. I can't simply vote him out of office. So I'm responsible for gays not being able to legally marry each other?"

That's right. Your leader is in bed with those who deny their right to marry.