President Ron Paul

[drewkitty]

Rep. Ron Paul from Texas is running for President. He had a rally here in Mountain View, CA on Saturday that didn't make the media. You see, he's not considered a "viable" candidate although he kicked quite a bit of ass in the Presidential debates. A thousand people still showed up.

He's got a bunch of qualifications:

He's a strict Constitutionalist.

He wants the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education abolished.

He's pro-individual and anti big government.

He's viciously attacked the Republicans for departing their conservative roots.

Last but not least . . . he's been against the Iraq adventure from the very beginning

Finally, the Washington Post has written an article on him.

I don't agree with him on some of his ideas and positions.

So what?

He's a man of integrity and honor in a country that is critically short on both.

Comments

The Nader?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

Why do I get the same feeling from Ron Paul that I get from Nader, except as a conservative?

Because they are the same thing? That somebody is trying to pull what happened in the 1992 election, with Ross Perot? (I remain convinced that Perot ran because the Clintons promised him that if he ran, his company would get the computer admin contract for HillaryCare.)

Hell, I get the same feeling from him that I get every time I look at Jimmy Carter-somebody that would make a great saint, but a horrible leader. Especially a wartime leader.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Hell, I get the same feeling from him that I get every time I look at Jimmy Carter-somebody that would make a great saint, but a horrible leader. Especially a wartime leader.

I used to think of Jimmy Carter as a misguided good guy, until he wrote that recent incredibly anti-Semitic book. Now, I think he may have been malevolent all along.

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Got some of that crack you've been smoking? What anti-Semitic book? An Amazon link would be nice.

Israel and the United States are allies. This is a great example of what the founding fathers called "foreign entanglements."

Saying that is not anti-Semitic. Nor is wondering if we get our money's worth for what we pay Israel to be our friend.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter, among other things argues that Israel's building of a wall to stop terrorists from attacking her is equivalent to the Berlin Wall or to South African apartheid, despite the fact that the people attacking Israel are not Israeli citizens and hence have no right to enter Israel in the first place, without the consent of the Israeli government. The Jews in his foundation quit, in protest.

Demanding that Israel adhere to standards that no other nation is held to is anti-Semitic.

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Well . . .

If you acknowledge that nations have the right to keep people out based on arbitrary criteria, both the Berlin Wall and South African apartheid were entirely lawful under international law.

Arguments like this are why I'm very uncomfortable with citizenship being defined in any other way than birth within the national boundary, or immigration and naturalization.

Otherwise, a future government might arbitrarily declare you non-American and deport you to the other side of a militarized United States - Mexico border. This is what has happened to the majority of Palestinians.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, as with the Berlin Wall, the issue is not what level of fortification is used to control the border (which is an essential function of national government), but the criteria that are used to control passage across the border.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

If you acknowledge that nations have the right to keep people out based on arbitrary criteria, both the Berlin Wall and South African apartheid were entirely lawful under international law.

1) Citizenship is hardly an "arbitrary criteria," since it is the primary indicator of to which state one bears primary loyalty.

2) The Israeli wall has been built to keep out people who want to kill Israelis; the Berlin Wall was built to keep in people who merely wanted to leave East Germany. Apartheid was not a "wall" at all, but rather an institutionalized system of racism.

This history lesson courtesy of me, to you who very obviously needed it. :)

Arguments like this are why I'm very uncomfortable with citizenship being defined in any other way than birth within the national boundary, or immigration and naturalization.

The Palestinians do not claim to be Israeli citizens. What they claim is that Israel has no right to exist and that they have the right to destroy the "Zionist entity" by force.

Given these facts, Israel is understandably unwilling to let the Palestinians live in Israel.

Proof of this is provided by the fact that the Israelis do let Arabs, including Muslim Arabs, become Israeli citizens if they are willing to swear allegiance to the state of Israel. They even give them the vote.

Otherwise, a future government might arbitrarily declare you non-American and deport you to the other side of a militarized United States - Mexico border. This is what has happened to the majority of Palestinians.

That is untrue. The Palestinians declared their opposition to the very existence of the state of Israel and left its territory. Thus, in your scenario, I would have to first declare my opposition to the existence of the United States of America and flee to Mexico in order to suffer this "deportation" of which you speak.

The Palestinians are NOT ISRAELI CITIZENS, and thus HAVE NO RIGHT TO RESIDE WITHIN ISRAELI BORDERS. They do not even claim to be Israeli citizens. Clear on that? They have no more right to reside in Israel than a Mexican citizen would to reside in California on the argument that it was once Mexican territory.

In the case of Israel and Palestine, as with the Berlin Wall, the issue is not what level of fortification is used to control the border (which is an essential function of national government), but the criteria that are used to control passage across the border.

Which criteria would you propose instead of the ones currently in use?

Re: The Nader?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

Carter has the issue that he's a good, card-carrying Tranzi...which is to say pretty much a Watermelon (Green on the outside, Red on the inside).

Worse, I think he really, really believes it...and will go along with the Pravda of the week.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Carter is a well-educated fool. And I suspect Ron Paul to be another.

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

I think Ron Paul would make a great wartime leader, if the survival of the United States was threatened.

It's not. The survival of the United States is not threatened except by our own increasingly out of control, flailing actions around the world. Time for us to take a break from the War Of Terror. It'd be nice to achieve "peace with honor" in Iraq, but I can't figure out how to finesse that. It's slightly preferable to continue the counterinsurgency in a competent fashion, than to abandon the country to chaos and civil war . . . but I don't see the majority of Americans agreeing with me.

I stick by my minority view.

1) It was stupid to invade Iraq.

2) Now that we have, "we broke it, we bought it" and we have no business leaving for the twenty to thirty years it will take to win an insurgency there and establish a competent, peaceful government.

Re: The Nader?

[zakueins.livejournal.com]

Hm? I keep reading articles, and it's like reading two different wars.

You read something in the NY Times, and Iraq sounds like the days of Tet 1969, without Walter Cronkite(1).

You read the blogs-Michael Yon, people that are actually there-it's still a bit of a mess, but it's getting better. The Iraqis want all the idiots making chaos in the country OUT of there, especially Al Qeada, whom they view as another bunch of Persians trying to make it run...

Honestly, the problem has been the Bush administration has done an awful job of selling the war, selling the need for it, and selling how all these movements are interconnected (sadly, that would mean having to hold the Saudi feet to the fire). And, George W. Bush seems to have a positive knack for pissing off his base.

The war needs to be fought, and needs to be won. It just needs to be done better.

(1)-Tet, as a military objective, failed miserably-the United States Army and Marines pretty much racked up the entire VietCong and slaughtered them to a man, and Khe San was not another Dien Bien Bhu(sp). Past this point, the entire "VietCong" was pretty much the NVA and the survivors...except that as a political effort, it was a victory, as it showed the Americans as "losing the war".

Re: The Nader?

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

We should be so lucky if it were as good as Tet.

As you point out, the VietCong were combat ineffective after Tet. Most of the action after that was direct combat with NVA regulars.

I should add that immediately after victory, the few Viet Cong surviving were immediately sent to re-education camps and kept there for a decade or so, as a threat to the new regime.

Re: The Nader?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

As you point out, the VietCong were combat ineffective after Tet. Most of the action after that was direct combat with NVA regulars.

The equivalent, in Iraq, would be the Iranians.

I should add that immediately after victory, the few Viet Cong surviving were immediately sent to re-education camps and kept there for a decade or so, as a threat to the new regime.

Sometimes there is some justice :)